Hyopthetical Israel/Syria war

So a likely Israeli strategy in a war then would be to basically "flatten" Syria's known military assets, probably from the air, and withdraw to a safe border? With Syria's presumably weak air defenses, this is something Israel could probably accomplish - demolition of many fixed structures. But they would risk Syrian missile attack onto Israeli populated areas, which could cause more damage than Hizbollah did.

Finn McCool said:

I think Syria learned its lesson from the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. They aren't going to attack Israel. They would probably try to fight similarly to how Hezbollah has, hitting cities with rockets and missles, targeting tanks with ATGMs and trying to draw the Israelis in and then harass and cut them off. Of course, Syria has tanks, planes and other nice toys that Hezbollah doesn't have so they would be able to hit Israel with more firepower. But if Israel wanted to bomb the Syrians back to the Abbasid Caliphate, they could. And if they wanted to punch through and take Damascus, they could. I doubt that Israel would try to force reigme change though, as any reigme that replaced the Assads would be Islamic and more hostile to Israel, not pro-western.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think many of the arab and in general lesser armed leaders of the world are going to learn from Hezbolla's tactics against a larger well armed/funded army. Also, Assads government itself squashes more Islamic orientated parties in his country. And rightly so, a regime change may bring in someone more passionate, competent and also more religiously inclined(as had happened after the Israel's Mosad took out the last Hezbolla leader!)

Everyone, including myself, has forgotten something. Any Israel-Syria war would in reality probably be an Israel-Syria/Iran War.

Surplus
For this to happpen the IDF must have massive USA aid in arms. I have run this threw several times in my head and come up with only one conclusion. Forget about the IDF, the USN takes out Syria.
The IDF could most likely do it-but if it came to that-its go for broke. Iran would be next on the target list with the IDF and USN with a few B-2s rown in.

USN has no B-2, to my recall those are attached to USAF. Also single naval aviation power how strong it may be cannot "take out" any nation, not Syria nor Iran. If you mean airbombings in general you still cannot state the above.

Yes, I agree Syria will inevitably be dragged into open conflict next. Remember what happened at that summit when Bush and Blair were talking and they left the microphone on. Bush said, "All Syria has to do is get Hezbollah to stop this shit and it's all over." This was August 15. Even then, to Bush, Syria was neck deep in the fight. After Israel licks its wounds, I don't doubt that it and USA will look for the quickest way possible to take down Syria. They see Syria as the root of the Hezbollah problem. Then again, you gotta count in Iran too, Iran knows that (1) if Syria goes down, they are next, (2) things are going their way in Iraq -- giving them leverage. So, we are certainly in the interlude between major conflicts. The next one will involve Syria and Iraq.

Two questions remain outstanding. First is the timing. I think this could be anywhere from 2007 to 2010. If earlier, it may be a economic sanctions followed by quick strike. It is unlikely that this will cripple the Iranian nuclear bomb. If later, it may be a ground invasion of Syria first, then Iran. Another question is the role of the major powers. We know that Russia has signed a contract with Syria for a naval base in Tatarus to move its Black Sea Fleet to. We also know that Russia expects great economic gains from nuclear assistance to Iran.

Okay, let's state new parameters for the thread then. Perhaps open a new one if necessary.

What if the U.S. and Israel decide that the war on terror must be expanded to Iran and Syria? (Even if they just choose to involve Syria they will likely end up facing Iran anyway.) Perhaps this is after a major terrorist attack or escalation in Hizbollah activities.

What would U.S. and Israeli goals in Iran be? Regime change? Securing oil sites? Destruction of Iran's nuclear program? What about Syria in this instance?

How could the US be so foolish as to attack Iran? I don't doubt that it is a possibilty, but I think that (and fervently hope) the US realizes that military strikes on Iran and Syria are not a feasible option in the long run. I personally would prefer to let Iran have its bomb and deal with it, rather than get dragged into another war far larger than Iraq and with far greater consequences. I would go as far to say that a war with Iran would be the downfall of US superpower-dom, and with it much world stability.

Finn McCool said:

How could the US be so foolish as to attack Iran? I don't doubt that it is a possibilty, but I think that (and fervently hope) the US realizes that military strikes on Iran and Syria are not a feasible option in the long run. I personally would prefer to let Iran have its bomb and deal with it, rather than get dragged into another war far larger than Iraq and with far greater consequences. I would go as far to say that a war with Iran would be the downfall of US superpower-dom, and with it much world stability.

Click to expand...

Finn, I believe the US policy is that a nuclear weapons-armed Iran is unacceptable, and they'd take whatever military means to make sure it doesn't happen.

The Iranians understand this and want to drag US & UN toward the negotiations table, so they can drag this out and hopefully get some benefit in exchange for "halting" their nuclear activities, then revive them at later time for another round of negotiations. However I think this tactic is already used by the N. Koreans and the US is not receptive to it anymore.