‘Apocalyptic’ Iranians Refuse Assad’s Request to Bomb Israel

In the US and Israel, there is an obsession with Iran as this grave threat and their secret nuclear weapons program (which doesn’t exist) as Israel’s death knell. In order to believe this incredible tale, one must accept the claim that Iran’s leaders are suicidal maniacs who don’t respond to the deterrent factor that has informed every nuclear and non-nuclear state since the end of WWII.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said to Congress last year, Iran’s leaders are “apocalyptic” and would drop nuclear bombs on Israel as soon as they have the chance because they’re not scared of the inevitable retaliation.

Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival.

But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.

This ignores so much history that it’s hard to know where to start. But here’s one possible starting point:

The Times of IsraelIran reportedly refuses Assad request to hit back at Israel

Israel preemptively bombed Syria in a dangerous strike that could easily be considered an unprovoked act of war. Iran is Syria’s main ally, but Assad’s request that Iran help retaliate was faced with stiff refusal. Not only does Iran appear deterred by Israel’s (and the US’s) exponentially more capable military, but they are even restrained in cases of Israeli aggression. Never mind an unprovoked Iranian attack at their earliest opportunity to obliterate Israel – Iran won’t even retaliate when they have the opportunity.

25 thoughts on “‘Apocalyptic’ Iranians Refuse Assad’s Request to Bomb Israel”

  1. No Glaser..

    Sorry, but Assad did not ask Iran to retaliate for Syria against Israel, and Iran didn't respond by saying: "You need to take care of your business."

    "The unsourced report, on Israel’s Channel 10", as 'reported' by "The Times of Israel", lacks credibility (to put it mildly)…on top of that: the 'report' is laughable and illogical..

    I understand there is a pathological manic obsession by many to decouple what is going on in Syria now and the 'situation' surrounding Iran; however, this is impossible in reality.

    Again: Assad did not ask Iran to attack Israel–as this would be illogical for all parties involved. Who was the net 'winner' of this isolated incident: the clear answer is Assad. What could he possibly get out of Iran attacking Israel. Are you, Glaser, contending that Assad is "irrational"? Needless to say: Assad is very rational…

    Saeed Jalili, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, visited Damascus and sat with President Assad on Sunday (in front of the cameras) for a reason…and it wasn't to say: "You need to take care of your business." as the 'unsourced' Israeli Chanel 10 'report' allegedly claimed…

    Let's see how Iranian media covered the 'event':


    To reach "truth", its important to perceive things as they actually are; rather than how one may 'want them to be'….

    1. Glaser only uses articles or sources which lacks credibility. And any other sources, are ignored even when the claim is proofed or rock solid.

  2. While I don't particularly believe the Times of Israel report, either, Iran is never going to attack Israel over Syria (or Lebanon), even if the US and NATO attack Syria (and Israel attacks Lebanon), as I expect they will this year.

    Regardless of the so-called "mutual defense treaty", Iran is not going to provide the US a justification to go to war with Iran over Syria. The Iranian leadership is not that stupid.

    Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case for some Iranians posting on Web sites. They assume Iran will come to Syria's rescue, in defiance of all logic.

    Not to mention that Iran does not HAVE the capability to "destroy Israel" – a few hundred missiles (most of which would be taken out by the US if Iran ever did attack Israel) are not enough to "destroy" any nation absent nuclear warheads. Neither Israel (without using nuclear warheads) or Iran (which doesn't have any nukes) can destroy or even significantly damage the other's national infrastructure or military.

    1. i aggeee, but I still believe that "both" have prepared and Iran especialy have different planes how to inflict most dammage. And let us not forget that Israel is really "ONE BOMB COUNTRY. 5 missiles from 100 launched get through – and its Farewell Israel. But because Israel has undeclared arsenal of WMD, not many will be able to see End of Israel….peter czech

      1. iran is not going to activate its mutual defense agreement with syria over one silly and irrelevant bombing. It would take alot more than that for iran to get directly involved

    2. Richard,

      You seem to overlook the fact that Syria has brought other players into this…namely Russia. If Syria goes down, it is only logical that Iran will be next. If you're going to have to fight anyway, it's best to fight when you're strong; rather than get whittled down and fight when you're boxed into a corner.

  3. Iranians are many things, but stupid isn't one of those. Persia hasn't survived as one of the oldest civilizations by doing stupid things to bring destruction upon themselves. They are smart, canny, and have an amazing ability to play on the sharp, bloody edge of diplomatic brinksmanship with the best the world has to offer.

    If the US were smart, we'd be doing everything we could to court Iran as an ally instead of an enemy; with their clout in that part of the world and their location, they would serve as a much better geopolitical ally than Israel ever has. Powerful ally No 2 in the region (keeping Saudi Arabia, of course) with a decent military and plentiful oil reserves they'd love to sell us… 'nuff said.

  4. Israeli bombing has already been cashed in by the Iranian government in terms of a very specific public policy important gain: relaunch of Assad and the current Syrian government image as an important component of the anti_Israeli front in the eyes of Arab streets and the delegitimization of Syrian rebels as simple agents of foreign countries and collaborators of archenemy Israel. Any further Israeli/Western provocation will only increase Iranian diplomatic gain….Iranian do not have the military might of the US or Israel but they are masters of diplomatic chess.While Israelis are too busy throwing their stupid bombs, Iranians are meeting the Assad and Syrian opposition chief at once cashing in further by relaunching their international image of peace makers. Further public diplomacy gain? An increasing division inside the Syrian opposition among moderates vs extremists, peace loving vs "foreign agents" and Israeli collaborators ….do you really need further clues?

    1. I'm seeing how the attack would have been a bad move from the consequences you've listed, I'm not clear what further conclusion there'd be to make? (and further clues would be welcome!)

      1. Well, try to read all the Iranian government`s major moves against the background of its strategic goals: returning to be, if not *the* major player, at least one of the most critical ones in the ME, Central- and South-West Asia in a critical balance-counterbalance strategic game among US, Russia, India and China. From the Iranian strategic point of view, Israel and Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies are simple disturbing elements, transitional disturbances. For them Saudi Arabia is a zombie kept in life by the US only for contingent necessity while Israel, fully blinded and progressively consumed by its mix of paranoia and arrogance of military machinery– has to be simply kept "busy" till the fulfillment of its suicidal destiny. The only long term player/partner for the Iranians is Egypt…..By the way, did you just see the Iranian and Egyptian Presidents on the red-carpeted Cairo Airport earlier today? Here is the new ME *Axis of Destiny* emerging…Biden and Kerry both know this very well….Will they be able to build upon and around this knowledge?

    1. In a dangerously critical neighbourhood like the ME only an authentic diplomatic chess gamer and sharp risks-taker/calculator can survive and be the "one to smile last"…You have to trust or at least carefully watch the moves of nations/powers that have been out there in the ME for the last…25 centuries or so….do you really want me to short list them?

  5. Israel is over in Syria with the Muslim Brotherhood and the USA/NATO arming the rebels… bugging the hell out of Syria. So Assad is being pushed over the edge and I can see why he made this request.

Comments are closed.