Russian Missiles Alarm Israel, Stoking Risk of Next Syria Crisis

[DonViejo]

Source: Bloomberg News




By David Wainer and Henry Meyer
April 19, 2018, 12:00 AM EDT Updated on April 19, 2018, 9:50 AM EDT

-- Threatened delivery of S-300 air defenses to Assad is red line

-- Israel would likely try to blow them up, says ex-intel chief

Angered by last week’s U.S. attack on Syria, Russia warned that there would be consequences. Only one of them was spelled out: The Kremlin said it may supply its Syrian ally with state-of-the-art air defenses.

If the prospect rings alarm bells among President Bashar al-Assad’s enemies, they’re likely to be loudest in Israel, not the U.S. Israel carries out airstrikes in Assad-controlled Syrian territory much more frequently than the U.S., as it seeks to prevent a military buildup near Israeli borders by Assad’s other key backer, Iran.

Israeli analysts and former defense officials say there’s only one likely response from the Jewish state if the S-300 surface-to-air missile systems are delivered to Syria: An immediate attempt to blow them up.

That would upend the delicate relationship between Israel and Russia, who’ve kept channels open despite supporting opposite sides in Syria. And it could create another dangerous moment with the potential to escalate the seven-year civil war into a wider conflict.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/new-russian-weapons-alarm-israel-may-trigger-next-syrian-crisis

[ExciteBike66]

1. Uh Oh

"Israeli analysts and former defense officials say there’s only one likely response from the Jewish state if the S-300 surface-to-air missile systems are delivered to Syria: An immediate attempt to blow them up. "

Hmm, I bet the missiles will have Russian soldiers in attendance, at least to train the Syrians to use them at first. Thus "blowing them up" might not be feasible.

[xor]

3. Aren't you glad we have a clown in the white house?

It just makes this stuff all the more exciting!

(In case it isn't clear, that's my attempt at sarcasm)

[ExciteBike66]

4. You should apologize to clowns everywhere for that insult! nt

[Maxheader]

10. exactly what I was thinking..

[Fred Sanders]

2. Israel has American weapons and Syria has Russian weapons...this is a big deal

because one country is allowed to defend itself, and the other is rouge for defending itself...I guess???

[DavidDvorkin]

5. The missiles in Syria would also be protecting those

who launch terrorist attacks on Israel.

[xor]

7. Are there terrorist groups based out of Syria that are attacking Israel

or are you suggesting these will likely be actively used to deny access to areas not within Syrian borders?

[DavidDvorkin]

8. I meant groups that launch attacks into Israeli territory

Now, those groups are vulnerable to Israeli counterattacks. Defensive missiles would give those groups a safe haven.

[xor]

9. heh yeah, I meant that too. My fingers seemed to have wanted me to say something other than

what I was thinking.

So your concern is that terrorists groups are, or will, begin operating from within Syrian borders in order to strike targets within the Golan Heights?

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Yes.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Despite zero evidence it has or ever will happen...and since Assad has

defeated the Islamic terrorists in Syria you would think Israel would be thanking him.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Not sure how Syrian missiles would protect terrorists "attacking Israel".

Islamic terrorists were attacking Syria and occupying vast areas of the country until recently...any country is allowed to protect itself against terrorists, no?

Would Israel prefer Syria be governed by extremist Islamists?

[xor]

6. I would guess that Israel's concerned about the range of those weapons systems

as putting them on the border would cover a lot of Israeli airspace. Even though it's defensive in nature, those defenses would be used to cover an offense in addition to the obvious defense of Syrian airspace. Maybe similar in nature to Russia's objection to missile defense systems in Europe. Something about a good offensive is a strong defense.

Although, if Russia was to attack the US missile defense systems, then most people would see that as an act of aggression by Russia. And vise-versa if the US/NATO decided to strike to Russian air defenses in Kaliningrad.

I think most can understand the concerns that countries have when it comes to these matters, but the remedy really should be diplomatic, because preemptive strikes never seem to work out too well.