Some 'American intelligence analysts' want Hezbullah to get sophisticated weapons

On Thursday, I blogged a New York Times story about an alleged Israeli strike on Russian Yakhont land-to-sea missiles possessed by Syria, which included the following.

While the warehouse was destroyed, American intelligence analysts have now concluded that at least some of the Yakhont missiles had been removed from their launchers and moved from the warehouse before the attack.

The officials who described the new assessment declined to be identified because they were discussing classified information. 

I then skipped the American assessment that Israel would attack again (which seemed obvious in light of the two paragraphs above) and went on (eventually) to this:

The July 5 attack near Latakia was the fourth known Israeli airstrike in Syria this year.

Providing new details, American officials said that it had been carried out by Israeli aircraft that flew over the eastern Mediterranean, fired air-to-ground missiles and never entered Syrian airspace. The route of the Israeli aircraft led to some erroneous reports that the attack had been carried out by an Israeli submarine.

 Israeli experts are once again going ballistic over what the Times published.

“The mere fact that such leaks happen often indicates that the Pentagon leadership does not have Israel’s interests at heart,” Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, told The Jerusalem Post. “It is difficult to assess the motivation of such leaks.”

Inbar listed several possible motives, including the wish to prevent future Israeli action.
Other possibilities include an attempt by Pentagon sources to embarrass US President Barack Obama, by pointing out the “ease” with which Israel allegedly operates in Syria at a time that the White House says US intervention is too complex and risky.

Alternatively, the leaks might stem from an effort to deter Russia from transferring advanced weapons to Syria.

Other possible motives include sending a signal to Saudi Arabia and Turkey that a US ally is harming Assad, or maintaining a good relationship between the Pentagon sources and the media, Inbar stated.

“What is clear is that they do not come from elements friendly to Israel, because Israel’s preferred modus operandi is low profile. [This is] intended to allow Assad to refrain from reacting,” he added.

The most pro-Israel administration evah?