Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Sunni Jihadists Are Camped Just East Of The Golan Heights. Why Hasn’t The IDF Blasted Them Yet?

Posted by Phoenix Woman on September 25, 2014

That’s the question Gary Brecher keeps asking:

Nobody ever seems to mention it, but the supposedly fearsome IS now owns the ground right under Israel’s Golan Heights fortifications, after moving in in June 2014 when the weary SAA, tired of being shelled by the IDF, moved out.

So IS has been in place right there on Israel’s border for months now—and there’s been no attack from Israel. Yes, folks, you might actually get the impression that the Israelis—who know a thing or two about threat assessment—just don’t take IS very seriously.

How can this be? Brecher has a few ideas about that:

Israel decided long ago that only the Shia are what noted Zionist Walter Sobchak would call “a worthy fuckin’ opponent.” If you look at the pattern of Israeli intervention in Syria since the Civil War began there, you find the IDF striking Assad’s SAA targets over and over , especially when the SAA might have been transferring weapons to Hezbollah—but to the best of my knowledge, not once attacking any Sunni jihadi forces like IS.

The Israeli view seems to be that only the Shia forces—the SAA, Hezbollah, and above all their patron Iran—are serious threats. Meanwhile, they’ve been treating Sunni jihadi militias like IS like de facto allies, never once attacking Sunni militias dug in just below the Golan Heights.

Most interesting.

2 Responses to “Sunni Jihadists Are Camped Just East Of The Golan Heights. Why Hasn’t The IDF Blasted Them Yet?”

  1. Charles II said

    It’s no surprise.

    Saudi Arabia and Israel are long-term allies. They long ago decided that if the US wouldn’t take out Iran, they would take out Iran’s closest ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia decided to use AQI, which has been run out of the place by the Sunnis. They were, after all, even more ferocious than al-Nusra.

    But once the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad starting oppressing the Sunnis, AQI (now reborn as ISIS) made the mistake of coming back into Iraq instead of taking down Assad. This was unacceptable to the US, which had been fine as long as they were fighting Assad. By contrast, the Saudis and Israel were fine with ISIS invading Iraq, since that (they think) weakens Iran.

    The neo-cons may still be seeking revenge over the hostage crisis of the late 70s. But wiser heads understand that our geopolitical interests are more closely aligned with Iran. That’s why we accepted a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. And so what they have created is, basically, a potentially irreconcilable split between the US and Israel/Saudi Arabia. We cannot tolerate chaos in the Middle East, since that interferes with the extraction of oil and hence with the stability of Europe. They, on the other hand, want to destroy some of the most stable governments in the region.

    Push has come to shove.

    • Yup. The shove would have eventually happened anyway, but ISIS’ egotistic, hamfisted, and strategically idiotic brutality has forced the issue.

      The problem for the Saudis and Israelis is that while AQI/ISIS/IS is great at grabbing headlines, they stink at strategy and tactics beyond the short term. The initial plan for AQI was to try and topple the Jordanian government, but the Jordanian security apparatus is tougher than steel, and the AQi folk found themselves fleeing the country for ever-softer targets, hanging out in the uncontrolled borderlands by the Syria-Iraq frontier licking their wounds and collecting Saudi and Kuwaiti money for their next moves.

      The Syrian “civil war” (actually the ongoing Saudi/Kuwaiti-backed coup attempt) was to be where AQI finally repaid the investments made in it, but the gross brutality and open praise for Al-Qaeda made it difficult to sell them and their fellow Sunni jihadi outfits as nice noble freedom fighters in the US, even with all the might of AIPAC brought to bear. Plus, the same Republicans who full-throatedly cheered any bellicose moves by George W. Bush were a bit shyer about endorsing any actions by a black Democratic president, even if those actions involved killing brown-skinned Muslim foreigners. So Assad survived, with help from Iran/Hizbollah, and ISIS decided to see how far it could go in al-Anbar province and the Sunni Triangle. If it hadn’t taken the oil towns on the border right away (and had the fleeing Shiites of the Iraqi army, who weren’t thrilled about being in the Sunni Triangle anyway, essentially gift ISIS with tanks and other weapons, which rumor has it are parked in the Syrian hidey-holes waiting to be pressed into service against Assad), it wouldn’t have got this far.

      And now, with all those inconvenient beheading videos of Westerners, ISIS wound up making the same mistakes it made during its 2013 participation in the assault on Assad: Alienating potential Western allies. Not only that, but it’s turned these potential allies into enemies, at least officially.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: