Israel could have hit Syria

The response to the bombing of Assad was not long in coming, after the threats of Trump and the meetings between the US and France to find solutions against the Syrian regime, once again guilty of having used chemical weapons, the Syrian base in Homs is been hit by an air attack. Damascus immediately accused the Americans, but the Pentagon denied having used its military assets, despite the threats of the American president. The most probable hypothesis is that the military action was carried out by Israel, with the dual purpose of hitting Syria and its Iranian ally, which would have its own armed contingent and an arms depot in the base. The attack could also have a double preventive purpose: to discourage a too-large presence of the Iranian army or militia in a position too close to Israel and also to damage armaments that could be transferred to Lebanon to reinforce Hezbollah's Shia militias. Also according to Russia, the country that is the author of the action is Israel, but contacts are still taking place between Moscow and El Avi to prevent the Russian military from being accidently hit; in this regard, the Kremlin army spokesman said that there were no Russian victims in the action. Israel would also hit Syria to sanction it against the use of chemical weapons and to warn the Damascus regime not to attempt a similar solution against its territory. Unlike the Russians, who have kept a low profile, the Iranians have accused the Israelis of collaborating with terrorism by attacking the Syrian base, a declaration that fits into the normal dialectic between the two traditionally hostile states. It should be stressed, however, that the Syrian action took place after the summit between Russians, Iranians and Turks in which a peaceful solution was sought to the Syrian conflict: the impression is that Assad acted against the rebels, to anticipate a diplomatic solution, in fact, the intention of Damascus is to gain as much ground as possible. Assad's strategy has not changed since the beginning of the conflict, when it can strike for gains it seems to go against the interests of its allies. Even this time having provoked Israel, or at least a retaliation to the bombing with chemical weapons, seems to be in contrast with the interests of the allies, especially those of the Iranians, who were hit on this occasion because of Damascus' behavior. However, Israel's action could also be framed within the tensions that Tel Aviv has under way with Gaza; the stance of Erdogan, an ally of Syria and Iran in favor of the Palestinians could be part of the reasons for Israeli retaliation, aimed also at those who intend to influence the Palestinian protest to attempt radicalization and win it for the cause of Islamic fundamentalism. Lastly, we must remember the difficulties in the management of the Gaza Strip by the government of Tel Aviv and the repercussions on internal politics: a demonstration of force against Iran could distract the public opinion and allow to gain consensus to the executive.