Iran could consider Assad expendable. Then Iran would exploit the chaos. Syria has no desire in the main to be a Iran vassal state, IMHO.
These paragraphs gave me pause to consider:
The problem is this: While Syria does not want to get hit and will not make overt moves, so long as the Syrians cannot guarantee supplies will not reach Hezbollah or that Hezbollah won't be given sanctuary in Syria, Israel cannot complete its mission of shattering Hezbollah and withdrawing. They could be drawn into an Iraq-like situation that they absolutely don't want. Israel is torn. On the one hand, it wants to crush Hezbollah, and that requires total isolation. On the other hand, it does not want the Syrian regime to fall. What comes after would be much worse from Israel's point of view.
This is the inherent problem built into Israel's strategy, and what gives Hezbollah some hope. If Israel does not attack Syria, Hezbollah could well survive Israel's attack by moving across the border. No matter how many roads are destroyed, Israel won't be able to prevent major Hezbollah formations moving across the border. If they do attack Syria and crush al Assad's government, Hezbollah could come out of this stronger than ever.
Many of us have been thinking of Syria as the unknown element up until know. But I never considered Assad's army failing or government falling and I wonder how realistic that is...
Iran could consider Assad expendable. Then Iran would exploit the chaos. Syria has no desire in the main to be a Iran vassal state, IMHO.
We must think alike! I just posted a message to Rob and asked to be put on his ping list for future updates, if he keeps or would consider keeping such a list.