Via Friday-Lunch-Club
Good, from the Leveretts in the RFI:
"... So, if we have read Mr. Levinson’s story correctly—the transfer of sophisticated Iranian air defense radars to Syria (if said transfer actually happened) is/would be a bad thing because:
–it would give Iran more warning time, and hence a better chance to defend itself against an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear targets; and
–if data from that new radar were shared with Hizballah, Hizballah would be in a better position to defend Lebanon against offensive Israeli military action.
It seems to us that there is a pattern here. Israeli commandos repel down ropes from helicopters to board Turkish vessels on the high seas—and people on board those vessels “attacked” the commandos. (As we wrote recently, what, exactly, is the legal basis for expecting people on board the ships to welcome, or at least acquiesce to, forcible boarding on the high seas?) Russia concludes a contract to provide Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles (which cannot possibly be used in an offensive manner) and the United States and Europe exert strenuous efforts to forestall delivery of such a “provocative” weapons system. And now, anti-aircraft radars in Syria are another “threat” to Israel’s security.
The pattern is grounded in a reality that we’ve previously identified, see here and here: Israeli political and policy elites are intent on preserving a regional balance of power that is strongly tilted in Israel’s favor. They want to forestall any developments—Iran acquiring a perceived nuclear “breakout” capability, Turkey delivering aid directly to Gaza, or Syria improving its air defense capabilities—that would being to constrain Israel’s currently unconstrained freedom of unilateral military action. As we wrote in December,
“One can readily appreciate why Israel values its status as the Middle East’s military hegemon and wants to maintain the maximum possible room for unilateral military initiative. But that strategic preference is not legitimated by the U.N. Charter, the laws of war, or any international convention. Moreover, Israel’s strategic preference for preserving and enhancing its military hegemony does not, at this point, serve the cause of regional stability or containing the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities in the Middle East.”
Posted by G, Z, or B at 3:01 AM
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment