Interesting to be sure, but I have to think the Arabs realize they can’t force a decision militarily. They have a much greater chance of getting what they want through political and PR means.
I think Syria still hasn’t got most of it’s new equipment from Russia, and what they’re getting is mostly defensive anyways. That mentions nothing of the training they’d need. They haven’t conducted any big exercises recently, have they? Furthermore, didn’t Olmert express willingness to negotiate for the Golan Heights recently? The Syrians are pretty vulnerable right now and I don’t expect them to do anything.
Jordan probably has the best Arab military, but, apart from their treaty with Israel, they’ve shown diminishing effectiveness in their fights with Israel (they were best in ‘48 and got increasingly worse). I can’t see them trying anything.
Egypt has the best large Arab military, but they aren’t going to do anything and endanger ties with the U.S.
The only nation I can see at all attacking Israel is Syria, and they obviously are in no shape to do so.
Hamas and Fatah might try something, but they have no ability whatsoever to project what little power they have. Hezbollah isn’t going to go on some offensive either.
Sounds like the Palis’ wish of no Israelis is just more wishful thinking on their part, like their ridiculous “right of return” idea. Although it is interesting that they do seem to be anticipating something.
Syria touches Israel and the US invades it from the east while pummeling it from the air. A joint Israeli-US-British ground attack on Damascus ends the war within a week, and Bashr Assad faces trial one year later.
Syrian or Palestinian military readiness is not a factor with this scenario.
Too simplistic. Based on past history, they have good reason to believe that military action will force a favorable political result.
But there's more to it than that -- you're operating from conventional logic, whereas that may not apply in this case. You probably need to figure in the militant Islam angle, which is not particularly rational, but is very dynamic.
Syria's motivation to attack would be twofold: first, and probably foremost, is Bashir Assad. He's weak, but wants to be a strongman like his father. Second, Syria is in many respects an Iranian vassal.
I suspect that Iran is de facto calling the shots for the Arabs in the region, and their motivations are at least partly governed by Ahneedajihad's apocalyptic religious beliefs.
Now suppose that Syria really did get Saddam's WMDs. First, Iranian missiles (perhaps tipped by the nukes nobody thinks they have) can supposedly reach Israel. Follow them up with a barrage of chemical weapons from the Syrians... it'd go a long way toward satisfying the ideological goal of destroying Israel.
I seriously doubt that either Egypt or Jordan plan to play in such an attack. They'd probably remain neutral -- I doubt they'd aid Israel directly, but I also doubt they'd attack her.
Which brings us, finally, to Israel. They are a serious nuclear power. An attack such as I described would almost certainly result in the glassification of Amman, Tehran, and a few other locations.
Perhaps the Syrians and Iranians are counting on such a response, as a spur to the rest of the Islamic world for launching a religious war.
Those musings seem to assume that the Jiadi’s et al
are . . .
rational.