1986 El Al bombing leads to war with Syria

[Von Schadewald]

On April 17 1986 a Jordanian terrorist recruited by the Syrians came close to blowing up an El Al 747 over London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

It would have killed 375 mainly British Jews on board and maybe hundreds on the ground.

What would have happened if it had succeeded?

Thatcher was the UK PM, and former Irgunist Yitzhak Shamir the Israeli PM. Reagan was the US president. They would all have wanted retribution.

But could it have gone to a level beyond airstrikes all over Syria, and to an all out NATO/US/UK/Israeli war with Syria with the goal of removing Hafez el Assad?

How would Gorbachev have reacted, if at all?

The Iran-Iraq war was in full play at the time.

[Von Schadewald]

4 years earlier in their Lebanon invasion, the Israelis had shot down 80 Syrian aircraft for no losses, and taken out their AA system in Lebanon. Destroying a power station and oil refinery and plunging Damascus in to darkness might not be enough to atone for the blowing up of an El Al Jumbo over London, and the Israelis might bomb the Euphrates dam and empty out Lake Assad.

[Graniterail]

Adam Curtis in 'Hypernormalization' argued that analysts at the time linked terrorist attacks that were later blamed on Ghadaffi to Syria for the first 18 months. Supposedly ordered by Hafez Al-Assad in retaliation for a betrayal by Henry Kissinger. Regan subsequently deciding to blame and pursue Ghadaffi as Syria was too dangerous to attack as a Soviet ally in the context of the Cold War at the time. Ghadaffi going along with it as he wanted publicity to promote his 'third way theory'. Make of that what you will, there's interviews with qualified establishment people on the topic from the time covered in it.

In the wiki article linked by the OP there's an allegation by the then French president detailed where he says it was a Mossad plot. What can you say, it can't be proved or disproved but if it was then it'd have some goal in sight. Likely involving what was desired out of Lebanon, that was in conflict in that period.

If the Tabqa Dam is bombed it kills a lot of civilians as the flood pours down the Euphrates valley. Possibly even into Iraq.

I think it'd be too much for Britain/N.A.T.O to not do anything about it, but they might trying using regional proxies like Turkey or Israel.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Von Schadewald and the community as a whole. Howdy V.S.! Well sir, in respect to your introductory posting of Wednesday - March 01, 2017 - 4:58pm, it is the layman's opinion of old yours truly that Syria's Alawite President Hafez al-Assad overall intent to provoke a regional conflagration would have fallen glaringly short of its strategic mark. Given the geopolitical realities of year 1986, a Syrian inspired bombing of an El Al jumbo jet over metropolitan London is not terribly likely to be the singular catalyst that will trigger a contrived war against the Baathist regime in Damascus. Given the multitude of political unknowns that President Mikhail Gorbachev has proposed before the Twenty Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the prospect of a substantive thaw in relations with the WEST is a very distinct possibility. The quintessential concern of President Hafez al-Assad is President Mikhail Gorbachev's sweeping proposal that would ultimately come to be known as PERESTROIKA. President Hafez al-Assad cannot afford having London, Moscow and the District of Columbia on reasonably good terms and the political liberalization of Soviet Society could very well bring about such a rapprochement. Now, in the Machiavellian weltanschauung of President Hafez al-Assad, what better geopolitical wedge issue could one possibly have other than a good old fashioned conventional war of aggression - a conventional war of aggression waged by the WEST against one of the Soviet Union's premier client states. The end result would be the continuation of the COLD WAR as before, with the Soviet Union conducting business as usual with Syria - OR WOULD IT!? What President Hafez al-Assad utterly failed to anticipate was the "sheer restraint" exhibited by the leadership of the nations impacted by his not so ill disguised act of state sponsored terrorism. Despite the clarion call for swift retaliation by the United States Congress, the British Parliament and the Israeli Knesset, the "sheer restraint" exhibited by the leadership of the WEST was essentially tempered by President Mikhail Gorbachev's secret request for a reasonable breathing space to permanently address the pathological "issue" of President Hafez al-Assad once and for all. After all, President Ronald Reagan was still haunted by the deaths of 241 servicemen after the bombing of the Multinational Forces Barracks at the hands of the Islamic Jihad in Beirut, Lebanon in year 1983. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was still haunted by the losses inflicted upon the Royal Navy by the Argentinian Air Force during the Falklands Island War of year 1982. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was still VERY MUCH HAUNTED by the Israel Defense Forces inconclusive and expensive war of attrition fought in Lebanon between year 1982 and year 1985. Yes, the leadership of the WEST would go to war if they must, but not if it could be conclusively avoided. Within a few days of the horrific slaughter over London, President Mikhail Gorbachev informed President Hafez al-Assad that he would be travelling to Syria for a "council of war" with ALL of the the senior political and military figures of the Syrian Regime. The meeting place for this face-to-face encounter would be located within the secure confines of the well known and well identified Soviet Naval Facility located in the Municipality of Tartus. The commander of the Soviet Navy's Fifth Operational Squadron (Rear Admiral Vladimer Kalabin) would preside over this "council of war". The good admiral would also assure the presence of the squadron's detachment of Spetsnaz Commandos as the meetings security element. Sometime during the course of this "council of war", President Mikhail Gorbachev would excuse himself to take an important phone call from Moscow. Upon leaving the conference room, the Spetsnaz Commandos would draw their weapons and kill every last Syrian in the conference room. Rear Admiral Vladimer Kalabin would have the distinct honor of personally blowing President Hafez al-Asaad's brains out. The next day, it would be announced to the world that President Hafez al-Asaad, along with his entire entourage, were missing and presumed dead after his aircraft dropped off the radar after departing Tartus. The search of the Mediterranean Sea was still ongoing. Another regional war had been averted and the WEST had been appeased. As President Mikhail Gorbachev flew back to Moscow, he lamented to himself - IT'S A SHAME THAT WE CAN'T DO THE SAME TO THAT OTHER WORTHLESS BASTARD IN BAGHDAD. Well, that's my initial two cents or kopecks worth on this Byzantine adventure into the hypothetical - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the ever fractious Balkans.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good morning Von Schadewald,

Sidebar: PM Shamir NOT an Irgunist; was with Stern.

Ref: "What would have happened if succeeded?"

Re: "..an all out NATO/US/Israeli war...?"

Prior to looking at the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA), the London skies and the potential/pending debris fields, let's look at the overall battle area.

The 1970s oil "crisis" produced the 1980s oil glut. Oil prices declined more than a third in the 1980s and collapsed in 1986. The overall battlefield had Ollie North (White House "operative", a worker for official Admiral John Poindexter) take the "5th amendment" (a refusal to testify)before a Congressional committee working the Iran-Contra guns/money program not involving Congressional funds. The space shuttle CHALLENGER had an accident after the Cape Canaveral launch. USN intelligence analyst Johannan Pollard convicted of doing something illegal (don't believe it was espionage) involving the Israelis.

We have a pattern of "low-intensity" (This has got to be a famous oxymoron by now) events in re warfare.

Can we not say that "all out war" could not produce results ?

An all out war negates the oil industry. With the Soviet airborne divisions at the Saudi oil fields, ... well, the oil industry as it pertains to the USA (also involves the North Sea fields) means misery for the US economy. The US had emergency oil supplies....recall the Teapot Dome scandal. The place was-still is- a Naval petroleum reserve.......but more than life-style changes for the middle class involved.

I'm writing after Hindawi, Lockerbie, El Al Amsterdam crash and World Trade Center,....so can only say, all-out war was unwinnable and was avoided.

So far, we're still here along with the same problems.

To quote Reginald Denny, a victim of a US city riot: "Can't we all just get along?"


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in respect to your installment of Monday - May 28, 2018 - 10:08pm, old yours truly certainly cannot deny that year 1986 had its "tumultuous" moments. Your commentary gravitating upon the state of the international oil market and the IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR were quite apropos In light of the continuing regional bloodbath that was the Iraq-Iran conflict along with its incidental passion play that was the Tanker War in the Persian Gulf. Now, just to sate my curiosity, in the event of a significant reduction OR outright loss of Persian Gulf crude, did you also consider the actual availability of Venezuelan and Mexican crude into your informal equation as it potentially impacts the overall well being of the United States of America? I did not include the "ever ecologically minded" Canadian Confederation into this question since I was not at all familiar with the state of their OIL SANDS development in its Western Provinces in year 1986. Yes, in terms of the global reality of petroleum, the United States of America would undoubtedly be hurt but it would far from economic collapse if the entire Islamic Crescent exploded in outright war in year 1986. However, the petroleum situation for industrialized Europe and industrialized Asia would certainly be a whole different question indeed! On a purely side note, a great deal of my response to citizen Von Schadewald's topical scenario was, in fact, predicated upon the reactions of both Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan to the actual destruction of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in year 1988. There is nothing like hindsight. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this now expansive hypothetical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic over in the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good afternoon Uncle Bob,

The Tanker War is a perfect illustration for much of this. Oil governs. All else is ignored. The solicitors and the proctors in Admiralty get to write articles for esteemed legal journals....but the wise ignore these scribblings.

In the case of a cut-off or large reduction of Persian Gulf oil, there were plans.

Yes, always considered Venezuela and Mexico in the equation.

Two components are involved in working this: the goo, that is, the oil and financing of the stuff. Financing includes buying the machinery, renting the tankers, insuring the goo,.....

Ref the goo, the oil;

Venezuela has thick, tar-like oil. The US Gulf Coast refineries (Janis Joplin and Jimmy Hendrix were from this area) can refine this thick stuff. Mexico's PEMEX oil was already somewhat de facto US-controlled.

Ref the financing and related financial arrangements in re the goo;

Besides OPEC Vienna, 2 other places made "finance-type" decisions in re the goo: New York City and London. Somewhat around this time, Henry Kissinger had some involvement in cresting a futures market for oil. Two organizations involved in this were "NYMEX" the New York Mercantile Exchange and "ICE London", the Intercontinental Commodities Exchange, London. I'm omitting much.....other than to say, for example, oil exporter Saudi Arabia cannot acquire 12 B-747 AWACS on mere promissory notes. They weren't for fishery patrols around Diego Garcia.

Canada has tar sands. It requires some additional processing. Yet, the Alberta goo, and I'll add here the North Slope Alaska stuff, is still cheap WHEN COMPARED to adding the cost of a security component to acquire, pump, ship, insure (more subsidies in a war zone than [... the user public pays for this] crop insurance), refine and then distribute the life-blood of an industrial society. Those 10 oil tankers got USN protection and the USN has expensive, big-ticket costs.............and around this time China got into the market economy world trade arena.

Aforesaid is my 2 worthless petro-dollars.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, after mulling over your installment of Tuesday - May 29, 2018 - 12:27pm, old yours truly would like to convey my appreciation for your efforts to jog my now distant memory over the intricate relationships between the global producers of petroleum and the international manipulators of capital as they existed in year 1986. Yes, it is one thing to generally pump the crude out of the ground and it is quite another thing to refine the particular grade of crude that came out of the ground. Incidentally, thank you for the reminder that it is TAR SANDS and not OIL SANDS that are exploited in the Western Provinces of the Canadian Confederation. With the burgeoning of the not so ecologically sound TAR SANDS industry in the Western Provinces of the Canadian Confederation, one must wonder if the powers-that-be in Ottawa would now be amenable to extending the Alaska Pipeline across western Canada into the United States of America proper. During the decade of the 1970's, Canada rejected any idea of a transnational pipeline over "ecological concerns". Apart from the hard lesson of the Exxon Valdez Tanker disaster in Prince William Sound, one would think (rightly OR wrongly) that it be more cost effective and SECURE method of moving crude from the north slope of Alaska. Theoretically speaking, would another regional war within the Islamic Crescent add geopolitical impetus to the construction of such a pipeline extension? If anything, it would certainly create a respectable amount of employment in both Canada and the United States of America. It's just some friendly food for thought. Canadian Bacon anyone? Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this expansive topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good afternoon Uncle Bob,

The finance folks in their pin strip and broad strip suits are wearing the real battle uniforms.

I have a hunch the Canadian powers that be are resident in Toronto.

Those mentioned "ecological concerns" are concerned with price changes to previously established arrangements. Our northern neighbors have pre-existing accounts on the New York markets - and other places such as London.

North Slope crude...haven't been following recently...is only available for sale in the domestic US market. Eg Japan cannot buy it. (There are some exceptions re US crude for export.) Much of these arrangements, by coincidence, involves overall PRICING.

You're right re "efficient and SECURE". As the adage goes: "Only fools and sages make predictions". I am no sage so will use a loophole and make a -forecast-.

Like Rangoon and Mandalay, with their valuable hardwood trees and north Burma, with its strategic location (eg Ft Hertz), now returning to jungle growth, ...... I am guessing the Islamic Crescent will mimic Burma's state of being and soon will be providing housing for scorpions and sand flies.

We do live in interesting times.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA