Deleted by Mod.
Who defines what the national interest is?
Historically, it’s been the US President, greatly influenced by his advisors. The next US President has a greatly different take on what the national interest should be than his predecessors.
THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT, he posted in all caps.
What this actually means given that Biden is not getting involved in the fighting either is unclear. Does Trump support bombing IS bases? Does he want to remove the 900 US troops currently stationed there? To be cynical, does he actually approve of events that weaken Russian power and influence?
My interpretation of what’s best for the US national interest is to hope that some stability can be found before January 21 so that no military decisions have to be made.
IMO it’ll turn into a failed state about like Libya is today. And will be an essentially “ungoverned space” which various bad actors can use as a safe haven while pursuing their more international ambitions elsewhere.
The US will have some presence nearby, mostly clandestine, or at least well off Page 1. And that’s about it.
ZeroHedge is a Bulgarian hosted propaganda arm of Russia.
My confirmation:
The BBC is reporting that Israel has carried out some 300 air strikes on Syria since Assad was toppled.
Yeah - bombing chemical weapon facilities and stockpiles, missiles of all sorts, aircraft and air defense, and I think the Syrian Navy is no longer, you know, afloat. Nobody’s been hurt, AFAIK.
It’s for the best, don’t you think? Nobody wants to see weapons like that in Jihadist hands. This is clearly Israel doing the western world’s dirty work for it.
That would be pretty miraculous.
No. While obviously waiting until an attack happens would be far too late, I think 300 bombings within days of ousting a tyrant and apparent pledges for peace, is way too much too soon, and could destabilize things from day one.
And in terms of the wrong people having access to weapons, Bibi is the wrong person right now, IMO. So it’s possible to argue for these strikes on a “might makes right” basis, but no, I don’t think on any kind of ethical grounds.
Ethical? I don’t know. Pragmatic? Definitely.
And hey, if the new regime is friendly it’s going to need a lot of new advanced weapon systems, and who do you think will want to sell to them? You’re welcome.
That’s an outright disgusting argument. And why would they be friendly to the people bombing them?
This is the sort of “pragmatism” that leads to decides of violence because it ignores what human beings are actually like.
First of all, Israel isn’t bombing them, it’s bombing abandoned military equipment. Second of all, we all know the new regime won’t be friendly with Israel. They may, however, be friendly with the U.S.
Assad was evil and there was an equilibrium point. The near to moderate term future there is now less known. It would shock few if various factions vied for control and the possibility of some more militant factions getting control of weapons of powerful potential is realistic. Left alone they are just … there. Unsecured by anyone.
When you are a reasonably likely target of a militant faction, leaving them just there is not a best choice.
Syria likely will need deterrence against possible enemies in the future. Former friends like Iran even. But likely not right now.
And they won’t have any, except for the possibility of terrorism since the Israelis just blew it all up.
As I say, if concerns about weapons falling into the hands of warmongers is the justification, then any attack on Israeli facilities, by anyone, is justified right now. When would it end?
Also, Israeli troops have apparently crossed into Syria, rumoured to be creating a buffer zone with…the previous land taken as a buffer zone.
…I’m sorry, but after over a year of destroying hospitals and mosques and historic sites and entire villages in multiple countries under the guise of “we are targeting militants”, I’m taking any claims that Israel is “only targeting abandoned military equipment” with a giant grain of salt. You can only “cry wolf” so many times before you completely lose credibility.
Yeah, count me as skeptical as well, as much as I hate to be. 
Do not post bare links.
Moderating:
I wonder how soon the pipeline up to Turkiye across Syria will get going now? The EU could really use that and Turkiye can use the transit fees. But. The US is making good bucks on supplying EU with LNG. They occupy some of Syria and have “Rebels” that they support. Those areas supply oil as well. Maybe if US firms are the ones to build it and get the revenue, it might move forward quickly. Whatever Syrian government exists may also get some transit fees to finance their various goals in the region.
Cool. If you hear about anyone actually killed in the attacks, please let me know.
off-topic, hidden
So if we were to blow up strategic assets in Israel you wouldn’t see that as aggression?
Also, any comment on the push into Syria? To establish a buffer zone with…land that is also not supposed to be Israeli controlled.
off-topic, hidden
…and let me know when they find all the gold under Lebanon’s hospitals.
And when you find out why the IDF set Al Shifa on fire, please feel free to let me know.
Because the point here isn’t whether or not Israel have killed anyone in these attacks. (although they have killed tens of thousands of civilians, journalists and medical staff in multiple countries so far this year, and their leadership is currently under indictment at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity)
It isn’t about those numbers. It’s about the regional geopolitical implications for Syria of the neighbour who is already occupying land and looks like since the fall of the Al-Ashad regime has decided to occupy more. And part of that move involves targeting and destroying “strategic weapons and military infrastructure.”
Based on what we’ve seen so far this year, there is every reason not to believe Israeli leadership that this is a “defensive” move. They’ve made the same claims over and over again. We can look to the move into Syrian territory and other things as well as indicators of what the strategy at play really is here.