Syria Says it will defend Iran if attacked

Recgnizing that Israel exists as a country, does not necessarily mean that they consider that Israel has a right to continue to exist.

That's a pretty bold and confident statement that Iraq would allow Iranian troops to pass through their country, and that US troops would stand and watch it happen, even allowing that Iran will even attempt to do that. The war may only be fought by planes and missles and be quickly over because of that, leaving no time to transport troops that far. Again, I point out that war is notoriously hard to predict. No one thought that Egypt would be able to cross the Suez Canal and seriously give the Israeli military a hard time before it happened, for example.

On what are you basing your assumption that Israel is no longer regionally dominant? Because Hizbollah gave them a hard time in that recent conflict? Didn't they do better in Gaza after that? In both cases Israel was holding back to try and restrict colateral damage and civilian casulaties. If an all out war with Iran breaks out, they won't hold back with Hizbollah or Hamas if they join in. As I said before, they won't be worried about those things if their countries survival is at stake.

You say you are basing your conclusions on your political and diplomatic training, did that include lessons in pessimism?

It was you who said that "No Muslim country has recognized Israel's right to even exist" and I pointed out that this statement is incorrect.

I am not predicting war, I am explaining some points about the political-realities on the ground and the military realities. I think Israel, Syria and Iran all know the realities and the Nuke factor is Israel's only trump-card at present. I agree with you that there can be an unlimited number of factors that can alter and change the course of events. All predictions and analysis is based on history, current events and other quantifiable factors. These include the military realities.

That military reality is why I say that on a conventional level (ie not counting the nukes), Israel is by far not the dominant military power. I base that on data, existing armament purchases and training. For example, the argument that Israeli airpower that some of the above ignorantly think would "manage the war" or "wipe out any Syrian or Iranian troop or weapon movement is false. Syria knows very well the air power and knows it cannot dominate the air, but it can also ensure that such air power by Israel is negated. Syria has the strongest air defence system in the region minus only Turkey. There is no doubt that there would be no air attacks on Israel, but in fact the airspace in any such conflict will become zero. Thus, considering that the air dominance is negated, now count the power capacity of Israel in comparison to other local powers. The real issue is the ability to use such power outside your own boundaries, IE not defence only. If the air-power is out, the capacity to stop your enemy or pound him into submission can thus only be done by ground force or massive long range missile technology, which Israel does not have sufficient to do the job. Thus it goes back to ground-forces and Israel's forces are not designed to project its power far away. Syria's ability to elminate air-power simply puts any potential strength out of kilt to a point sufficient to basically stop Israel's capacity to wage a war.

My conclussion is that Israel attacking Iran under the current climate would be a great mistake unless it can produce a trump-card that would force Syria and other nations not to back Iran. My conclussion is also that Syria is very serious in its threat to support Iran and again I state that the US and other powers are concerned what it would do to Iraq, considering that at the moment, Iran has probably more influence over the various factions in Iraq than say the current government there or the Allied forces stationed there.

If you examine a map of the Middle East you will see that there are other air routes between Israel and Iran that do not include flying over Syria. There are other political ramifications involved with the other routes which could be resolved diplomatically before they were used, or Israel could try stealth, not likely to succeed in most peoples opinions. Which is why many feel missles may be Israel's only option for a pre-emptive strike, and why it appears obvious that Iran is developing missles to carry nukes that would literally fly over the same obstacles. I don't know what Israel's current missle technology consists of, but I doubt anyone really knows, as no one really knows how many nukes Israel has. They are very good at keeping secrets.

As far as Syria's anti-air missles systems are concerned, Israel has dealt with similar situations in the past. I don't think Israel's technology has stood still while Syria upgraded theirs. Only a real war will prove who's technology trumps who's.

Your other judgements on the relative military capabilities are as speculative as those you criticize. I say again, only war itself determines who is really better. There have been many examples of armies looking powerful on paper turning out to be paper tigers. One can only look at historical performance to get an idea of possible outcomes, even then, there are so many variables that change with the times, only the truely prescient can make predictions. If you want to look at predictions, there are prophecies that indicate there is a conflict coming in the Middle East that will have consequences for the whole world. That is what Iran and Syria are really risking, making those prophecies come true.

I understand the points your trying to make and I again come back to the multitide of complexities. My point still comes back to the fact that such an attack on Israel is not going to be viewed like previous ones. Add to that I believe even an attack that flew over other airspaces as you put it would still result in a conventional missile attack by Iran, that is almost a certainty and then the tit-for-tat begins. I am not here to make predictions but to point out some of the realities that are there in the political and diplomatic areas that I have worked in for 22 years and still monitor professionally.

Yes many armies may be paper tigers and that bites both ways. Yes Syria's anti-air technology has grown considerably and no, Israel did not sit idle. But as Israel has only so much of a budget and uses it exceptionatly well and with the best access, Syria has a budget, a totalitarian regime that can simply do as it wants and by sheer numbers needed and has developed a concentration on not having a great airforce but the simple capacity to make the airways a no-fly zone by force.

I suggest that only looking at historic preformances is a big mistake. That was the failure of France in three different wars.

We all hope that none of this happens, "though the evils of man are obvious, often what is forgotten is how man is equally capable of good" (Erwin Rommel)

Syria can kiss it's ass goodbye then. Syria is heavy in infantry and armour....nothing in the air. Hezbullah will go nuts....but the gloves would come off and the Israelis would just go whole hog and delete their asses from the sky with no regard for collateral damage if necessary. The last incursion was "Israel playing nice" even though they had plenty of provacation. Ditto for Gaza and West bank. If they force the Israelis to take the gloves off.....they'll all get their asses kicked. Israel won't go in on the ground, they'll just move up armour, infantry, and artillery to secure the borders and kick ass from skyside. And Baby, do they EVER know how!

Suggest you read up a bit.

Apart from serious numbers of TOR6M1s which already would put a dint in any air-dominance, Syria has obtained some of the best surface to air capabilities in the region, let alone what Iran would supply them.

Jerusalem (AFP) Aug 13, 2007
Israeli media reported on Monday that Syria has acquired an array of advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles as part of a military build-up ahead of a possible war with the Jewish state.
Syria currently has "the densest anti-aircraft deployment in the world," Israel's mass-selling Yediot Aharonot daily quoted a military source as saying. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/070813080532.jj...

IDF: Syria's antiaircraft system most advanced in world


Israeli military source says that after studying IAF's performance during Second Lebanon War, Damacus has purchased most advanced ground-to-air missiles from Russia. IDF fears Assad's arms race may be sign of possible conflict with Israel

Alex Fishman Published: 08.13.07, 09:38 / Israel News

Syria possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world following its continued purchase of Russian weapon systems, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday, quoting a senior Israeli military source. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-34368...

So think again. The spoof and imagination of Israeli military dominance died with the cold-war.

I suggest you check your hole card there buhba. The USSR went down because the couldn't keep up....with the US or Israel, in technology. They will lie and talk smack to get the gullible arabs to buy their outdated defense crapola and pay big bucks for it.....money for junk. Well, P.T. Barnham said it first..."If you put cow crap in a bag you'll get some idiot to but it". Try Wal-Mart. $.89 for a 40 lb. bag.
The weapons are computor driven and guided.....and who are the biggest and best in computors?....uhhhh Israel? Funniest thing. Syria has all they need to drop the islamic BS and get on with being successful. They need to really get smart and run the fanatic muz right on out of there. That might be why their Iraqi border is so porous...they figure the idiots will go to Iraq and kill themselves. Geez is that so frickin muz stupid or what????

"Syria Says it will defend Iran if attacked"
Ha!
Good luck with that.

Nice thought perhaps for you but sadly not a reality.

Yes, It is a Nice thought from me, and sadly for you, IT IS A REALITY.

The biggest mistake now is to start a conflict by pre-emptive conflict. The world is no longer as it was 20 years ago. With the Cold War over and the Soviet Union gone, any assumption that most nations will follow super-powers died with it.

Though almost all nations are very concerned about a nuclear Iran, many (if not most) find that double-standards, trade-inbalances, influence-peddling and cultural-arrogance is simply more important. Why do I say that?

Though some of the above are by their very nature generalized statements, it is still a concept that many believe. Non-nuclear nations are still up-in-arms that there is so much condemnations of Iran yet Israel has weapons and is not a signatory of the NPT and not subject to the same inspections or controls that they wish to put on Iran. Many dislike the fact that nuclear weaponry is only in the hands of a few and forbidden to the rest - another double standard. They mostly do not want it, but they do not want to be told they are not allowed to join such an exclusive destructive club.

Any attack on Iran will send a signal that the old-world still exists, that powerful first-world nations run the show and can do as they want, with their favouritism for Israel - a nation that has been constantly ignoring UN condemnations (ignored or via US vetos). The issue of it being just or not is in fact not important - but the perceived bias is important. People may dislike or even loath the theocratic hard-line Islamic Republic, but they believe that they have their rights as every other nation has, and if they are attacked, what stops the next country from being targetted?

Syria will defend Iran and if any conflict increases to local war, Jordan will be forced in. If Jordan is hit hard as it would be - because of its proximity - Turkey by default must enter as they have a mutual defence treaty. Also, such a conflict will force the US and NATO nations to deny treaty obligations, as they cannot afford to move in and force other nations to take sides. No US or NATO involvement will give Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States an excuse to not join in. Even Iraq would consider joining in on the side of Syria and Jordan - and thus Iran.

Add to that, if the conflict of Iran and Syria is combined (and the Lebanon), Israel has not the power to stop both with Iranian troops having the capacity to enter Syria to turn the conflict into a ground-battle. The only protection Israel will have is not its miltary but its nuclear arsenal which will make for an interesting argument - would they use it? Certainly the US and European nations will be on their knees begging Israel to not use it and the probabilty of either a coup-de-tat by the far-right and thus use, or a people's revolution to stop using it will occur. During all this time, Turkey will state that any use of Nuclear weapons will automatically be considered justification for an attack by them. There is very strong arguments in intellegence circles that Turkey also has nuclear weapons and they will use that as a deterent whilst their military - the largest standing army - NATO trained in the entire region.

In the end, what I am saying is, that Israel would be stupid to consider making a regional conflict that in all circumstances would result in the destruciton fo the country. Iran knows that.

Mark my words: If Israel is attacked with an atomic weapon from Iran, nothing will stop the Israelis from exacting a very real and terrible vengeance. Iran will be a nuked wasteland, even if every mission is a "sure bet" suicide. There are lots of other targets that the Israelis have a nuclear plan for if the last case scenario becomes reality....after all, the have over 150 warheads they'll want to pop if the necessity ever arises. They could "carpet bomb Iran with nukes if it comes to that.....then what are those Russian air defence systems going to do for them? Please tell us all about it oh wise and puissant solkhar. Let us polish up that ego for ya!

" Iran will be a nuked wasteland "

I do not have ANY doubt whatsoever about that.

In the case Israel is nuked by a single iranian nuclear weapon, as it will probably
bring Israel to its demise as a viable state, ALL Israeli alleged 250 warheads will be used
against Iran.

The country known as Iran today will cease to exist. Its territory will be
DEAD , doused with such a quantity of radiation that it hardly could be
inhabited in the next one hundred years.

Yep, I believe you're right. It certainly sad that such a sad end will come to a great people with a long, incredible history.

" Syria will defend Iran "

HAHAHAHAHA !!


" Israel has not the power to stop both with Iranian troops having the capacity to enter Syria to turn the conflict into a ground-battle"

This would be true IF the Iranians and Syrians had the AIR SUPREMACY.They have not.
Iranian Infantry travelling in armoured vehicles and trucks are EASY and JUICY targets
for Israeli Maverick and Hellfire missiles fired from the Israeli F-16s and Apaches.
The Iranian soldiers' FLESH would mix with the molten steel of their four-wheeled coffins.

"Non-nuclear nations are still up-in-arms that there is so much condemnations of Iran yet Israel has weapons and is not a signatory of the NPT and not subject to the same inspections or controls that they wish to put on Iran."

Last time I checked, Israel doesn't go around saying they are going to "Push their neighbors into the sea".So I believe They have Every right to Any weapon that will protect them from hostile neighbors. Israel has shown that it can handle and NEEDS nukes as a deterrent against aggression from thuggery from the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas (read Iran by way of proxy).

Honestly, If We, America, didn't have a raging Nincompoop for President, then I would hope that Israel would preemptively strike Iran , (or anyone for that matter) who would threaten them.

"Even Iraq would consider joining in on the side of Syria and Jordan"

No they wouldn't . Iraq can barely tie their shoes in the morning, or muster up enough of a force to rescue a cat from a tree. So they sure as Hell wont be gathering arms with Syria and Jordan. Jordan wont do anything because King Abdullah II is as far as I know ,is one of the good guys.

In the end, what I am saying is, that Syria would be stupid to consider making a regional conflict that in all circumstances would result in the destruction of their country. Israel knows that.

I made my points from both my profession and having been there and knowing the sentiment on the ground and in the politics. You have based your assumptions from some other vision.

The anti-Israel sentiment in Syria plus its form of government would easily allow it to support Iran on an issue such as miltary action by Israel. They also know very well that any serious attack by Israel would change the balances that exist.

King Abdullah II of Jordan is one of the "good guys" but his country has been and still is to a degree in conflict with Israel. Like Morocco, Jordan allows direct communication with Israel because they want normality and they are friens of both the West and the East and thus are the brokerers. But having said that, for Jordan, physical conflict by Israel would draw Jordan into the conflict for many reasons, thier proximity, the demands of the population and factions and the priority to Arab solidarity that it would create. Iraq has started to excercise its own identity and as we have seen have already told the Americans and other allies just that with holding elections in their own fashion and not as proposed by the then foreign administrators. The factions in that country would, I believe, have that country involve if any conflict escalated to include Jordan.

Just Iran and Syria is enough to draw Israel into failure. Your posting below makes me believe you think otherwise. Except for the nuclear factor, Israel would lose for a number of reasons. Remember that the last war was many years ago when having the best technology made all the difference. That time has passed and the technology now is much more close. Thus any tech advantage that Israel has is diminished and the forces size comes into play. Add to that is the geographic dissadvantage that Israel would have. Syria would become the battle field but Iran would be mostly immune to most attacks other than arial and that can only last so long, Iran can send in its huge forces and as we have seen with their battles against Iraq many years ago, they are willing to send in anything and everything as well as those professional just to swamp the enemy. Syria may be destroyed in the end, but so would Israel and Iran turns into the victor. Remember, this is without the nuclear issue.

Israel would not use the nuclear bomb even if they lose, they know it will destroy them as much as it will take out a few cities and it would turn every nation, including the US against it, for the simple act of using such an ugly and unthinkable weapon. Almost certainly, the use of it would create the end of Israel as a nation, if the use all but finishes Syria and disenbowles a part of Iran, almost certainly Saudi, Egypt and Turkey would finish the State altogether and the population will again become a homeless diaspora.

No, Israel would ge stupid in making a regional conflict that in any calculation they would lose, either altogether or more than they have benefited. Even the best scenario is that they bomb the nuclear sites in Iran, almost certainly with the lose of aircraft, Syria would start shelling or start taking back the Gollan Heights, both nations would move military into southern Lebanon - whom have no choice - and then the international community will try and broker a ceasefire - Jordan in the front begging for one. During that time Egypt would start to grumble solidarity for Syria, Turkey would condemn Israel as provoking regional danger and would start offering Syria weapons. Israel would backdown and move from the Gollan and Syria's leadership will have been strengthened for gaining back their territory and southern Lebanon will again be occupied by both forces. That is the best scenario. Oh, Ahmadinejad will be assured another election win or an excuse to call martial law and will stay in power for a decade. IE Israel will have made things worse and lose out.

No Muslim country has recognized Israel's right to even exist. If Israel feels compelled to attack Iran, it will because they decide it is a matter of survival for them, not just as a nation, but as a people, they fear loss will mean extinction. There is no greater motivation than that. We will see if the love of death can win over the love of life, if this conflict happens.

As far as the "last war" you refer to is concerned, I have to assume you mean the 73 war? If so, I must point out that Israel actually did not have a technological edge, as their early reverses in that war demonstrated. It was their superior training, tactical skill, and strategic planning and daring execution that won that war. For instance, the Egyptian use of ATMs caused Israeli tank units grevious losses at the beginning, but, the Israelis quickly adopted combined arms tactics that countered their use. Also, they were greatly outnumbered on both fronts by the Syrians and Egyptians, and not only defeated them on both fronts, but did so decisively, threatening to take Damascus, and forcing the surrender of large numbers of surrounded Egyptians. But, as demonstrated time and again in war, outcomes can never be predicted, so no one can say what will happen if there is another war.

As far as Iran sending in it's forces, there is a problem with geography. Iraq is the greatest obstacle to moving those troops towards Israel, Especially with US troops still stationed there, which we would hope would be orderd to oppose any movement of Iranian troops into, through, or over Iraqi terratory, not to mention the probable objection of Iraqi forces to such a move. Iran would then have to consider the likelihood of moving troops through Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Either route looks unattractive to me. This is why Iran has created and supported Hizbollah and Hamas. If there is a conflict with Israel, they expect them to do the direct fighting for them, hoping as many as the other countries bordering Israel will join in what they hope would be the final battle. Armaggedon perhaps?

Iran is the stupid country here, by developing nuclear weapons, did you see the intelligence report saying Iran is developing a nuclear trigger? While repeatedly stating they want to destroy Israel, whether for local consumption or not, the two things put together can not be ignored by Israel. They invite a pre-emptive strike by Israel. If that is Iran's intention, maybe they're not so stupid after all? A pre-emptive strike by Israel makes them the aggressor and puts them in a bad light, which Israel has to weigh against their survival, what would you do? I know what I'd do.

Your statement that no Muslim country recognises Israel's right to exist, you are wrong.

Only Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Chad,Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,North Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen consider that there is no such country as Israel. Note that there are two non-Muslim nations. All the other countries recognise the existance of Israel, not all will have relations with, no embassy or trade, but they all recognise. To a point, Saudi Arabia does recognise its existance and has all but put it in writing.

Facts are good.

The basis on the hypothetical conflict, Iraq would not be a significant factor in the movement of Iranian troops. Remembering that the major influencing nation in Iraq is now Iran, the politicians of Iraq would if anything create at a minimum a non-involvement and at best a weak complaint to be ignored. US and allied troops in Iraq would only sit and watch, reporting what they can, but with no involvement.

Hezbollah and Hamas are just attempts at influencing support and future lobbying, both forces would be involved in any conflict for sure, mostly to create problems at the borders and inside Israel making life more difficult for them.

Israel, minus their nuclear arsenal are no longer regionally dominant, that is a well known and undeniable fact. The GGC as a total has a strong level of conventional firepower and could force a pretty strong and serious conflict if ever came to that, which it would not unless drawn in.

As for Iran developin a nuclear trigger, yes that is of great concern to everyone and I am not debating the pros or cons of an Iranian weapon, I am stating the political and diplomatic reality that I am aware of and trained in.

"...mostly to create problems at the borders and inside Israel making life more difficult for them."

Ahhhh, you can't write the word TERRORISM...

Bombing pizza parlors... restaurants... wedding parties... cafés...
It surely " made life more difficult " for its victims.



Solkhar, I'd give a nickel for ALL your thoughts, past, present and future
but they'd barely worth it.

Oh i thought bombing wedding parties was an american speciality.

"Ten members of an Afghan wedding party, including the bride and possibly the groom, died when the bus carrying them struck a roadside bomb on Saturday. Maitullah Khan, a provincial police chief, said six others were wounded in Saturday's blast, which happened in the Spin Boldak district of Kandahar province. The victims included children, he said. Khan blamed Taliban militants for placing the mine."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV...

No, but some of their politicians say deny that anyone lives in the West Bank, Gaza, Hebron or a certain part of Al Qods (Jerusalem), some say it is legitimate to kill non-Jews and even their babies.

Add to that, who knows what the next government will say, there are enough radical ultra-orthodox nutjobs in the Knesset that would, what if the country radicalizes?

The point is not the government of today but the fact that one nation must have rules and another is somehow immune and protected from such rules and regulations.

Israel has been aware of the obvious for a very long time and has worked this into their war plans.