An interesting analysis, and speculation. Whatever it was, the silence from all quarters does indeed indicate that it was very big:

Apart from averting the threat that was developing at Dayr as Zawr, Israel’s strategic position has been strengthened by the raid. Firstly, it has — as Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel’s military intelligence, noted — ‘restored its deterrence’, which was damaged by its inept handling of the war in the Lebanon last year. Secondly, it has reminded Damascus that Israel knows what it is up to and is capable of striking anywhere within its territory.

Equally, Iran has been put on notice that Israel will not tolerate any nuclear threat. Washington, too, has been reminded that Israel’s intelligence is often a better guide than its own in the region, a crucial point given the divisions between the Israeli and American intelligence assessments about the development of the Iranian bomb. Hezbollah, the Iranian/Syrian proxy force, has also been put on notice that the air-defence system it boasted would alter the strategic balance in the region is impotent in the face of Israeli technology.

I suspect that this is good news for the good guys. Another benefit not mentioned, but that I've noted previously, is that it no doubt significantly depreciated the value of Russian armament on the terrorist market.

as Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel’s military intelligence, noted — ‘restored its deterrence’, which was damaged by its inept handling of the war in the Lebanon last year.

" Won't help. The Israeli vulnerability has been demonstrated twice
that in close the israeli firepower advantage is not
effective"

" Won't help. The Israeli vulnerability has been demonstrated twice
that in close the israeli firepower advantage is not
effective"

Two things. First, we have yet another example of the "won't help" meme, that is some tool or strategy "won't help" because it's not used for doing a particular task. Somehow, the term "help" is being twisted into "do the job for you". Even if you're having trouble with close range fighting, your fire power can be brough to bear on their supply lines. Or your fancy equipment can be used to recon or isolate those troublesome enemy positions.

Second, if an advanced fighting force like Israel is fighting at close range against an enemy like Hamas who has more primitive weapons and infrastructure, then it's the fault of Israel. They chose to fight in a way that favors Hamas, then they pay the price.

What is interesting is that Dayr az Zawr was also reported as the destination for a number of truck convoys from Iraq just before the war…

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007645.php

What is interesting is that Dayr az Zawr was also reported as the destination for a number of truck convoys from Iraq just before the war.

Nothing at all interesting about that. It's just pure coincidence. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Was there supposed to be a link on the words "interesting analysis"?

Yes, sorry. Fixed now.

Why would this depreciate the value of Russian armaments? At most, it demonstrates that their surface-to-air missiles are not extremely effective. But that could also be disputed--the Syrians could have been vulnerable to a surprise attack, but their SAM system might be more effective if they are at full alert; remember that very old Russian SA-5 SAMs shot down a stealth fighter in 1999. Maybe the Israelis got lucky this time.

But a year ago we saw the effectiveness of other Russian armament, particularly all those short range missiles and also their anti-tank missiles. Those are the kinds of weapons used by terrorists, not the SAMs that failed Syria.

And if North Korea really was involved, why the heck are we negotiating with them on their other nukes? If they're proliferating nuclear technology, why aren't we attacking them?

Kevin, if that Russian military hardware was any good, it'd've warned the Syrians and possibly allowed them to halt the airstrike, possibly even shoot down some of the Israeli jets. That's, presumably, what the Syrians paid lots of money for. If it couldn't do the job, then it wasn't worth what the Syrians paid for it.

Is it the lack of effectiveness of the weapons, or are the operators not up to the task?

Is it the lack of effectiveness of the weapons, or are the operators not up to the task?

It doesn't matter. Either way, the weapons are useless to countries like Syria (and probably Iran as well).

"if that Russian military hardware was any good, it'd've warned the Syrians and possibly allowed them to halt the airstrike, possibly even shoot down some of the Israeli jets."

My point was that there's a difference between a surprise attack and a wartime situation, and it is possible that the Syrian early warning net was not working--that does not automatically negate their local defenses. The fact that the Israelis struck successfully does not mean that _all_ of the Russian hardware stinks. At the very least, the Russians will argue that the Syrians were incompetent.

It's best if you can win without fighting. But if you have to fight, the best kind of victory is a surprise attack that destroys your enemy's capability at one stroke, and demoralizes him, with minimal costs to your side. The idea is to hit so hard that your enemy collapses and you avoid creating a "wartime situation" in the first place. And that is what the Israelis appear to have done. It's ridiculous to suggest that the Israeli victory is lessened because the Israelis exploited Syrian weaknesses. That is precisely what they should have done, and it implies that they learned well, at least militarily, from their mistakes in Lebanon last year.

It doesn't matter how Russia spins the Syrian defeat. What Russia's potential customers are going to remember is that a Russian client was defeated.

This was a huge victory for our side.

USMC "rules" of engagement:
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
I've also heard this as: If you find yourself in a fair fight, your failed to plan properly.

@Jonathan

That's a great description, and a keeper. The silence from the much vaunted 'Arab Street' is deafening. They (the Syrians, and by implication, the Russians) really took it in the shorts this time.

Pure speculation here based on a comment at the Spectator site: did that B52 laden with nukes have anything to do with this? I would have thought not, in that I'm sure American forces in the region would have a choice of weapons to choose from, so why one solitary B52 all the way from CONUS?

I'm sure that this is one of those stories that, in time, will turn out to have huge ramifications.

Strategy Page had some interesting comments on this event as well.

Good News, no matter how you slice it. That's probably also why the MSM seems fairly quiet on the whole event.

This wasn't just ANY Russian defense system, this was their top-of-the-line-beats-everything superSAM system which they have been pitching to just about any tyranny worried about American or Israeli strike aircraft. As for as air defense systems, if they couldn't detect the Israelis (who used F-15Is carrying lots of unstealthy external fuel-tanks and bombs in their trip outwards), then these systems aren't going to do much good about the (more stealthy) American strike aircraft (the F-15E isn't much stealthier than the F-15I, but there are some advantages, and the F-22s and upcoming F-35s are VERY stealthy) that these miscreants need to worry about. From the Russian point of view, this is about as big a black eye as you can get.

"so why one solitary B52 all the way from CONUS?"

Huh? The B-52 was _in_ the United States. I don't see how one spins that incredible screwup in US nuclear security into a conspiracy theory involving this Syrian attack. The US flight occurred on August 30, the Israeli attack on Syria occurred on September 6. Was time travel also involved?

As for the claims that "this is a black eye for the Russians," the lack of photographs or proof that anything happened helps to blunt those claims.

I guess the idea is to spin the missing nukes story into some scenario where the nukes get used on someone in the Middle East. That the Israeli raid occured a week later is convenient for the theory since they can claim the raid was a replacement for whatever was to happen with the nukes.

"remember that very old Russian SA-5 SAMs shot down a stealth fighter in 1999.
Posted by Kevin Tygher at October 8, 2007 07:05 AM

Well the reason why a F-117 was shot down in the Kosovo campaign was because we became arrogant and complacent. We over estimated the Stealth fighters capabilities and stopped changing the inbound flight paths to penetrate enemy airspace. The Stealth fighter is not 100% stealthy to a radar. Instead it flickers like a diamond held up to a light. It is hoped that this flickering will become lost in the background noise of the radar operators screen. However, if the operator keeps seeing the same noise at the same place at the same time then it doesn't take a genius to figure that something might actually be there and now you have something you can steer a missile towards.

During Lebanon the Israels suffered from the results of unintended consequences. Normally when engaging in a ground campaign armor works in coordination of ground troops. I imagine the decision was to hold back infantry to reduce casualties. There was too much faith in the protection of the Merkava tanks against Hezbollah's perceived capabilities. So casualties were suffered as a result of Israel's poor use of force protection and MI. If better estimations of Hezbollah's weaponry were made then I doubt commanders would have allowed any of the older generations of Merkava tanks to enter into conflict because they were aware of the MkIII and MKII vulnerabilities against dual warheads. Crews in the latest MkIV were able to take hits and not suffer any deaths.

My theory is that the Russian radar had a back roor IFF code and the Russians gave it to Israel.

IMO the Russians have been playing a double game in the ME for quite a few years.

I agree with M. Simon - why not get paid twice? Why pick a side - especially the side most likely to lose in a conflict?

Sell to both sides. Create the problem for the rich country by selling weapons to their enemies. Then get paid to solve that problem by giving them the keys...

Why would the Russians (with a virulently anti-semitc military and policy establishment) sell IFF codes to a JEWISH state? More to the point, why would the Russians cast doubt upon (at best) or discredit (at worst) the value of one of their biggest exports (SAM systems) for anything less than a huge amount of money?

The tinfoil seems to be getting a bit tight boys...loosen up and let your head breathe...

Josh ignores the strategic quagmire Israel hit in lebanon in 1984.
IED's, Mine's, Traps, they were reduced at the end to
recon under fire. Driving through Shiite villages spraying
machine gun fire to both sides.

Now that's a statement of a failed occupation.