Quote (Many_Names @ Nov 21 2024 01:53am)
The link you provided confirms limited arms and support to select Syrian rebel groups for defensive purposes near Israel’s borders. It’s a far cry from a comprehensive or broad-scale strategy to arm all opposition forces like Al-Nusra. Israel’s primary aim was containing threats and securing the Golan border—not creating a proxy war in Syria. Unlike Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or the U.S., Israel’s involvement was measured and narrowly focused.
You’re correct that Syria’s collapse facilitated Iranian influence, but your argument oversimplifies Israel’s options. Israel has consistently acted to disrupt arms transfers, conducting hundreds of strikes to prevent advanced weapons from reaching Hezbollah. The weakening of Assad’s sovereignty wasn’t caused by Israel but by Syria’s civil war and Assad’s reliance on Iran and Russia for survival. Blaming Israel for Hezbollah’s gain ignores the broader context of regional instability.
The idea of pulling Syria away from Iran overlooks the reality of Assad’s regime. Syria’s relationship with Iran has been deeply rooted since the 1980s, long before the war. Assad was unlikely to sever ties with his strongest ally in exchange for uncertain deals with Israel or the West. While it’s true that pushing countries into alliances can backfire, the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis predated the war. Assad aligned with Iran not because of missed opportunities with Israel but because of shared strategic goals.
Yes, Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, but reaching weapons-grade (90%) and building functional nuclear warheads involves significant technical hurdles, including weaponization and miniaturization. Even if Iran can develop such capabilities, their use is deterred by Israel’s own military superiority and second-strike capabilities. The hypersonic missiles you mention are unverified and, even if real, still face operational challenges.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions go beyond deterring the U.S.; its rhetoric and support for anti-Israel proxies make it a direct concern for Israel. Pretending Iran’s nukes would have “nothing to do with Israel” ignores its history of using proxy groups like Hezbollah to advance its anti-Israel agenda.
Blaming Israel for regional dynamics oversimplifies a highly complex geopolitical landscape. The rise of Iranian influence in Syria or the development of nuclear weapons involves multiple actors, and Israel’s policies aim to mitigate—not exacerbate—these threats.
It is strange, you have the information and knowledge, it isn´t like you are uninformed but somehow dont bridge the gap.
-US also says they only gave light arms to rebels.
-Assad did have ties with iran, even during iran-iraq war, there is a big difference of being allies and a puppet, there exists such a thing as neutrality in one end and alliance in another without having to align in all aspects of a "shared strategic goal". If what you are saying is true, Assad would be deeply involved in the conflict right now just like hezbollah was. Instead Syria is being used as a transit point, to pay back for not having his government and to an extent personal children slaughtered. Those hundreds? perhaps thousands of air strikes, probably had some effect on the GOV.
-Nukes are 100% about US deterrence, no matter what ayatollah says on TV 12 times a day. It is a safety precaution for those who saw what the US did to khaddafi, saddam and many others who dismantled or didn´t posses WMDs (nukes, chemical etc). This is another example of political blowback, you can´t go around killing and invading countries and not expect others to learn a lesson.
-Hypersonic missile tech is essentially been verified, fairly obviously Russian provided tech.
This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 20 2024 06:04pm