Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who made the statement, said he has been involved in the offensive since the very beginning and that he fully supported it. Speaking to an Israeli TV network, Netanyahu said: “I will support the prime minister as long as he does important things for the security of Israel. I have to admit I have been involved in the process since the beginning.” It is obvious that Israel did not carry out the strike on its own and with only its own resources. The Washington Post wrote that the United States provided the Israeli forces with intelligence support before the attack. Syria allegedly established a nuclear facility in collaboration with North Korea, and Israel bombed that facility. Some assert that the recent offensive was part of a rehearsal for a more comprehensive campaign against Iran. Apparently, eight Israeli aircraft violated the Syrian border and bombed its territory, under the supposed protection of international law by virtue of the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. This alone is casus belli. In a similar case, the attacked country would have retaliated immediately, initiating a war between the parties. Afghanistan and Iraq suffered from the British and American invasions based on lame excuses while they never posed a threat to their invaders’ security. The US recently announced it may strike Iran, making reference to a probable and hypothetical attack by Iran. Syria is already under attack. Its right to retaliate is beyond debate.
But this is only part of the case. Despite the fact that the attack concerns us as well, we have not addressed it. According to the semi-reliable reports, the aircraft that bombed Syria carried out the attack through Turkey. The question that needs to be asked at this point is this -- if the reports are accurate, did the aircraft use Turkish airspace or did they depart from Turkish airports to bomb the Syrian territories? In both cases, who approved the actions in Turkey? On what grounds did the approving authorities base their endorsement? Most importantly, why they do not inform the public about the matter?
Unfortunately, these questions, the answers of which are being awaited with curiosity by the Turkish public, still remain unanswered; but the foreign press has provided some interesting details. For instance, The Washington Post wrote that the Israeli aircraft targeted a nuclear facility in the air strike and that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) might have allowed use of Turkish airspace by the Israeli forces during the campaign. Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post asserted, “Its military may have permitted Israel an overflight corridor without ever having told the Islamist civilian government.” Krauthammer attributes the strong reaction from the Turkish government to this.
Meanwhile, Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Muhammed Ali Caferi said Iran would retaliate against the countries that opened their soil to its enemies with missile attacks. Gen. Caferi said: “It is a fact that the enemy is stronger than us in the air. But we have our own strengths by which we can make the enemy’s power useless. We all witnessed the same in the Hezbollah victory over Israel last year.” Noting that the aggressors would regret their actions, Caferi asked neighboring countries not to cooperate with the “enemies of Islam.” In response to a question, Caferi also said: “A country that allows use of its territory by an aggressor in a campaign of aggression against Iran will be considered an ally of the enemy. In such a case, Iran will retaliate against this country using missiles.”
What should be inferred from that? Will Turkey have to confront a fait accompli that will draw Iran’s hostility? Who will answer these questions?
