Both Iran and Syria are ramping up the rhetoric this morning, not-so-subtly threatening Israel over its attack within Syria's borders on Wednesday. The Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon said today that his regime has "the option and the surprise to retaliate" after claiming that Israel struck a military research facility near Syria's border with Lebanon. Iran was a little more cagey, saying through their state news agency that it will have "serious consequences for Tel Aviv." Another Iranian officials was quoted even before the attack as saying that an attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Iran itself.

Israeli move yesterday complicates the Syrian matter tremendously, but it was a risk they felt they obviously needed to take to prevent ... something. No one is even sure what exactly they were striking at or what they feared it meant for them, but they don't take matters of weaponry and potential attacks lightly. It also provides an opening for Syria's few allies to lash out at them, even if its only in the press. While Iran has avoided directly inserting itself into the Syrian conflict and is unlikely to take its own action against Israeli, it can certainly unleash havoc though its local clients, like Hezbollah. Yet, for Israel, a nation that considers itself under threat at all times anyway, what's one more angry statement about "retaliation"?

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at dbennett at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
Dashiell Bennett