Israel strikes SAM cache:
Good for them.
I thought SAM was an acronym for Sex acts me no like
The more important story here is the United States, for no good reason, has once again snitched out the Israelis. Which now puts the Syrians in the position where they have to retaliate or lose face.
I do not think our country has the will to stop this. If we continue down this path Iran will have a nuclear bomb, not unless Israel strikes.
At first glance I thought the website you posted from was called "Free Bacon".
Which is, of course, the definition of a Jewish dilemma.
As formidable as the IDF is, they do not possess the wherewithal to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. At best, they can only hope to delay Iran's nuclear weapons program. Regardless, what do you expect to happen if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions? Mutually ensured destruction dictates that Israel's own nuclear arsenal (75-400 warheads) provides a substantial deterrent against nuclear attack.
I agree with the deterrent, but the IDF can do some serious damage. Delay might be what Israel needs. Delay til Obama is out of office to be more precise.
If you agree with the concept of deterrence, then compellence by Israel wouldn't be necessary. By definition, deterrence has failed if compellence is carried out. How does Obama leaving office significantly change the strategic landscape?
Because it isn't obvious to every intelligence service in the region that Israel carried out the strike? Given its behavior in the past and present, the Syrian regime has no qualms about "losing face." Even if it felt the need to retaliate against Israel, it's unlikely that it could do so in a meaningful way, considering that Syria is embroiled in civil war.
Well, in civil language, it allows somebody who knows a damn thing about foreign policy to handle the situation. Not just merely backing Israel to the hilt, but having a much firmer grip on reality of foreign policy IMO. When one of your allies has demonstrated significant blind spots, then I would like to change allies--or at least wait for the substitution to come off the bench.
I am not convinced that deterrence is a very viable position for Israel as is, and further even if it is viable for them I do not want a nation known to fund and equip terrorist cells with the ability to give terrorists a nuclear functionality, however remote or unreliable. Iran may or may not be suicidal enough to nuke Israel, but I can certainly see them selling capabilities to the highest terrorist cell bidder. Hell, they might not even take an auction.
What I mean is, has the Washington Consensus regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program or aid to Israel shifted substantially since Clinton took office? Since Bush? Since Obama? Is it likely to change significant;y in 2016? I don't think Israel can complain in any event considering the amount of aid it receives annually from the United States.
What incentives does Iran have to provide nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization?
A state's preeminent goal is survival.
Iran is a state.
Therefore, Iran's preeminent goal is survival.
Conventional arms are one thing, but if Iran provided terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons, it would be giving other states little choice but to form a coalition against it.
Let's assume that Iran does want to supply terrorist organizations with nuclear capabilities. Why haven't they done the same with their biological and chemical weapons programs, which they undoubtedly possess?
Because they realize that the West already has saturated that market.
Uh, Israel gets $2.5 billion in military aid, most of which is actually paid to US defense contractors to give Israelis a break in the price of weapons they buy in the USA. So, it's more like a payment to Lockeed Martin. But certainly seriously appreciated.
I would like to put this in perspective, as well:
The arabs in Sumaria and Judea get $4billion in US Aid.
$1 billion is given for similar military break to Jordan.
Egypt gets $1.5 billion in military aid
In return, we do all the dirty work since we will get blamed anyway.
Lack of ability to deliver their warheads long range with any accuracy, so they'll use a proxy.
It also helps defeat Israel's missle defense which is quite robust.
I am not and never was talking about dollar signs. The conversation was on policy--and the execution of such policy--regarding Iran and nuclear power. And moreover you asked what someone would stand to gain by playing hard on the delay game militarily until Obama leaving office. Has the consensus changed? Not likely. Have the players in the game changed? Yes. We went from pro quality quarterbacking (not gwb) to jr. high rec league. This is clearly my opinion but I don't see a whole lot of evidence to the contrary. Regardless in such a scenario a change in quarterbcking is clearly desirable and insuring that your ally's missteps don't cost you--or potentially cost you--is a nation's primary need. Israel gains by delaying in any way possible and I think it is pretty easy to see why they might think so.