Israel Denies Obama Request for Military Intervention in Syria

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


AIR_A-4N_Skyhawk_Israeli_lg

I don’t know how credible this story is, but Obama wants action in Syria without having it boomerang on him. Dragging Israel further into the conflict would give him plausible deniability.

But Israel has no actual motivation for intervening any further beyond occasional air strikes to interfere with weapons shipments to Hezbollah. Israel has obviously developed some ties with some groups in the Syrian opposition, but those ties are momentary and meaningless. Whichever side wins, Israel loses.

Israel has to weigh a victory by Assad that would restore Iranian power on its border or a victory by the rebels which would put Jihadists on its border. The latter may be more dangerous than the former.

That’s why Israel has confined itself to the occasional air strike and providing medical aid to some of those wounded in the civil war, particularly children.

Any further intervention would be unwise and not in its interest.

LONDON — The United States is pressuring Israel to attack the Syrian military in the Golan Heights.

Western diplomatic sources said the administration of President Barack Obama has urged Israel to stop a Syrian Army advance toward U.S.-trained rebels in the Golan Heights.

The sources said the rebels, trained and sent from Jordan, reached the divided Heights last month.

“The Americans want Israel to stop a Syrian column from reaching rebel-held areas of the Golan, particularly where the Jordanian-based jihadists are located,” a source told Middle East Newsline.

The sources said this marked the first U.S. request for Israel’s military to intervene in Syria. They said Obama and his aides had repeatedly warned Israel to refrain from striking Syria, which transferred long-range rockets and air defense systems to Hizbullah in neighboring Lebanon.

That part certainly is plausible. Obama wouldn’t want Israel to take action to protect itself.

At this point, Israel has not responded to the U.S. request. The sources said Israel’s military and intelligence community did not want a confrontation with the regime of President Bashar Assad as it eliminated rebel strongholds throughout central and western Syria.

So essentially Israel is stalling, which is a Japanese no.

Israel has bigger priorities than shoring up the Saudi side in a religious civil war in the region or saving Obama’s Arab Spring legacy by acting as his unacknowledged air force in the conflict.

  • Texas Patriot

    Let’s hope it’s not credible.

    • Rick

      It sounds just like Obama. More Passive-aggressive crap. Everything Obama has done in foreign policy has failed. The only way he can win in Ukraine is, if the Russian economy tanks. Extrapolating current economic trends I expect the Russian economy to tank. In light of all the recent Russian trade deals with China, India & Iran, I am not so sure.

      • Texas Patriot

        The point is that “sounding like Obama” is not a basis for responsible journalism or honest political debate. As Daniel Greenfield pointed out, the story may not be credible.

        • kertitor

          I would not put that two words(honest and political) in one sentence

          • Texas Patriot

            How exactly are the interests of the American people served by a dishonest political debate?

          • kertitor

            You misunderstand me, and it is my fault. I mean there is no such of thing as honest politician. Somehow on the way most of them become corrupt, biased, and untrustworthy.

          • Texas Patriot

            There is no question about that. It is our responsibility as American citizens to keep our representatives honest and accountable to us, and if we fail to do that, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

  • edlancey

    Quite how America ended up supporting the jihadis against anyone should be a matter of national disgrace.

  • Benjamin

    Am I wrong to feel that Assad is better than Al Qaeda? Or General Sisi than the Muslim Brotherhood? I am conflicted about this. In the Middle East, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    • Texas Patriot

      It’s not the proper function of American foreign policy to take sides in regional civil wars that pose no immediate threat to the national security of the United States. In situations like that, you’re only “damned” if you do.

      • truebearing

        Foreign policy…remember the first word. Foreign policy isn’t effective when it doesn’t anticipate problems or is hamstrung by rigid ideology. Foreign policy is a strategic game and good strategies are combination of knowing your mission, having long term vision, and not being mindlessly predictable.

        For your position on foreign policy to make sense, first you have to define what you mean by “immediate.” Then define what you mean by ” threat to the national security of the United States.”

        If a threat is recognisable and growing, but you do nothing to defend against it until it is an imminent threat, it is already too late. Threats and their relative proximity have to be determined by analysis that isn’t bogged down in emotional adherence to ideological beliefs.

        For the record, I was opposed to going into Syria, but I was for going into Iran when they were helping kill our guys in Iraq. Actually, I was for going into Iran after they took American hostages during Carter’s pathetic presidency.

        • Texas Patriot

          From my perspective, the threat from Iran was, and is, imminent and immediate, and it has been since they took control of our embassy and held our diplomats hostage in 1979. Since then, there has never been a time when periodic government sponsored and government orchestrated demonstrations chanting “Death to America” could not be heard on the streets of Tehran. That said, “going in” to a foreign country with a conventional army and boots on the ground is not always the best response to an imminent and immediate threat.

          The key to successfully defending the United States and Western Civilization going forward will be maintaining and utilizing our superior advantage in surveillance and interdiction technologies and being willing to use the most efficient and effective means of responding to imminent and immediate threats as and when they arise. In the case of Iran, if we don’t already have the capacity to determine when and where they are developing nuclear weapons, we should be developing that capacity. And if we don’t already have the capacity to destroy their nuclear weapons complex by submarine launched cruise missiles, we should be developing that capacity as well. My personal point of view (not likely to be shared by you and many others in this environment) is that Chuck Hagel would not remain on the job as Secretary of Defense if (a) we didn’t already have those capacities or (b) we weren’t working around the clock to develop them.

          As you are probably well aware, the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons complex could be highly embarrassing to the Russians and Chinese politically since they are major equipment suppliers to the Iranian regime (just as we are major suppliers to many other middle eastern regimes). Therefore, in order to successfully execute a preemptive strike to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex without creating a risk of starting WWIII with the Russians and Chinese, we will need concrete evidence that the Iranians are indeed developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them locally, nationally, and internationally. Personally I don’t think there is any doubt about that, and I think the Russians and Chinese know it as well as we do, but the Iranian Revolutionary Party of Iran has consistently lied about its intent in this regard and its been caught lying.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n-STlCzn8s

          Nevertheless, since the Iranians are not likely to provide us with the necessary evidence voluntarily, we will have to go through the motions of giving them every reasonable opportunity to do so, and from my perspective that is precisely what is occurring at this time with the multiparty negotiations including Russia and China. If the Iranians fail to demonstrate their good faith and peaceful intentions after having every chance to do so, the Russians and the Chinese will have a graceful opportunity to stand aside as we blow the Iranian nuclear weapons complex out of the ground by specially designed bunker busting technologies possibly equipped with tactical nuclear warheads, which will likely be necessary to successfully eradicate the deeply buried Iranian facilities.

          If I am correct about all of this, you will then see how America will defend itself and the Free World going forward in the 21st Century and beyond without the necessity of conventional invasions and massive sacrifices of American blood and treasure. The bottom line is that it is a new day since our beloved American hero Teddy Roosevelt rode up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders. From this point forward, wars will be won or lost without the necessity going in to foreign lands as we have done in the past.

          The future survival of America in the 21st Century and beyond depends upon building up our own economy, securing our own borders and making the American homeland the technological and economic wonder of the world, even as we keep our eyes and ears wide open around the world and our defenses at the ready with the latest and best surveillance and interdiction technologies. true American Eagle, the champion of individual freedom, human rights, and constitutional democracy, can swoop down out of nowhere and defang defang the dangerous wolves of the world before they can do any harm to innocent civilians within our sphere of influence. And that is the vision and the future that we all need to be thinking about and working toward going forward starting now.

          So if you can’t see yourself abandoning the failed strategies and tactics of the past, just get some history books so that you can read about soldiers being slaughtered on the battlefield to your heart’s content. In the future, boots on the ground won’t win wars, and unless we are very, very vigilant and very, very smart, we will see entire cities disappear at the hands of terrorists equipped with nuclear weapons. And that’s the future that we should all be working very hard to avoid.

          • truebearing

            Chuck Hagel is the SOD (boy is that great acronym for him) precisely because he is so stupid, incompetent, and befuddled. Obama is intentionally telegraphing US passivity, and I know of no better way to do it than put Hagel in their as your head of defense.

            I’m not promoting strategies of the past, or future. I’m saying that ideology cannot always precede and dictate strategy if you have any hope of the strategy being effective. Strategy is situational, not ideological. Strategy needs to fit the situation at hand, not prove that what one believes will always be true. I am for a foreign policy that takes nothing off the table, but hides our intentions under the table. If you lose the ability to bluff, your choices are limited to submission or war. Telegraphing your strategy as an inevitable and reliable projection of a rigid, declared ideological position makes a strategy too easy to checkmate.

            I don’t want to see soldiers slaughtered. That is your incorrect assumption. On the other hand, telling the world you absolutely, positively won’t put troops on the ground will exponentially, and ironically, increase your need to do that very thing. No bluff zone means no maneuverability. I’m not fond of the “paint yourself into a corner” approach. That doesn’t equate with sending troops all over the world, however.

            Lastly, we could withdraw every soldier from every base around the world but it still wouldn’t prevent a nuclear attack. Soldiers in forward positions, with nuclear capabilities, are much more likely to provide a deterrent to nuclear attack than having all our troops hanging around Fort Hood, waiting for the latest Muslim to shoot them in the back.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: Chuck Hagel is the SOD (boy is that great acronym for him) precisely because he is so stupid, incompetent, and befuddled. Obama is intentionally telegraphing US passivity, and I know of no better way to do it than put Hagel in their as your head of defense.

            I hope the Iranians are as mistaken about that as you are. How could a “ stupid”, “incompetent”, and “ “befuddled” Secretary of Defense possibly blow their nuclear weapons complex completely out of the ground in a single strike? Impossible, they would probably say.

            TB:I am for a foreign policy that takes nothing off the table, but hides our intentions under the table.

            Thanks for making my point. If it turns out that the Iranians think that Hagel is too stupid, too incompetent, and too befuddled to worry about, they could be in for a big surprise. And so could you.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The fact that Fascist Iran lies.about its “peaceful” nuclear program is not as bad a problem as those who BELIEVE their lies.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Oh yes,

            DEATH to fascist iran!
            HANG the ayatollahs!
            LONG LIVE PERSIA!

          • Drakken

            Pssst! There ain’t no Persia, and hasn’t been for over 800 years because the arabs when they invaded them, bred the Persian right out of them.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        In theory some times these kinds of requests makes sense. This time…it makes no sense at all for the USA or for Israel. It makes sense for leftists that want Israel to become the Middle East “lightning rod” with no connections to the USA. Dream on.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Assad isn’t really better than al-qaeda, so it’s best to allow the two sides to go on killing each other for as long as possible. That will leave us to deal with a weakened victorious sides. In Egypt, yes, General Sisi is better than the Brotherhood and is probably the best we’re going to get there. Note, though, that the instability there was entirely Obama’s fault for his insistence on removing the ailing Hosni Mubarak from power for no good reason, unless empowering the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a good reason.

    • Doobee

      Al-Sisi is about the only good news for the U.S. lately. That’s because he’s bad news for the Barack Obama and his allies, the MB.

  • Jason Caruana

    if Israel go to war against regime is a big. mistake Israel don’t involve in Siria if they attack Israel for that OK but if Israel go to war whit islamist against the dictator in my opinion is a mistake you better know the devil ho lives near you or you create anew devil that his principals way is destroy Israel

  • truebearing

    If Obama can’t trick Israel into making itself more vulnerable by giving up a crucial buffer zone, he’ll try to trick them into uniting both sides of the Syrian conflict against them.
    Why would Israel even consider becoming Obama’s proxy in the Middle East, especially when they can let him suffer the deserved ignominy of his feckless foreign policy and drawing of testosterone-free red lines? Let Obama hang from his own petard.

    • UCSPanther

      Treating an ally like a fully expendable pawn is a bad idea.

    • Moa

      Furthermore, Obama wants Israel to do his bidding, but the US refuses to do anything real to the Iranian nuclear program – which is an existential threat to the entire Western Civilization and the Arabian Peninsula (not just Israel).

    • tko

      All you Israelis seem to think it is the US that needs Israel and not the other way around. Keep biting the hand that feeds you and you will soon find out that Israel is not the great power you think it is. Your government already knows this as it would like to attack Iran, but knows that doing this on its own would be suicide. Iran on the other hand is biding its time as it knows that its a matter of time the US gets fed up with Israel and leaves it to its own devices. The Europeans are already fed up (and embarrassed) and are quitting Israel. Good luck…

      • truebearing

        All of us Israelis, eh? I’m not an Israeli, genius. That was just the first of your many mistakes.

        Israel has more nukes than Iran can build in ten years, and by then, they will have more. Iran will ultimately become a glass factory when the Ayatollah’s insanity and arrogance finally goes too far. Evil always steps on it’s own crank just before it tries to grab the brass ring.

        Thanks for proving the inferiority of the Muslim mind.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Yes, America knows it’s better off letting Russia and Iran take over the region and we can just buy all of our fossil fuels from them after their fifth columnist partners shut down all US domestic energy production.

        Because all Americans really are that stupid.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Every islamofascist attack on Western nations creates more hatred of Islam.

        The day is coming when the West will strike islam dominated entities – hard – and topple the OPEC cartel which rapes the entire world with overpriced oil.

        • JackSpratt

          That can’t come too soon for me.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Is it true that your wife can’t eat no lean? ;-)

      • JackSpratt

        Oh, we’re dealing with an islamofascist here.

  • Rick Zee

    Sauces ? ? ?
    What hotel bar served up this baseless speculation.
    Kissinger said, “People have friends; Nations have Interests”
    Where is it to Israel’s advantage to favor EITHER side in the Syrian quagmire?

  • Joel

    Let both sides kill each other and let Israel sit it out, no Jewish blood should be shed to help Arabs. Israel should do no favors for Barack Obama.

  • Gee

    The best help we can give the world is to destroy the PA and deport the Jordanian colonists to Jordan.

  • Doobee

    He’s just leading from out of his behind.

  • Rick Zee

    The picture is an F-4 Phantom II with Israeli insignia.

    Israel retired its last F-4 in 2004 – 10 years ago.

    • Drakken

      Not a F-4, it is an A-4 Skyhawk.

      • Gee

        It most certainly is an A-4 Skyhawk that are still being used as trainers for a bit longer, though they are being retired

      • Rick Zee

        Drakken :

        You are correct; it is an A-4 Skyhawk.

        The razorback spine behind the pilot and the vertical stabilizer are somewhat similar in the two planes.

        However, the A-4 is single engine and does not have the anhedral horizontal tail surfaces or outboard wing dihedral of the twin engine F-4.

        Gee is accurate; the A-4 is just about out the door in the IAF, now mostly a trainer, and being sold Indonesia, etc. It is not involved in combat missions.

        objectivefactsmatter illustrates the two aircraft, emphasizing the differences.

        • Drakken

          If you had ever seen them coming or going, you would never confuse the two, and the F-4 is a big flying rock compared to the much smaller A-4. Everyone makes a mistake or two, so don’t sweat it.

  • tko

    You are delusional, as it is Nuttheyahoo who treats Obama like a field nger and the US like his personal plantation. As the writer clearly points out from the beginning this entire story is fiction!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Hey Socialist, Obama bows to Saudi Kings.

      Who is dominating whom?

      Obama Bows to Saudi King
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

    • JackSpratt

      If you get stuck on stupid, you’re gonna come off sounding stupid.

  • Bob

    Israel should tell Obooby to go screw himself

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Assad is holding together a buffer state. It’s still a dangerous one, but the region is worse without it unless a much better solution comes along…which doesn’t look likely from here.

  • Texas Patriot

    Drakken: As you have been told numerous times, your good little buddy Obummer isn’t going to do jackshiit about Iran except appease, period, end of story.

    I don’t see any logic to that analysis at all. Obama has said many times, that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and all options are on the table to make sure that it doesn’t happen. His own VP has emphasized in no uncertain terms that Obama is not bluffing. Therefore, so long as the Russians and Chinese are satisfied that all reasonable measures have been taken to allow Iran to verify that it’s nuclear weapons program is peaceful, there is every likelihood that the Russians and Chinese will stand aside and do nothing in the event America goes forward with a surgical strike to remove Iran’s nuclear production facilities. With Russia and China out of the picture, there would be absolutely no reason not to do it, and I will be very surprised Obama doesn’t authorize Hagel to go forward with it. Basically, the only way he can lose if if he doesn’t do it, and since Obama is nothing if not a survivor, of course, I expect that he will do it.

    • Drakken

      There is your problem right there, Obummer has said, well in case it has escaped your notice, but anything coming out of Comrade Obummers mouth is pure bullshite, so go on believing what Obummer is telling you, it is a bloody lie.

      • Texas Patriot

        Drakken: There is your problem right there, Obummer has said, well in case it has escaped your notice, but anything coming out of Comrade Obummers mouth is pure bullshite, so go on believing what Obummer is telling you, it is a bloody lie.

        During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that we should step up our drone attacks in Pakistan, and he has done that, and there are even more compelling reasons to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons complex in the event the Iranian mullahs fail to permit inspections. If the Russians and Chinese are satisfied that the Iranians are being unreasonable, there will be absolutely no reason for Obama (or any other American president) not to do it. Let’s put it this way. Under those circumstances the political downside of not doing it is a lot greater than doing it, and since Obama is a very astute politician, I think he would for sure do it. If you’re counting on there being some imaginary sympathy from Obama toward the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran, I think you’re in for a big surprise.

    • Drakken

      I guess I need Comrade Obummers sign language expert from South Africa to explain the simplest concepts to you because you are not getting it.