Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sunday said:

I am not sure of the side Israel was on the ISIS thing. I know Israel has provided weapons to Turkey, for instance, and Erdogan is on ISIS side. Could be a case of the enemy of my enemy Iran, is worthy of support.

They helped moderate headchoppers more directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, sunday said:

I am not sure of the side Israel was on the ISIS thing. I know Israel has provided weapons to Turkey, for instance, and Erdogan is on ISIS side. Could be a case of the enemy of my enemy Iran, is worthy of support.

Are you aware of the concept of timelines? 

America's sale of weapons to Germany is not equal to supporting Nazism. Its sale of weapons to Belgium is not equal to supporting its atrocities in Congo. 

Just because Israel sold weapons to Turkey throughout the 90's to early 2000's period, does not mean it supports a terrorist group that emerged in 2014.

In the same breath, if you accuse Israel of supporting ISIS, you might as well accuse the US, UK, Russia, Iraq, and Syria of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK Israel never supplied ISIS directly or indirectly, but did supply "moderate headcutters" (which included rebranded Al Qaida), just like US and more then few other countries did. While Israeli contribution to that particular jihadist branch was smaller than that provided by US, UAE, Qatar and Turkey, it was still there.

As for supplying ISIS, at least one of the countries you noted above did so, through the multiple intermediaries. Guess which one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In the same breath, if you accuse Israel of supporting ISIS, you might as well accuse the US, UK, Russia, Iraq, and Syria of that.

Were I accusing Israel of supporting Daesh, I would be leaving Russia, and Syria out of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bojan said:

AFAIK Israel never supplied ISIS directly or indirectly, but did supply "moderate headcutters" (which included rebranded Al Qaida), just like US and more then few other countries did. While Israeli contribution to that particular jihadist branch was smaller than that provided by US, UAE, Qatar and Turkey, it was still there.

As for supplying ISIS, at least one of the countries you noted above did so, through the multiple intermediaries. Guess which one?

Fursan al Julan is a small force of several hundreds whose function was to secure a small plot of land to avoid having Al Qaeda, ISIS, or Hezbollah, from gaining access to the area. AFAIK, it did not see any substantial fighting, but did join the SAA for a clearing operation later on against ISIS and Al Qaeda, when the SAA was close enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not talking about those, I am talking about earlier (don't remember year ATM), when ex-Israeli weapons found their way to Nusra & Co.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bojan said:

I am not talking about those, I am talking about earlier (don't remember year ATM), when ex-Israeli weapons found their way to Nusra & Co.

It's definitely possible, but not necessarily a direct transfer.

Israel used to supply the South Lebanon Army with large quantities of weapons, even fighting vehicles. These were later captured by Hezbollah when the IDF withdrew from Lebanon and had the SLA transferred to Israel with citizenships and all.

Hezbollah was known to fight extensively in Syria, and it does have a shortage of money to buy ammunition. So it would not surprise me to see Nusra using Israeli weapons.

 

Additionally, Fursan al Julan was a local militia that hardly could match Nusra on a 1 on 1 basis, because Nusra likely had more resources for better training. I also think it's likely Nusra captured weapons from them, and it's known Fursan al Julan bordered both Nusra and ISIS forces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's definitely possible, but not necessarily a direct transfer.

Well, it was obviously not a direct transfer, it was done via proxies that then "surrendered" those weapons to Nusra&Co and... joined them. IOW perfect deniability for a "common people".

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bojan said:

Well, it was obviously not a direct transfer, it was done via proxies that then "surrendered" those weapons to Nusra&Co and... joined them. IOW perfect deniability for a "common people".

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, there isn't any interest for Israel to aid Nusra in any way, especially when Nusra are considered an active threat for Israel's strategic border outposts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bojan said:

I am not talking about those, I am talking about earlier (don't remember year ATM), when ex-Israeli weapons found their way to Nusra & Co.

I am reading "Syrian Jihad" right now, the author estimated that there has been roughly 1500 groups of all types on the opposition side and they have popped up, folded, wiped out and been absorbed by larger groups. It's very likely that stuff was supplied to one group, then taken over by force or voluntarily by another group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Houthis are no longer terrorists, says Biden:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-moves-to-revoke-terrorist-designation-for-yemens-iranian-backed-houthis/

Macron believes Israel and KSA, the two parties most harmed by the JCPOA, need to be included in the new agreement with Iran. No shit sherlock:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/french-pm-israel-saudis-must-be-involved-in-new-talks-on-iran-nuclear-deal/

The Europeans are cooking up something against Iran. I don't know what it is, but I can assure you it will be strongly worded:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-iran-talks-us-uk-france-and-germany-agree-to-revive-transatlantic-ties/

The usual, IAEA finds even more Iranian violations during inspection:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iaea-inspectors-in-iran-said-to-find-evidence-of-possible-nuclear-weapons-work/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Date 12.02.2021

Iran’s nuclear non-compliance risks deal, warn UK, France, Germany

Germany, France and the UK condemned Iran's uranium production, hoping that Tehran and Washington could return to the nuclear deal negotiations.

Amid hopes to revitalize the nuclear accord with Iran, Germany, France and the United Kingdom said Iran was risking it by breaching the commitments it accepted in 2015.

Previously, a UN agency confirmed that Iran was violating the deal by producing uranium metal. The three European powers want to see Iran and the United States take part in new talks over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"In escalating its non-compliance, Iran is undermining the opportunity for renewed diplomacy to fully realize the objectives of the JCPOA," they said in a joint letter.

The German Foreign Ministry said on Twitter that the three countries believed that Iran had "no credible civilian justification" to produce uranium metal. 

Iran recently said that the European Union could mediate in its the conflict with the US over the deal.

Lifting sanctions or compliance: Which comes first? 

The United States and Iran had signaled their interest in reviving the JCPOA after Joe Biden took office in the White House in January. However, the two countries clash on preconditions that would allow them to go back to the negotiations table. 

Iran demands that the US lift the sanctions it imposed on Tehran. However, Washington wants Iran to first comply with the deal, which means reducing its uranium production to the agreed cap of 3.67%. 

On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said on Twitter that the US was the one to withdraw from the deal, and therefore it must first return. 

Tehran stopped complying with its commitments in the deal after former US President Donald Trump pulled out from the JCPOA in 2018. 

https://www.dw.com/en/irans-nuclear-non-compliance-risks-deal-warn-uk-france-germany/a-56552675

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Makes sense. Some people find comfort in the old and known when faced with a gamble of all or nothing.

But there's no indication this type of thinking prevails in Israeli defense circles.

This is also a recurring theme, that calls are made to return to a state of painful compromise, by people whose common denominator is the word "former". And my theory is these former position holders have made their decisions during their service/terms based on the events they witnessed, and disagree with their current replacements because they can't see what's happening right now.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see what the alternative is outside an Israeli military campaign. But I think we'll end up at that point anyway, since both sides seem to be hinging their cooperation on the other one returning to the deal first. I'm not sure how Israel will view JCPOA once it is committed to an Iranian bombing campaign by itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...