Netanyahu does not seem to fear Russia.


"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that Tel Aviv will continue to attack Hezbollah facilities, located in Syria. The statement was made just a day after Israel carried out airstrikes on the territory of the Arab country and admitted this fact.

On Friday, the Israeli Air Force entered the Syrian airspace and struck several targets near Palmyra city. The Syrian government claims that one of the Israeli fighter jets was shot down, while another one was damaged, as Syrian air defense troops launched several anti-aircraft missiles against the warplanes.

On Saturday, the Israeli Prime Minister said that the Friday’s airstrikes targeted a Hezbollah convoy, which transported weapons for the resistance movement.

“When we identify attempts to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah and we have intelligence and it is operationally feasible, we act to prevent it,” Netanyahu said. “That’s how it was yesterday and that’s how we shall continue to act.”

Meanwhile, on Friday, Israeli ambassador to Moscow Gary Koren was summoned by the Russian Foreign Ministry for clarification of circumstances of the airstrikes of the Israeli Air Force in Syria. The move was taken just a day after Israeli envoy presented his credentials to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Syrian military called the latest Israeli airstrikes “a desperate attempt” to support the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group, operating on the territory of the Arab country. According to a statement of the Syrian Army, the Israeli attack actually was aimed at positions of government troops in order to weaken their forces, fighting against the IS in the region.

Reportedly, Syrian military have strengthened their presence in the southwestern part of Quneitra province, including the Golan Heights region, after the Israeli airstrikes.

Earlier, it was reported that Israel provided medical treatment for Syrian militants and terrorists, transporting them to the Israeli-occupied Syrian territory of Golan Heights. Last September, an Israeli lawmaker said that the Israeli side was also directly aiding the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (previously known as the al-Nusra Front) terrorist group in the Golan Heights.

Since 1967, Damascus and Tel Aviv have been technically at war due to Israel’s continued occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights."  southfront


Well, pilgrims, it does not seem that the "subtle message" made much of an impression in the land of Zion.  I said they are hard headed and they are.  They don't believe in reciprocity.  Whatever is yours is theirs and whatever is theirs is theirs.

Back in the day when I was chief of liaison to IDF General Staff intelligence I repeatedly tried to get them to give us some worthless piece of information that I had selected for that purpose and they NEVER came through.  On one occasion they said they knew that what I had asked for was unimportant but that they did not want to establish a precedent.  I would have cut them off as a lesson but if I had (or could have) they would have gone to CIA who IMO would have been glad to screw DIA by giving them what they wanted. 

So, the strike in question was near Palmyra far from the Lebanese border.   This supports the belief that the strike was intended to assist IS which is now hard pressed by R+6 forces in that area.  pl

This entry was posted in Books, Current Affairs, Israel, Russia, Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Netanyahu does not seem to fear Russia.

  1. I saw Liberman threatened to destroy Syrian air defense system in response to this incident. A former general and Zionist Union member of the Knesset, Eyal Ben-Reuven, said Russia’s reaction was a major shift in Moscow’s Syria policy. It’s a good thing the Russian-Syrian message was as subtle as it was. If the message was any more vigorous, the Israelis would have no choice but to start shooting at everything in sight. When your policy and national ego is based on a fable of unchallengeable superiority, even a subtle challenge appears to be a real kick in the national nuts.

  2. Andy says:

    Well, that makes things a lot more interesting.
    I’m not so sure about the intent to assist IS considering this was only one sortie of 4 aircraft (according to the Syrians). I’m skeptical that one strike would be sufficient to significantly change the outcome of the conflict around Palmyra one way or another.
    What’s also interesting is that the US coalition conducted 1 airstrike near Palmyra that same day:
    Based on CENTCOM press releases, this was the first coalition strike in the Palmyra area since March 3rd.
    Meanwhile Russian and Syrian air activity is high near Palmyra as they support the ground forces in anti-IS operations.
    I think this ties back to Netanyahu Russia visit. One of the reported purposes was to reaffirm Israel’s military coordination with Russia in the region generally and Syria specifically. I think it’s unlikely Israel would coordinate this strike with the Russians, so that could be the reason the Israeli ambassador was summoned afterward.
    It’s also very unusual for Israeli officials to comment on these operations, but Israeli officials have been unusually blunt about this one. Yisrael Katz, minister for transportation, told Israel’s Channel 10 that “…our message is clear, we will not be complacent with a Syrian policy that arms Hezbollah.” He added: “the fact that the incident developed into a situation where Israel claimed responsibility and the Syrians responded is significant.”

  3. jld says:

    Doesn’t really sound too good, does it?
    OTOH, as some french joker says:
    “There is nothing that a kick in the balls or a pressure on reset won’t solve.”

  4. Brad says:

    Syria claims to have downed 2 IAF jets (separate incidents)
    If these claims are removed,….Syria has only downed 1 Turk F4 Reece
    And a few drones,….for 6 yrs

  5. The Beaver says:

    May be Bibi is hoping that, should Russia strikes down one of IDF planes, Jared and AIPAC would be forced to get the Pres. Trump and Gen Mattis to go after Russia (indirectly against Iran and Hizb’Allah). He wants to be a S*t disturber

  6. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Col. Lang, SST;
    I would have been more impressed had the izzies repeated the attack. They have plenty of planes and ordnance, the distance is short, and there seem to be plenty of targets around. Let us see what next week brings.
    Ishmael Zechariah

  7. Peter AU says:

    Palmyra/Deir Ezzor. What is so important about this area? The US/coalition strike on Deir Ezzor, the constant suicidal attacks by ISIS even when loosing ground everywhere else, and now the Israeli strike?

  8. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Putin wants a quiet neighborhood.
    Israelis will comply with that wish.

  9. different clue says:

    Putin may not have the loud fast power to make Bibi afraid, but he may have slow quiet power to freeze Bibi in place. If so, that would be power indeed.

  10. walrus says:

    palmyra/dire es sore is strategically central to breaking the shia crescent and creating an american/sunni protectorate in eastern Syria.

  11. robt willmann says:

    Peter AU,
    If you draw a line from Palmyra (Tadmur) to Deir Ez Zor (Dayr az Zawr), and then a line straight east to the border with Iraq, and then down along the Iraq border to a little ways past the intersection of the Euphrates River and the Iraq border, you will have an area of oil and gas pipelines and oil and gas fields. This is a critically important area.
    A while back I mentioned that I was repeating myself so much about the need to take back that area that I was starting to sound like the crazy uncle in the attic. But that is always easier said than done, with the requirement of supplies, equipment, and logistics, and the harsh reality of combat.
    There are also oil and gas fields to the north of Palmyra and going northeast of it to the Euphrates River.
    This whole area is south of Raqqah and the mishmash of groups and ISIS involved from Raqqa on north toward Turkey. Syria has an opportunity to clear this extremely important area and get control of it outside of the problem of dealing with the Kurds, etc., further north.

  12. BraveNewWorld says:

    “Israel said to strike Syria for second time in 24 hours, amid threats from Damascus
    Unconfirmed reports indicate jets hit Hezbollah weapons convoy, military targets, hours after drone strike in Syrian Golan; Syria UN envoy says retaliatory missile launches during Friday raid a ‘game-changer’”
    “Israeli airstrike in Syrian Golan said to kill pro-Assad fighter
    IDF refuses to confirm reported drone strike near Quneitra, as tensions between Jerusalem and Damascus ratchet up”
    Even with Israel having the entire power of the US military at it’s finger tips, giving the finger to Russia just doesn’t seem like a smart idea.
    But what I really suspect is going on here is this. For at least the last 3 elections Netanahu has run i,n he has started a war for the election to inflate his numbers. Last time it was the Gaza war he started by shooting up the West Bank. Before that it was a few rounds with Hezbollah and before that it was droning the Hamas leader that was enforcing the peace in Gaza. All timed conveniently for the elections.
    But Israel isn’t in an election you say, well keep a few things in mind. One of the opposition parties is polling as high as Likud is. Netanyahu has been questioned by the police over various things and is likely to be indited soon. And then there is this.

  13. turcopolier says:

    “Even with Israel having the entire power of the US military at it’s finger tips,” that is not true and it has never been true. Poliical influence yes, ability to command our armed forces? Never! pl

  14. Rd says:

    “Well, pilgrims, it does not seem that the “subtle message” made much of an impression in the land of Zion. ”
    Izi’s squealing, is a reflection of their terrorists ISIS, are on the loosing side. Isis’ll squeal even louder.

  15. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I do not find that scenario credible.
    Iran does not need a land bridge through the Syrian Desert.

  16. Lemur says:

    Russia Insider has copied a paywall protected Haaretz article here:
    The Israeli is depicting the incident as an unpredictable regime trying to slip the collar of their Russian handlers, who fundamentally take Israel’s ‘concerns’ seriously.
    If this were so, why was Israel’s ambassador summoned in Moscow?

  17. turcopolier says:

    And why would the US want to protect an area in eastern Syria? For the oil and gas? We are drowning in the stuff. For the Saudis? Oh, come on! pl

  18. LJ says:

    No word on the fate of the pilot? Odd given past history.

  19. Thirdeye says:

    If I may suggest, Colonel, somebody might just want to show everybody who’s boss then get stuck trying to figure out a strategic reason? Stupidity happens.

  20. Thirdeye says:

    Maybe an elegant solution for Russia would be to test some ECM on Israeli targeting systems.

  21. Peter AU says:

    Commodities – control thereof. Revenue for future Sunni/Kurd state/ remove revenue from future Syrian state.
    Many in power and positions of influence in the US do not seem to share your principles pl.

  22. Cee says:

    Who ever you call or write keep repeating that Israel supports ISIS because they ARE!!
    If they try to defend this, call them terrorist supporters too.

  23. Cee says:

    Well, well. Israel may have to go it alone. I hope they pay the price ALONE.

  24. LeaNder says:

    Hmmm? From the linked context:
    Israel-Syria Clash: With Missile Fire, Assad Is Trying to Change the Rules of the Game
    Israel has avoided directly commenting on airstrikes in Syria. Until now.
    …Presumably the Syrian anti-aircraft salvo was a signal to Israel that the regime’s policy of restraint in the face of the airstrikes will not remain as it was. President Bashar Assad’s recent successes – first and foremost the conquest of Aleppo – have seemingly increased the dictator’s confidence. Israel will have to decide whether the operational need – to thwart advanced weapons shipments to Hezbollah – also justifies the possible risk of the downing of an Israeli fighter jet and a broader conflict developing with Syria.
    There is an interesting question as to whether the aircraft detection radar system was deployed by Israel’s new great friend, Russia, precisely one week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned from Moscow after yet another successful visit to see President Vladimir Putin.
    One can imagine that the intelligence community will also be interested to learn whether the Syrian decision to fire back was coordinated with Assad’s collaborators and partners: Russia, Iran and Hezbollah…..
    Amos Harel, March 20

  25. turcopolier says:

    If you mean the elected government as represented by the civilian chain of command in the Executive Branch, then the answer is altogether. They tell you to fight, you fight. They tell you to stop, you stop. they give you money and equipment, you use it. The armed forces of the US are altogether subordinate to the civilian government. That does not mean that a certain amount of passive-aggressive behavior does not take place. pl

  26. The Beaver says:

    @ Peter AU
    I see it more because of this corridor:
    Since the beginning of March, PUK and KDP are at each other’s throats, after PUK seized a oilfield from the ruling KDP’s forces last Thursday near Kirkuk.
    What has Barzani promised Erdogan?
    Barzani (in a deal with the Sultan) wants to control Sinjar with its own militias (the Peshmerga).
    Cutting through a Sunnistan in Eastern Syria will make a lot of sense -thus we are back to the Qatari-Turkey gas pipeline that Assad did not agree with in the first place .

  27. kooshy says:

    IMO, is to secure a second/alternative gas supply route to europe from Qatar, and reduce Russian supply influence on europe, that’s why some wonder why a little politically shit country like Qatar is so invested in this.

  28. Lemur says:

    off topic, but Reuters is reporting the YPG has announced Russia will set up a base the Western Kurdish canton of Afrin. Russian troops are already on the ground there.
    I wonder if Russia is planning a Kurdish push into Idlib in conjunction with the Syrian Army from Aleppo? The RuAF is pounding northern Idlib atm.

  29. Larry Kart says:

    I’ve just finished Edgar F. Puryear Jr.’s big, fat (605 pages) “American Admiralship: The Moral Imperatives of Naval Command” (Naval Institute Press), which is based on extensive interviews with all sorts of high-ranking naval officers from WWII to 2005, including virtually every former CNO (these latter perforce members of the JCS), and a good many of the figures interviewed including well-known customers like Thomas Moorer, Arleigh Burke, William Crowe, John Holloway, etc. speak in some detail of significant instances in which the JC fed both geopolitical and domestic political considerations into their thinking and thus into their eventual recommendations.
    I could mention some of these instances. Of course, things often have gone the other way as well. For instance, there is the apparent supineness of the JC during the run up to and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq under Bush II. OTOH, another example, where things went that way, also seems to me striking evidence that the JC at times did not/do not not merely operate on a “They tell you to fight, you fight” basis.
    Arleigh Burke on the Bay of Pigs: “The [administration’s] chief mistake was that they didn’t realize the tremendous importance of the operation or the effect it would have on the world…. It was a game to them. It was another election. They were inexperienced people.
    “….That operation was not under the military. We [the JCS] were told that every time we got anywhere near it — we had no responsibility for it, we were not supposed to comment on things unless we were asked to. It was not our show, it was a CIA operation and you stay the hell out of it, we will not permit any regular force of the United States to become involved in this, and so you chiefs cannot become involved.
    “This was the president himself. Every time. And it was repeated over and over again. It was a military operation conducted by amateurs, all from top to bottom. And it was a horrible fiasco.
    “The chiefs did not realize how little the administration knew or how small their capability was for that kind of thing. And we [the JCS] didn’t insist upon knowing. They would have told us probably, but we were not tough enough. The [administration’s] chief mistake was that they didn’t realize the tremendous importance of the operation or the effect it would have on the world…. It was a game to them. It was another election. They were inexperienced people.
    “This was the president himself. Every time. And it was repeated over and over again. It was a military operation conducted by amateurs, all from top to bottom. And it was a horrible fiasco.
    “The chiefs did not realize how little the administration knew or how small their capability was for that kind of thing. And we didn’t insist upon knowing. They would have told us probably, but we were not tough enough. Our big fault was standing in awe of the presidency instead of pounding the table and demanding and being real rough. We were not. We set down our case and then we shut up. That was a mistake.”

    Yes, as Burke says, the Bay of Pigs “was not under the military.” But he makes it fairly clear a) that he and others on the JCS were taking into account the likely effect the operation would have on “the world” and b) that he thinks that \the JC should have intervened to attempt to block the Bay of Pigs, should have been “pounding the table” and “demanding” instead of “standing in awe of the presidency.”

  30. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    You don’t understand what you read. Military and naval officers have opinions. If they are senior enough they have the opportunity to voice that opinion to the elected leaders of the US government, but they have no authority whatever to refuse an order from the elected government of the United States. Neither Arleigh Burke nor any other military official has any authority whatever to countermand an order from SECDEF or the president. Their opinions are interesting but only that. As it happened I worked in the orbit of Admiral Crowe when he was CJCS. I was the head of DIA MENA intelligence then. I went to many meetings at the WH representing him on the intelligence side. We were listened to but the administration of the day went its own way in policy and it was often not in the direction that DoD would like have seen. pl

  31. turcopolier says:

    So, Qatar, a Wahhabi country, which opposes all things Shia or Quasi-Shia like the Alawis in Syria is seeking to help Iran? Does that make sense to you? l

  32. turcopolier says:

    I don’t get your point. Yes. The government does not consider decisions in a vacuum. How could it? pl

  33. Matthew says:

    Col: Do you believe that Syrians actually shot down an IDF plane? No photos have been produced.
    Does anyone know of any examples where Israel’s neighbors suppressed evidence of successful operations against the IDF?

  34. J says:

    How does one say Crap? Seems that some stolen nuclear stuff is at play and has been detected by the Russians, which they are none too happy about.
    Ir-192 stolen from Iraq was detected by the Russians (translated url provided) which has prompted Russian MOD units activities.
    So the stolen from Baghdad Ir-192 makes its way to Armenia then appears was loaded on a plane and transported from Armenia through Belarus’s Gomel airport, where it was flown on to Bulgaria.
    Ever since the Ir-192 theft from Baghdad, the Russians installed signature detection through out the Russian Federation.
    This has all the makings for a new Hollywood movie entitled Peacekeeper 2. Will George Clooney and Nicole Kidman star in this one also if its ever made? Stay tuned…..

  35. LJ says:

    Alexander Mercouris gives a different read. No Israeli plane was shot down, but the Syrian attempt to shoot down an IAF fighter took place over Israeli territory. There’s more at the link

  36. b says:

    Netanyahoo’s claim of “transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah” near Palmyra is of course bullshit. Palmyra is a blind ally. All that is going there is front line logistics.
    There are lots of Russian troops in the area. Some 150 engineers were send to clear mines in Palmyra. At the T4 airport there are lots of Russian special forces and other services. Israel trying to attack near to them is a pretty lunatic step.
    What did Trump tell Netanyahoo that he believe he could take such a step?
    Russia now official says that it summoned Israel’s ambassador. There is no escape for Netanyahoo from that. The many Israeli voters of Russian heritage will sure ask what is going on there.

  37. BraveNewWorld says:

    Technically true but irrelevant. No matter what the Israelis do the full backing of the US military will be there to bail them out. They could fly up to Tartus and shoot the place up then if the Russians fire back there will be cruise missiles landing in Tartus shortly afterwards. Trumps Russia engagement policy would be dead. We all know it and more importantly Netanyahu knows it.
    You are correct the military would be asking WTF? But the politicians will be rushing to be the first to sell out American interests in favour of Israeli interests cause that’s how you get paid.

  38. Frank says:

    To prevent Iran from doing it. Duh

  39. BraveNewWorld says:

    Take what the Russians say with caution but …
    “Moscow has no plans to deploy new military base in Syria — Russian Defense Ministry”

  40. turcopolier says:

    The “duh” is disrespectful. You are banned. pl

  41. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think he meant that Qatar wants to sell her gas to Europe, through Syria.

  42. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The most important point in your post, in my opinion, was this:
    “It was a game to them.”
    And it has been so ever since.

  43. turcopolier says:

    So, the US will establish a protectorate in eastern Syria to accommodate Qatar? that is nonsensical. pl

  44. Patrick S. says:

    The real intent would be to weaken Russia economically by replacing their sale of gas to Europe with Qatari gas. Washington has made multiple moves over the last few years to accomplish this objective by blocking Russian pipelines to southern Europe. It is known that they requested permission to build a pipeline in eastern Syria, and were turned down. This happened just before the Syrian war started.

  45. eakens says:

    We may have plenty of oil and gas ourselves, but the saudis and Qataris buy a lot of US weaponry and treasuries with the dollars they get from where they do sell their product. It does make sense that we seek to protect that fiat conduit.

  46. turcopolier says:

    eakens et al
    So in your collective world Qatar obtains the agreement of Saudi Arabia, then Jordan or Iraq for a pipeline that will enter a US protectorate centered on Deir al-Zor or Raqqa thence across Syrian government held territory to a port on the Syrian coast also in Syrian government held territory? Does this happen in some alternate universe? Do you have a grasp of what it would cost the US in blood and treasure to try to accomplish all that AND stay there? pl

  47. b says:

    @Pat –
    the Qatari plan, rejected by Syria before the war, was a pipeline from Qatar through SA, Iraq or Lebanon, east-Syria, Turkey and on towards Europe.
    From a U.S. and EU strategic standpoint that pipeline would break Gazprom’s near monopoly in Europe and significantly hurt Russia.
    A competing project was a line from Iran (tapping the same South Pars Gulf gas field as Qatar) through Iraq and Syria to the coast where it would be liquefied for over sea transport or move through a subsea pipeline to Greece.
    Syria officially rejected the Qatari project and together with Russia favored the Iranian project.
    The project was reported on since 2009
    The “Salafist principality” in east-Syria would again enable that project.

  48. Kooshy says:

    Sorry colonel I was away, but I meant a new pipe line from Qatar to Europe via Iraq or Jordan dean to Syria and Turkey, this will reduce Europe’ energy dependence on Russia. I don’t know if this is viable or not but I have read this theory on few different sites. Colonel I do t believe Iranian gas will or can go any further west then Iraq and Turkey. That leaves Europe, dependent on Russia and northe Africa, a third major supplier like Qatar or even US will make an stratgic change on europes dependency on Russia energy. They say the current pro and anti Assad, countries matches the beneficiaries of this supply line.

  49. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Nah, just interpreting the conspiracy theory.

  50. Sam Peralta says:

    Col. Lang
    I continue to be surprised by the deep seated belief by many SST correspondents who parrot the classic tinfoil theories that US interventions are all about economics. It is always about petro-dollar, oil & gas, natural resources, etc. b’s Moon of Alabama site is an excellent watering hole for such anti-American types whose loony theories boggle the mind.
    Facts that oil producers sell their product under contracts with varying terms & conditions including currency mean nothing to these people. The additional fact that currency trading is the largest liquid market and that dollars can be exchanged for euros which can be exchanged for yen in scale with low bid/ask spreads again show that facts don’t matter when economic rationales for US perfidy are readily available.
    US shale oil production and its continually lower breakevens is breaking the cartel behavior among OPEC producers who need higher prices to fund their immense budget deficits. And with US technology there are now huge finds of shale oil in places like Argentina. Interestingly the Peak Oil crowd is less vociferous now.

  51. Patrick S. says:

    Well, the idea was to hook into the proposed Nabucco pipeline in Turkey, and thence to Europe. One possible route was Saudi Arabia — Jordan — Syria — Turkey. However, a little investigation indicates that the proposed pipeline was already dead in the water for a couple of reasons, one being the fact that Saudi Arabia would never consent, another that the Nabucco pipeline has been more or less dropped. So, the pipeline theory appears false, even though it is more or less accepted fact in certain circles.

  52. Thirdeye says:
    Maybe it’s wishful thinking on the part of Syria, maybe it’s real.

  53. turcopolier says:

    I think the whole pipeline thing is very improbable. The concept ignores regional alliances and unwillingness to accommodate competitors. pl

  54. turcopolier says:

    The USA possesses military traditions of subordination to the constitution so strong that any action not in accordance with that would occur only in extremis so severe that the country would be in the process of disintegration. pl

  55. Heros says:

    You write: “Neither Arleigh Burke nor any other military official has any authority whatever to countermand an order from SECDEF or the president. Their opinions are interesting but only that.”
    As a civilian my understanding is that the Nuremburg trials were supposed to establish that a military officer fulfilling orders that violate the constitution or international law were guilty of war crimes and were legally obligated at a minimum to not fulfil those orders. Many German officers were hanged for precisely this. Am I mistaken, or do international laws that were enforced on the Germans not apply to Americans?

  56. turcopolier says:

    I spoke of orders consistent with international and US law. Their opinion of what is legal may be different than yours. Within the scope of legal orders, the opinions of military officers are only advisory in nature. pl

  57. turcopolier says:

    I find it amusing that you use the name of a Prussian cavalryman who came to America to serve as a volunteer under JEB Stuart. pl

  58. LondonBob says:
    Quite, saying oil is just more socially acceptable than blaming Israel.

  59. Babak Makkinejad says:

    EU dependence on Russia energy has been a canard; it was so during the Cold War and it has been so since 1990. I cannot recall any instance that there was ever a public thread by the Russian leaders to disrupt the flow of gas.
    Immature countries tend to do so, thinking that they are being tough; by hurting their customers; like when Iran ended gas flow to USSR or Turkmenistan to Iran.

  60. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Putin wants ME to be quiet.
    Xi wants ME to be quiet.
    EU leaders want ME to be quiet.
    Trump wants ME to be quiet (so that he can concentrate on his domestic agenda.)
    Israelis will comply.

  61. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Nabucco will never be built.

  62. Peter AU says:

    So many interests aligned against Syria Beaver. Brookings “Which path to Persia”.. Rand corps “Peace plan for Syria”.. Qatari pipelines.. religious Wahabbi Saudi’s.. Israel and the Shia crescent.. Turkey, the new ottoman empire.. and I guess the list goes on.
    But oil as the most traded commodity seems to be the thing that is most fought over.

  63. Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg says:

    I think you have the right idea. Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia and put pressure on China. Netanyahu knows he can play the Americans like a cheap guitar which keeps the Russians from just swatting at his planes. So the Russians (and Syrians) have to put up with these token ‘strikes’ (which- who knows? May not have been targeting anything worthwhile at all)- just Bibi peeing on the hydrant and leaving his mark.

  64. Outrage Beyond says:

    ” Look, Netanyahu went to Moscow imploring. Why? He went to intercede with President Putin because he is afraid of the defeat of Daesh in Syria. For the defeat of Daesh for Putin – excuse me, for Netanyahu, constitutes a victory for the Resistance and the Resistance Axis. Because for Netanyahu, Daesh’s defeat in Syria is a failure of the project he has supported for 6 years. So he went to beg (Putin). Oh, what do you do with Daesh, calm down with Daesh! For if you finish Daesh, what are you going to do with Iran, Hezbollah, President Assad, and the rest of the Resistance Axis?

    –Hassan Nasrallah

  65. Jackrabbit says:

    After reading some of the comments here, especially Andy’s, I wonder if the Israeli air attack on Palmyra was meant to be a false flag.
    Such an attack seems similar to the US attack on Deir Ez-or last fall and if attributed to US/Coalition forces might put an end to improved US-Russian relations.
    Andy notes that the Israeli’s were unusually frank afterward – perhaps because the FF failed so they had to offer a plausible explanation?

  66. Thirdeye says:

    I have my doubts that the Deir Ezzor attack was the work of Israel. The US command was embarrassed in that situation and if it were really not a US operation they could have made a forceful denial. The Israelis couldn’t have pulled off a false flag without the US voluntarily taking the fall.

  67. Kooshy says:

    Yes but Europe has is not and has not been in a war with her back country supply room (Russia) since WWII, the cautionary planing for diversity is for, incase of a US/Western Europe war with Russia.

  68. Babak Makkinejad says:

    In my opinion, EU leaders understand very well that they do not have any strategic leverage or option against the Russia Federation. They never seriously contemplated any alternative to Russian, Libyan, and Algerian gas that currently supplies them. Indeed, if they were serious, there would already have been a pipeline from South Pars to Thessaloniki by now.

  69. For the false flag to be successful, they’d have to be certain that radar systems would be unable to detect where the jets were coming from and going back to. I’ve heard reports of the radars being jammed/spoofed, but I don’t think they really know if they were effective there or not.

  70. turcopolier says:

    Yes. The war in Iraq was an unnecessary war. I opposed it before and during at some cost to me, but it was neither an unconstitutional nor an illegal war. It was fought because of the baleful influence of the neocon group in the Bush43 Administration. This had nothing whatever to do with what you people call the MIC. In fact the defense industry was taken by surprise by the event. they recovered from their surprise and made a lot of money out of that war and the one in Afghanistan but that does not mean they CAUSED these wars. Canada has no enemies and has tiny armed forces. Why not just opt out of the world and the RCMP can then concentrate on rounding up refugees fleeing the US. pl

  71. Jackrabbit says:

    I think you misunderstood/misread what I wrote.
    I was not suggesting that Israel was responsible for the Deir Ez-or attack. I wrote “similar to the US attack on Deir Ez-or”.

  72. Jackrabbit says:

    Occam’s Razor argues for a false flag attempt.
    The Israeli’s risked much in conducting this strike. I don’t think it is likely that they would have assumed that risk for a tactical battlefield gain.

  73. turcopolier says:

    IMO the psychological imperative for the Israelis of demonstrating their superiority and dominance has nothing to do with tactical advantage. pl

  74. Sam Peralta says:

    james, no straw men here. Petro-dollar as causation for US interventions are just conspiracy theories, not rooted in fact as major currencies are freely exchangeable in scale. A reserve currency is as much of a bane as it is a benefit.
    If you’ve been here at SST for a while, you will likely conclude that economic determinism for recent foreign policy decision making by the US is not a good explanation as for example, the US has not reaped any financial windfalls. There are much better, more plausible rationales.

  75. LeaNder says:

    james, I would not consider it setting up and knocking down straw men. But the terminology fits into the context.
    One sure can get a little tired after a while concerning the them. Not least since it always pops up as the ultimate hidden reason.

  76. LeaNder says:

    There we go.

Comments are closed.