The Times of Israel later confirmed the strike, adding, "The officials said the shipment was not of chemical arms, but of "game changing" weapons bound for the terror group Hezbollah. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles."
A day later, on Saturday, suddenly Iran was dragged into this with the New York Times reporting: " Israeli aircraft bombed a target in Syria on Thursday,,,to disrupt the pipeline of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah."'
The latest on Saturday, another strike: A Syrian news agency says the missiles
targeted a site near Damascus.
The Obama Administration may have encouraged the Israeli attacks when President Obama what is now said to have been an unexpected off-the cuff remark supporting the idea that Syria may have crossed a certain "red-line" despite an admitted lack of evidence. This foopa is now bening blamed on he front page of the New York Times as "putting the US in a bind." Translation: he misspoke. Further translation: it was a f*ck-up!
Last January 31, the last Israeli bombing attack on Syria was met with this reaction: " Israel will regret its attack against Syria, a top Iranian official has warned.. The Telegraph reported, February 4, "Syria only received these missiles from Russia over the last couple of months". Then, after the strike, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned of "grave consequences for Tel Aviv."
Already, American right-wing politicians are cheering on the story:
Politico reported, "South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told a crowd here Friday night that Israel has bombed Syria.
"Israel bombed Syria tonight," Graham said flatly, before moving on to a longer, dire discourse on the threat of a nuclear Iran."
You can just smell the aroma of more escalations and of wider war to come. US news organizations are waffling and accepting Israel's version even as Israel seems to be leaking it, rather than fully disclosing it.
There
are two aspects of this: what the real endgame is--and why it seems to be more
about preparing for war on Iran rather than on Syria?
"To
undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has
decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In
Lebanon, the Administration has coà ¶perated with Saudi Arabia's government,
which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken
Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also
taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the
bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam
and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."
Adds
Tony Cartalucci on ICH: "Indeed,
Israel's explanation as to why it struck neighboring Syria is tenuous at best
considering its long, documented relationship with actually funding and arming
the very "terrorist groups" it fears weapons may fall into the hands
of."
And the second issue is the question of the reliability of news reporting, including accounts by human rights groups who may be under pressure from funders to go easier on Israel than Syria. Scott, Long, a former manager at Human Rights Watch explains the nature of the bias in a recent report:
Notes the Electronic Intifada: " Long's account indicates that HRW observes a sort of fake balance in which it must artificially generate criticism of Palestinians just in order to offset criticism of Israel's much greater and more frequent human rights abuses and crimes
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
