From an article on how Russia has just delivered a consignment of advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria. As here:
‘Although there have been growing calls for arms to be channelled to the rebel fighters in Syria, there has so far been very limited enthusiasm in the West for outright military intervention.
But there is concern that the presence of sophisticated Russian-supplied weaponry will make it much harder to agree and carry out such intervention, implement a blockade or conduct targeted airstrikes in the future . . .
. . . Israel is also concerned such weapons could fall into the hands of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which could use them to either attack Israel or defend itself against any Israeli assault.’.
The ‘concern’ is, then – at least according to the BBC – that these weapons could make it harder for the U.S. et al to attack Syria, and for Israel to attack Lebanon.
If your view is essentially that the U.S. et al and Israel have both a right and a duty to bomb Syria and Lebanon, then I suppose the ability of these states to somewhat effectively defend themselves or deter those attacks might well be a ‘concern’.
(Let me make it clear that I in no way support the arming of the Syrian regime, by Russia or anyone else. I just thought the article was useful in highlighting the BBC’s priorities and assumptions)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized
and tagged arms
. Bookmark the permalink