Israel will preempt

The recent disclosure that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizballah marks a significant turning point. If war on Israel’s northern border could have been avoided — and perhaps it was already a forgone conclusion — that  is clearly not the case now.

With the addition of these missiles, which are capable of carrying chemical warheads, Hizballah changes from an irritant to an existential threat to Israel. It is now sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted to strike first. Additional deliveries, such as advanced antitank and antiaircraft weapons — even intelligence that indicates that they will be delivered in the near future — may trigger a premptive response.

In my opinion, the US administration’s tilt away from Israel has caused Iran, Syria, etc. to think that they will be able to hit Israel hard enough to hurt her badly, while the US will step in immediately and prevent Israel from doing more than an acceptable amount of damage in return. And probably Israel’s decision-makers think so too. So this is another reason for Israel to choose to preempt.

We can be certain that in order to get the US and Europe to rein in Israel, Iran will take steps to cause the price of oil to hit the ceiling and splatter. Israel will have to act swiftly and without giving the hostile US administration advance knowledge. The US will make Israel pay for this, but the alternative is worse.

The US administration’s response to the delivery of the Scuds has been to make statements deploring it, while continuing its policy of ‘engagement’ with Syria. US policy is pushing the region toward war rather than away from it.

The simple fact that we don’t seem to be able to get straight is that the weaker we look, the harder they push.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Israel will preempt”

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    I am not sure I understood here. Is the intention to say that Israel will pre-empt Hizbollah? or Syria? Or Iran? Or all of them together plus ‘Hamas’ in Gaza?
    And can this be done without considerable damage being done to Israel?
    Frankly, I do not know enough about the preemptive capabilities. I do know that with all our great capability we did not stop Hizbollah and Hamas completely. I know larger payload and longer distance means better capacity to preempt. But how much damage would we suffer? And isn’t the world waiting, and perhaps the Obama Administration for an opportunity to truly make us into the pariah, and force us back within the 67′ lines?
    I ask these questions without knowing the answers. I just pray that the I.D.F. and with it the political leadership above, do

  2. Vic Rosenthal says:

    I am not going to predict the scope of what is going to happen. I know that Israel will not permit a situation to continue in which Hizballah has scuds — and/or sophisticated antiaircraft and antitank weapons. Read Michael Totten’s link at the end of my post for speculation.

  3. Robman says:

    The doo-doo will hit the air conditioning apparatus, for sure. You are dead-on, Vic.

    Israel faces three alternatives:

    1 – Cave to the Palis completely per the Saudi playbook/Obama, and thus face unprecedented humiliation and slow strangulation, in return for the Sunni Arabs “letting” Israel do something about Iran, whom they are scared to death of themselves. Israel does the heavy lifting, and even then, the clerics will force the Arabs into maximum effort to turn Israel into a pariah anyway. Maybe Obama will veto them in the UN. Maybe not.

    2 – Don’t cave to the Palis, and try to hold their fire until January 2013. By then, Iran has the bomb, and there is no will to pre-empt at all, even from Israel’s point of view. The risks are simply too great. By the time a more friendly U.S. administration appears, Israel’s enemies are far stronger in terms of WMD capability, and can really hurt Israel bad no matter what she does, maybe even destroy her completely. The Moslems would be destroyed in the course of Israel’s retaliation, but so what? They will have “shown the Jews”. Is it rational? No. Was Hitler rational?

    3 – Israel takes her best shot at Iran, even without U.S. support. This touches off a regional war with Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe even West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, perhaps even Turkey. But if Israel is fully mobilized and prepared in advance, she can put up a hell of a fight. If she fights with determination and extreme violence aimed at a rapid and decisive result, maybe when the dust settles, she is physically secure. She won’t get resupply, so she has to win quickly, so this means the gloves are off, CNN/UN/etc. be damned. This one is for keeps. The fact of the lack of U.S. backing means that Israel has to be that much more violent and destructive early on.

    In the immediate aftermath, expect expulsion from the UN and comprehensive political/economic sanctions. I don’t expect it, but I wouldn’t even be surprised if Obama tries to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians, which produces U.S. body bags courtesy of Israel. There will be great outrage on all sides of this issue, but no matter, this would be Obama’s ultimate gambit aimed at permanently destroying the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I’d wager he doesn’t have the balls for this ultimate pefidy, but I don’t rule it out, either.

    Israel will have to endure a hellish couple of years or so, but she’ll be physically secure, even if economically impoverished.

    An uncertain future is better than the certain prospect of no future.

    What a difference one election can make, eh? What a mess!!!

    Imagine how different things would have been if McCain had won.

    We’ve got ourselves and the Jewish G-d now. Hope that turns out to be enough.

    We tried to warn people.

  4. Grandma says:

    I just read Tottin’s commentary. Oh Israel, Israel, what are you going to do? No matter what you decide, I will be praying for you.