You forgot to mention Israel's aggression on adjacent countries Lebanon and Palestine. Would Israel's constant belligerence start a war?
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/04/21/Iranian-g...
Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel. And that's what they're doing. They just launched a missile barrage, the largest ever, at Israel.
It seems that Israel is just defending its existence.
You jest. That's the centerpiece of their foreign policy.
Hamas chose Saudi Arabia's and Qatar's side on the Syrian conflict and that lead to Assad breaking relations with them.
Syria took it as a betrayal so I doubt they would do anything to help Hamas.
Israel is not bombing Syria to defend itself. Syria never had and nor will have the capability to do anything to Israel.
The reason Israel have been bombing Syria is the same reason Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, USA, UK, France, Australia and the rest of the coalition are doing it too: regime change.
They want to replace Assad with a puppet, like Hariri in Lebanon, so they can all push their own agendas in the region.
And on the other side Russia, Iran and Hezbollah jumped in Assad's rescue to counter that move.
They are ALL pushing their own interests at the expense of Syrian lives so please drop this outrageous "defending itself" narrative and admit all actors of both sides are war criminals with blood on their hands.
You're forgetting about the Six-Day War [1] and the Yom Kippur War [2]. Yes, there are controversies around those too, and Israel came out on top in the end - but let's not pretend that Israel the modern nation-state hasn't been on guard against being obliterated by its neighbors since Day 1.
But sometime seems that only Israel has the right to defend itself, even when its not on the defense but actively bombing countries with far inferior armies / allies and they have to just accept being bombed because of events 50 years ago.
Can Iraq or Syria use the recent invasions as excuse to do whatever they want for the next 50 years too?
The concept of preemptive war has always been an excuse to actually start wars.
You using something to deflect from something else doesn't mean anyone else isn't aware of the thing you use to deflect.
>Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel.
while Israel helps ISIS in Syria to destroy the country, bombed Lebanon, annexed the Golans and areas in the West Bank... you really shouldn't be digging up that dead high horse.
This is not strictly true. Words were twisted and misconstrued and reported falsely in western media of what was actually said (which I think was still reprehensible, but Iranian policy is not the annihilation of Israel)
> and what they've said they'll do when they get nukes.
Absolutely not true. For one, they would never state they are trying to build a nuclear weapon, two they know Iran would cease to exist on the map if they did.
Unless you are perhaps referring to just a random person stating as such, if so, you could can find many more examples of Israeli and US persons saying the same of Iran, but that does not make it policy of Israel and US
World War I did not start because Austria had a legitimate grievance against Serbia that it was determined to settle with military force. It started because France, Germany, and Russia were all willing, maybe even eager, to go to war and the putative Third Balkan War in as many years was an opportunity to do so. When the leaders of Germany and Russia started getting cold feet and asked about partial mobilization as an alternative option, the military commands were shocked and worked assiduously to convince them that there was no alternative to complete war. In stark contrast stands the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy and Khrushchev both ignored their military commands' pleas for war and sought to find alternatives to war.
The ingredients for global war are international disputes irreconcilable except for war; a conflict that can serve as a flashpoint to rapidly bring in these wide international disputes; and you need leaders who can continue to escalate the war, knowing all the consequences it might entail. The Middle East simply lacks strategic importance to make two major power blocs go to global war in support of their local allies in a localized conflict.
More than enough to bring the Fallout series to life.
Subsequent nuclear weapons projects in erstwhile NPT NNWS could easily trigger a few regional wars, and from there the escalation to a global conflict is certainly possible.
There are aggressive factors on all sides of that conflict and there's no clear-cut good or bad guy; only unfortunate things happening to real people who'd all be better off if religion stayed inside the walls of one's dwelling and temple of worship.
Also if in cases of contested buildings listed above, everyone had equal access to the area administered by a neutral outside party.