After thinking on it, you are right about one thing Rick. What this is likely about, is Israel getting their knickers in a knot about Hezbollah, who are working alongside Syria, Iran and Russia (at the behest I believe largely of Russia who got many different groups together talking at the table). However, I do not believe Iran launched a drone
into Israel. Such doesn't make any sense. And, certainly, there were no missiles fired at Israel, no real "aggression" -- and if spying is an aggression, then the US and NATO acts very aggressive to China and Russia and many other nations.
BUT, lets keep to this scenario rather than throw in the general rhetoric that Israel is surrounded by everyone wanting to kill them, so they have every right to strike whoever rhetoric. One must wonder why Iran would even fly a drone over? It'd peeve off Syria and Russia if they did their own thing, who mind you both deny the allegation. There is just little to no reason why Iran would. Can you guys think of any good reason why they'd send a spy drone over? I can't. This rings of a false flag to me, but why would Israel fabricate it?
It does I believe come down to Hezbollah. Israel don't like them working alongside Russia, Iran and Syrian forces. An exchange of arms and firepower is a risk to Israel. Yet, if Israel weren't so intent on playing the victim and conquering their enemies via military might, then they might ask Russia (who is on "friendly" terms with Israel) if they could help brokerage peace or better relations with Hezbollah and even perhaps Iran (though unrealistic). Nonetheless, Russia would leap at the opportunity to gloat over the US, and so of course, the US wouldn't like nor allow Israel to do such a thing. So, Israel won't look to diplomacy either, even if they wanted to. But, wouldn't it be great if a diplomatic means could be used to bring an end to the ongoing thread and hatred? If Israel was to open up, and send in a contingent of forces to also help Syria and fight a common enemy alongside Iran, Russia and even Hezbollah (who might then become ostracise themselves from the group if they couldn't handle working with Israel, along with Iran), that'd be an awesome move of diplomacy.
Yet, diplomacy is rarely considered an option unless there is mounting international pressure, and aggression largely seems to be Israel's preference. So they identify locations where Hezbollah are at and likely certain ammunition locations and other locations they feel may pose possible threats. Once they have the intel of strategic locations they want to stirke, Israel then claims Iran sent a drone over Israel provoking them to respond with force. Israel then hit the key locations they identified, and in the process one of their warplanes is (embarrasingly) shot down. I'm doubtful Iran is their concern at all, except so much as in they give ammunitions to Hezbollah. For example, Israel had known for a while Iran have been increasing had activity at a "T-4 Syrian air force base near to Palmyra" (where Hezbollah are also).
As things stand, now there is going to be a stronger Iran-Russia alliance which the US won't like. It seems the US has been doing a bit of
their own striking though too against the SAA. Re: Iran, The US-led West has been looking to create civil unrest in Iran in recent times, and personally I have no love for the Iranian government and do think them very provokative. The US with Obama really extended a rather lush olive branch, and Iran just slammed America's fingers in the door after taking it. That's what I see. Things are looking more complicated, espeically if Russia now starts supporting Iran more strongly. With Trump as President, the two may lock horns.
Anyway, make of all that what you will, whether or not Israel is justified with preemptive strikes, simply because Hezbollah have used diplomacy to gain a seat at the table in joining Russia, Syria and Iran in fighting the terrorists groups in Syria. This wasn't a retalitory strike, but
rather a pre-emptive strike. Yet, in order to send in their warplanes, they wanted a reason for justification. Perhaps Iran does have its drones around to help against fighting the terrorists in Syria, to the dislike of Israel who sees such also as a threat to their own nation. So why not also hit two birds with one stone - Hezbollah and Iranian drone locations. Nonetheless, whether or not justified, I see Israel's actions are being made out of fear, and in this particular instance I consider Israel the first aggressors.
BUT, then he states the real end goal, which is to bring down Assad and install a new government (which we know worked out so fabulously in Iraq and Libya, ISIS uprising and the like didn't it?). Tillerson also describes the years of Syria under Assad as a "client state of Iran," overstated a little perhaps, but such justifies regime change I suppose.