Israel vs. Turkey: Bombs Away—How I Learned to Love the Bomb

Israel’s strike on the old Syrian airbase of Abu al-Duhur, which Turkey had planned to use, is not a routine episode in the Syrian war. It is a signal to Ankara: Israel reserves the right to veto Turkish military presence in Syria. And that changes the rules of the game.

The evolving Syria story has a similar Strangelovian logic, although it isn’t yet a nuclear confrontation. The recent bombing of an old Syrian airbase that the Turks were interested in using for their purposes speaks louder than words.

The progression is roughly:

Israel bombs Syria → because of Turkey. Turkey is a NATO member → Washington calls it an unnecessary escalation → everyone now has to establish mechanisms to prevent the parties from fighting one another.

And now Trump talks of the US withdrawing from NATO, so is there some nexus, and does this somehow all make sense?

That’s where the Dr Strangelove analogy becomes useful. The danger isn’t merely the individual bomb or the fate of some airstrip. It is the possibility that the machinery designed to manage conflict begins producing new conflict.

“Bombs Away is not the same as Ride ’em Cowboy”

“Ride ’em, cowboy” evokes swagger, bravado, and the romanticized mythology of American military power. “Bombs away,” by contrast, is the moment when the machinery actually goes into motion. Once the bombs are away, political rhetoric has to catch up with physical reality and the Greater Israel scheme, which is backed by the US.

In Kubrick’s film, the terrifying thing is not that one madman wants nuclear war. It is that an entire system can make catastrophe appear rational.

Israel isn’t simply attacking another Syrian target. It is upsetting the applecart. If my reading of the event is correct, it is sending a message to Ankara: your military presence in Syria has limits, and Israel reserves the right to enforce them.

But Turkey isn’t some militia that has to absorb a warning strike without........

© New Eastern Outlook