Hyopthetical Israel/Syria war

Originally Posted by googeler

The terrain in Southern Lebanon is completely different than th road to Damascus. You have lots of hilltops with villages and valleys with dense bushes, trees and natural caves.
On the other hand from the Golan heights to Damascus is only a flat, hard plain (=tank territory)

It will be a good test for the AT-14 Kornet as well. Since it has a range of 3.5 km, the missile crew can launch it at its furthest range. At that distance, the missile crew is nearly invisible.

Originally Posted by coolieno99

It will be a good test for the AT-14 Kornet as well. Since it has a range of 3.5 km, the missile crew can launch it at its furthest range. At that distance, the missile crew is nearly invisible.

Quite true. I think the Syrians have around a thousand or more Kornets in their arsenal.

IMO from Syria's point of view, it may be impossible for them to defend Damascus from Israeli invasion (in event of Israeli-Syrian war) due to close proximity of Damascus to Israel (see Syria map for refernece). So the survival of the Syrian government should not depend on Damascus.

Syria is not a small country like Lebanon, and has vast territory behind Damascus that they could retreat into. The Israeli military may have better jets and tanks, but on the ground as an occupation force, they're going to get shot at and blown up daily (see: Iraq). Also, although Syrian military is not as advanced, they do have weapons in large quantities.

Israel is a small country with 1/3rd the population of Syria. In war they'd have to call people away from their daily lives to serve in the military. To conquer and occupy most of Syria, with its hostile population, would put huge strains on Israel. It's not just the cost, but also the most productive young people are taken away from the economy and put in uniform to get shot at.

At best, I think the Israeli can hope to destroy Syria's military assets, impose a "buffer zone", and go home.

When the British drew Palestine-Syrian border initially, they purposely placed Palestine territory to occupy both sides of water sources (rivers, lakes, watersheds). The purpose is simple, no water, no people. When Israel conquered the Golan Heights, it gave them access to major water source and immediately expelled its residents and sent in Jewish colonizers.

Syria's loss of the territory is partially due to the fact that the Golan Heights had low population density. Had Syria put 1 million population in the area, instead of 80,000, the Israelis wouldn't have been able to expell its inhabitants so easily and colonize it (this is also how China lost Outer Manchuria).

From Syria's long-term point of view, I think instead of military buildup, it may be better to urbanize the border area and transplant a lot of people there, to apply pressure on the Golan heights area, as well as sucking up as much water as possible via wells or tapping water sources upstream, and actively reduce the amount of water made avail to Israel, then spraw over the LoC with squatters. If Israel opt to intervene militarily, then the area can be turned into another "Gaza Strip" where Israel can invade, but cannot afford to occupy over time, at great cost to the Israeli government.

Many of the olden days methods of subduing a hostile population after invasion - such as burning cities, taking sons and daughts as ransom etc are no longer a credible policy - for this reason conquoring countries is much costlier in terms of committed troops than it was in past times - Alexander the Great wouldn't be quite so successful today, lol. But it's a serious point borne out by the US in Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan (although they were quite brutal) etc.

So a likely Israeli strategy in a war then would be to basically "flatten" Syria's known military assets, probably from the air, and withdraw to a safe border? With Syria's presumably weak air defenses, this is something Israel could probably accomplish - demolition of many fixed structures. But they would risk Syrian missile attack onto Israeli populated areas, which could cause more damage than Hizbollah did.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I think Syria learned its lesson from the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. They aren't going to attack Israel. They would probably try to fight similarly to how Hezbollah has, hitting cities with rockets and missles, targeting tanks with ATGMs and trying to draw the Israelis in and then harass and cut them off. Of course, Syria has tanks, planes and other nice toys that Hezbollah doesn't have so they would be able to hit Israel with more firepower. But if Israel wanted to bomb the Syrians back to the Abbasid Caliphate, they could. And if they wanted to punch through and take Damascus, they could. I doubt that Israel would try to force reigme change though, as any reigme that replaced the Assads would be Islamic and more hostile to Israel, not pro-western.

I agree. I think many of the arab and in general lesser armed leaders of the world are going to learn from Hezbolla's tactics against a larger well armed/funded army. Also, Assads government itself squashes more Islamic orientated parties in his country. And rightly so, a regime change may bring in someone more passionate, competent and also more religiously inclined(as had happened after the Israel's Mosad took out the last Hezbolla leader!)

Everyone, including myself, has forgotten something. Any Israel-Syria war would in reality probably be an Israel-Syria/Iran War.

Surplus
For this to happpen the IDF must have massive USA aid in arms. I have run this threw several times in my head and come up with only one conclusion. Forget about the IDF, the USN takes out Syria.
The IDF could most likely do it-but if it came to that-its go for broke. Iran would be next on the target list with the IDF and USN with a few B-2s rown in.

USN has no B-2, to my recall those are attached to USAF. Also single naval aviation power how strong it may be cannot "take out" any nation, not Syria nor Iran. If you mean airbombings in general you still cannot state the above.

Yes, I agree Syria will inevitably be dragged into open conflict next. Remember what happened at that summit when Bush and Blair were talking and they left the microphone on. Bush said, "All Syria has to do is get Hezbollah to stop this shit and it's all over." This was August 15. Even then, to Bush, Syria was neck deep in the fight. After Israel licks its wounds, I don't doubt that it and USA will look for the quickest way possible to take down Syria. They see Syria as the root of the Hezbollah problem. Then again, you gotta count in Iran too, Iran knows that (1) if Syria goes down, they are next, (2) things are going their way in Iraq -- giving them leverage. So, we are certainly in the interlude between major conflicts. The next one will involve Syria and Iraq.

Two questions remain outstanding. First is the timing. I think this could be anywhere from 2007 to 2010. If earlier, it may be a economic sanctions followed by quick strike. It is unlikely that this will cripple the Iranian nuclear bomb. If later, it may be a ground invasion of Syria first, then Iran. Another question is the role of the major powers. We know that Russia has signed a contract with Syria for a naval base in Tatarus to move its Black Sea Fleet to. We also know that Russia expects great economic gains from nuclear assistance to Iran.

Okay, let's state new parameters for the thread then. Perhaps open a new one if necessary.

What if the U.S. and Israel decide that the war on terror must be expanded to Iran and Syria? (Even if they just choose to involve Syria they will likely end up facing Iran anyway.) Perhaps this is after a major terrorist attack or escalation in Hizbollah activities.

What would U.S. and Israeli goals in Iran be? Regime change? Securing oil sites? Destruction of Iran's nuclear program? What about Syria in this instance?

How could the US be so foolish as to attack Iran? I don't doubt that it is a possibilty, but I think that (and fervently hope) the US realizes that military strikes on Iran and Syria are not a feasible option in the long run. I personally would prefer to let Iran have its bomb and deal with it, rather than get dragged into another war far larger than Iraq and with far greater consequences. I would go as far to say that a war with Iran would be the downfall of US superpower-dom, and with it much world stability.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

How could the US be so foolish as to attack Iran? I don't doubt that it is a possibilty, but I think that (and fervently hope) the US realizes that military strikes on Iran and Syria are not a feasible option in the long run. I personally would prefer to let Iran have its bomb and deal with it, rather than get dragged into another war far larger than Iraq and with far greater consequences. I would go as far to say that a war with Iran would be the downfall of US superpower-dom, and with it much world stability.

Finn, I believe the US policy is that a nuclear weapons-armed Iran is unacceptable, and they'd take whatever military means to make sure it doesn't happen.

The Iranians understand this and want to drag US & UN toward the negotiations table, so they can drag this out and hopefully get some benefit in exchange for "halting" their nuclear activities, then revive them at later time for another round of negotiations. However I think this tactic is already used by the N. Koreans and the US is not receptive to it anymore.