But first, before we get to the crux of this post. Don't miss the first two posts for today. The fit like glove to hand to one another and are both worth checking out. If they weren't they would not be here!
1. William Engdahl- Doomsday Food and the Business of Eugenics
2. Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Now onto the main feature!
Below is a follow up piece to the sudden admission by Ambassador Oren. Covered in yesterday's post Ambassador Oren: Israel has wanted Assad ousted since BEFORE Syria war began
Why the sudden candidness on the part of Israel, when they have always played it shy?
That Israel has chosen to publicly come out against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad just when he and his Russian and Iranian allies seemed to have scored a major victory suggests that there is a lot more to the drama than meets the eye. (Isn't there always?)
Whether a new grand initiative, perhaps on Iran, is in the making, or the Syrian crisis is nearing another major unexpected twist, is hard to tell, but the recent interview of the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in the Jerusalem Post brought up both of these possibilities.
There are several odd things in this statement: it came after many months of silence from the Israeli government, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reprimanding on occasion ministers who would break rank and speak out against Assad. It came from a diplomat rather than a politician - albeit a diplomat who is believed to be very close to the prime minister. And most importantly, it came at a time when Assad is widely perceived to be making progress in the bloody civil war. (That is not a civil war)
That the Russian-American agreement preventing a US military attack in exchange for a somewhat unrealistic commitment (?) from Syria to give up its chemical weapons has bolstered Assad in the short term is evident from the fact that the Syrian army resumed with full force its conventional offensive against rebel positions near Damascus the moment the threat of Tomahawk missiles flying in had dissipated.
Amid a heavy fog of war, some versions of the story go as far as to claim that a military operation had been nipped in the bud by the Syrians and the Russians. Various unconfirmed speculations suggest that cruise missiles or even American aircraft had been shot down near Syria's borders, while more credible reports claim that a significant foreign-sponsored rebel offensive launched from Jordan turned into a disaster and was beaten back with heavy losses. ( I seem to recall this episode? And think Ziad at Syper may have covered this also)
"This was a well-trained and equipped force meant to eventually reach Damascus and overthrow the regime," a Western diplomatic source told the World Tribune earlier this month (bits and pieces about the rebel debacle came out in regional media as well).
"Instead, the rebels crossed the Jordanian border and within hours were on the run." 
In other words, all of a sudden Israel appeared to throw its weight behind the losing side in the Syrian civil war. On the other hand, I have written previously in these pages (see Syria attack stuck in fog-shrouded limbo , Asia Times Online, September 11, 2013) that the US-Russian agreement could increase the chance of a Western military intervention in Syria down the road, and the Israeli government usually has advance notice on such developments.
Alternatively, there are some indications of a grand bargain shaping up between the US and Iran, and Israel may be trying to present itself as a victim of American timidity in Syria in order to force the hand of US (Israel as a victim, very typical, very,very typical mind control meme)President Barack Obama to come down harder on the Islamic Republic. Reports that the new Iranian president, Hassan Rohani, may be willing to shut down the heavily fortified uranium enrichment site at Fordow  back this hypothesis.
In fact, the prevailing wisdom among analysts is that the Syrian civil war and the Iranian nuclear program would be closely linked in any US-Iranian negotiations. Israel is well aware of this linkage, and may be trying to use it to its advantage.
According to Israeli analyst Avi Shilon,
The strategic objective is ... to carry out in Iran what will happen in Syria. Because it's clear to everyone that Iran's nuclear program, like the chemical weapons in Syria, cannot be destroyed completely in a military attack. The disarmament agreement in Syria produces a result more effective than any bomb - even if it is not implemented in its entirety. Netanyahu is now at the peak of implementing his strategy - precisely because of the reasons that ostensibly prove that it is weakening. There are certainly significant risks for both Israelis and Americans in this strategy, not least because Iran may choose to heat the situation in Syria up in order to drive a harder bargain over its nuclear program.
It doesn't help that, according to some analysts such as the US-based firm Stratfor, a US military intervention in Syria (likely to turn into another quagmire) may in fact serve Iran's longer-term interests:
Unlike Syria's Arab neighbors, which want stability in the region, Iran welcomes disruption. It is reasonably secure internally, and it knows its spheres of influence may weaken but ultimately will not dissolve. Strategists also believe that having lived under sanctions for decades, Iran has grown accustomed to suffering. So while chaos in Syria would threaten inherently weak Arab states, it would not affect Iran quite as much. Tehran could then exploit Arab chaos to its advantage. But for now, amid continued bickering at the United Nations Security Council about who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria and what threats to include in the upcoming resolution addressing the crisis, diplomacy is the order of the day.
The long-expected report by the UN chemical weapons experts, which was finally released on Monday, confirmed that sarin had been used in the August 21 attack on Damascus suburbs, but omitted a few important details, and included a few important disclaimers. It did not, for example, explicitly blame the government for the gas attack.
"What I'm not seeing is any explicit technical description of what biological analyses were performed...," he said in an email. "The report has also been very careful not to attribute origin - I've seen no commentary on the Cyrillic lettering found on one of the shells...!"
The fine print of the methodology descriptions also raises some eyebrows. What comes out is that the inspectors were under tremendous time pressure and had to rely on the rebels for interview subjects and access to sites. "During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated," the report clearly states.
I pointed out these exact problems to readers here when I posted the so called (smoking gun) UN report UN Report regarding Chemical attack at Ghouta
Quoting from the report:
Pg 18- The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been very well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.
There were also chain of command issues. And relying on the rebels for interview subjects? ( I did not mention this aspect, but, wondered if this were the case?)
In closing, we have to ask what game Israel is playing by showing their true face to the world. Is Israel hoping to up their usual victim game, to coerce the US into playing hardball with Iran?
We shall see?