SA-8 missiles are used in air-defense to protect airspace, and are not offensive weapons, making the recent Israeli attack all the more an egregious act of aggression in direct violation of international law.
Israel's refusal to provide details to the press highlights the perceived impunity the rogue nation believes it operates with upon the international stage - striking beyond its borders without provocation, justification, or explanation. It is precisely because of this carefully cultivated belligerent posture that Israel has been chosen to carry out such attacks against Syria, despite it being only one of several nations currently involved in the arming, funding, and direction of terrorists flooding into Syria and miring the country in a now nearly 3 year long deadly conflict
. Use of Israel as "Unilateral" Aggressor Was Long-Planned
While Israel plays the part of unilateral aggressor, citing "security concerns" and fears of "terrorism" as its motivation for its latest unprovoked, extraterritorial attack, it is well documented that the United States and its other regional partner, Saudi Arabia, have long planned to use Israel to carry out attacks neither could justify carrying out themselves. The purpose of such attacks is both to carry out short term strategic objectives, and as a means of triggering a wider conflict.
Similar plans have been laid out against Iran upon the pages of corporate-financier funded think tanks like the Brookings Institution.
In regards to Iran, in Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?
" report, it states specifically (emphasis added):
"Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion)." -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
Barring actual retaliation from Iran, or in the most recent attack, from Syria, fabricated threats could be used in its place
. Israel and its US and Saudi partners are most likely probing in preparation for future attacks. Having categorically failed to sell internationally-backed intervention in Syria, and with the West's terrorist proxies waning inside of Syria, unilateral military intervention is the only viable option left for toppling the Syrian government - a long planned US-Saudi-Israeli objective.
Readers should recall that as far back as 2007, US officials were on record planning to undermine both Syria and Iran with proxy Al Qaeda-linked terrorist forces in a campaign of sectarian violence that is now playing out verbatim across Syrian territory.
Reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, "The Redirection
," it was stated (emphasis added):
"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 coöperated 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."
Of Israel it specifically stated:
"The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations."
Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region. Saudi concerns reveal just why Israel is currently being used to carry out "unilateral" attacks against Syria (emphasis added):
"The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”"
That an Israeli attack on Syria goes almost unreported - considering the hysteria that would unfold had it instead been Syria bombing cities in Israel - illustrates just how well Israel has played its part over the years as well as the silent complicity exhibited by the United Nations in failing to condemn cross-border Israeli aggression that would not be tolerated from any other nation.
Recent Attack Purposefully Perpetuates Israeli Insecurity
And, while Israelis may believe recent airstrikes in Syria are vital to preserving their own security, nothing could be further from the truth.
That Tel Aviv is in a covert alliance with Saudi Arabia (and Qatar), sponsors of Hamas, thus driving one of Israel's primary security concerns, indicates that hegemonic geopolitical interests, not self-preservation, drive Israel's current foreign policy. Terror is not a threat Tel Aviv is committed to fighting, but a useful means of control they intentionally provoke. For Israelis, the recent airstrikes in Syria affirm Tel Aviv's commitment to its alliance and joint ambitions with the Saudis, Qataris and corporate-financier interests on Wall Street and in London - most certainly at the expense, not in defense of, Israel's stability, prosperity, and survival.
Israelis must realize that the only card left for the special interests seeking regime change in Syria is the perceived threat Israel faces from "retaliation." Despite multiple airstrikes on Syria, the Syrian government has not struck back. Israelis must understand that they themselves, their friends, and their families, are purposefully being used as targets for what their government is attempting to provoke from neighboring Syria.
It should also be remembered by readers, and Israelis in particular, warnings by both the Russians and the Syrian government, that Western-backed terrorist proxies in Syria may be preparing for a chemical weapons attack on Israel
. Such a false-flag operation would dovetail perfectly with Israeli attempts to provoke Syria into retaliation for repeated violations of its airspace and multiple airstrikes upon its territory. The misery that will follow a false-flag operation, including the inevitable war that would erupt, will be the premeditated work of Israel's greatest enemy - its own government.