Most of the Arab Press is still covering the Syrian issue today. The «Washington Post» article seems to have quite an important impact in many media. It explains that American sources stressed that, according to new information gathered by the United States during the past six months, North Korea may be cooperating with Damascus to establish nuclear facilities in Syria.
The report stated that the evidence of this cooperation came mainly from Israel, including satellites pictures which prompted some American officials to believe that such facilities can be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons.
The Syrian Information Minister ,Mohsen Bilal, said the day before yesterday that the American accusations about any nuclear cooperation with North Korea «are another novelty America comes up with to cover up the Israeli impasse».
The sources stated that the new information, especially pictures available during the last thirty days, has been confined to a small number of senior officials without the knowledge of the intelligence community.
This threat was issued through the American Korean talks held in Beijing in March 2003, where it seems that a North Korean official told aside part of this nuclear transfer to his American counterpart.
The Syrian deputy Foreign Minister, Fayssal Mekdad, said yesterday that Syria is not contemplating to reply «militarily» to the Israeli airspace invasion.
Moscow chose to condemn Israeli “aggression” into Syria. Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus yesterday met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Sultanov.
They talked about the situation in the Middle East, and reviewed the situation in the region and "viewpoints were convergent about what is happening in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories”. .Sultanov also met with Syrian Vice President Farouk Al-Shara and Foreign Minister Walid Muallim.
About the Israeli intrusion of the Syrian airspace, which happened last week, Sultanov stressed that Russia is against any violation of Syrian airspace and stressed the importance of States commitment to international legitimacy. Replying to a question regarding the nature of the Syrian response to the "Israeli" intrusion of the Syrian airspace, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad said: "despite this aggression we have orientations that will always maintain the strength of the Syrian position, and our confidence in us, and we will continue to respond to any Israeli movement, now and later. "
"Ha'aretz" quoted yesterday Bolton as saying in a telephone conversation with the newspaper at the end of last week that he suspected that North Korea already secretly transferred nuclear materials to Syria or Iran.
In the meantime, the television reported, Israel maintained yesterday high "alert" on its northern border with Syria and Lebanon.
Source: Asharq al Awsat, Al Khaleej
A really relevant analysis , from Al Hayat, explained I think part of this issue.
New Alliances and Possible Reactions
Hazem Saghieh 11/09/07//
The recent Syrian-Israeli tension, whose source and nature have been vague, has been met by an untold number of predictions and conjectures. However, one obvious point is that we - at least in the Arab Mashreq - might be headed for many such incidents of tension which can not be concealed.
In fact, we are observing a new strategic division into opposing camps. A comparison with most of the years of the Cold War suffices if we wish to understand the dangerous circumstances in which we live.
Until 1979, one could draw a general map of alliances showing the Soviet-Syrian alliance against the US-Iranian-Turkish grouping. This latter alliance had strong roots that went back to the post-World War II period, and specifically the post-Korean War period, and the 1950s pacts and alliances, when Damascus was the focus of the warring factions. Although Khomeini's revolution removed Iran from the American camp, without bringing it into the Soviet side, Egypt's move toward Washington, begun by Anwar Sadat, limited Washington's loss of Tehran. A decade later, the Soviet Union began its rapid collapse, demonstrating that the Syrian-Iranian alliance suffered from isolation and a lack of any international reach. To this map we can add, after a decade and a half, America's direct presence in Afghanistan and Iran.
Today we can see an unprecedented overturning of the situation: the Syrian-Iranian alliance has an extension that leads to Putin's Russia. This doesn't prevent the possibility of a misunderstanding or miscalculation regarding the Bohshar nuclear reactors or the level and quality of armament, or other items. However, the three countries' interests converge and there is a considerable resemblance among their regimes - this is enough, most probably, to do away with difficulties such as the above mentioned. However, it is also observed that the two "American" pillars - Egypt and Turkey - are weak in terms of taking the initiative, if not paralyzed under the weight of self-contradictions and political party-related factors (Turkey) and/or the small range of maneuver produced by the embarrassing alliance with Israel (Egypt).
If we add the two American quagmires - the small one in Afghanistan and the big one in Iraq - and the fact that the "war on terror" has gone astray (today being the sixth anniversary of the 11 September attacks), not to mention the rise of non-state forces and their armed involvement in border and cross-border conflicts (Hizbullah and last summer's war), we come closer to realizing the nature of the American predicament in the region. It has been cited often, with irony, that Washington has waged two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in removing two rivals of Tehran, and strengthening the mullahs' regime.
Perhaps it is natural and understandable to doubt the limits to which the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance can travel, as the structurally weak points of this alliance are well-known concerning everything that goes beyond mere weaponry. However, it is obvious that it can prevent the Americans and their allies from achieving any progress. All of this involves a worse scenario: it's as if the US is thinking about breaking this new three-way gathering of elements hostile to America, either directly, or via Israel.
Source: Al Hayat
The last analysis I think is quite biased. It does not even talk about the Russian reaction, but it doesn’t consider the fact that U.S. could be pushing behind the scene. But it is worth reading.
Why Did Israel Air Force Enter Syria And Why Is The World Quiet?
David Storobin, Esq.
9/14/2007
So why did the Israel Air Force (IAF) fly deep inside the Syrian territory? Some have suggested that it was done to gather intelligence, to attack terrorists and even to bomb the embryonic Syrian nuclear facilities. All of these may be true and I have no way to either confirm or deny these claims. But it is possible to gauge Jerusalem's desired long-term effects, and the reason why the world has remained silent.
First, let’s consider the known facts and the known desires of Israel.
After the less-than-satisfactory effort in Lebanon, the Jewish state needs to:
1. re-establish itself as a major power that scares others, which in turn also requires it to\
2. win a war.
Additionally, it is well known that both the US and the EU believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for military purposes, which must be stopped at all costs.
We also know that the IAF entering Syrian territory is a clear violation of international law that would normally be condemned. It is particularly true for Israel, which is the official punching bag of the United Nations. Not only was Israel condemned more than any other state in the world, including those guilty of genocide and legal slavery, but it was often condemned for every trivial complaint Muslims had, complaints that often proved to be false. While the United States has been mostly (though certainly not always) Israel’s protector in the UN, Europe has often taken the lead in anti-Israel resolutions to the point that most actively pro-Israel Jews are convinced that European governments are outright anti-Semites who’d engage in pogroms if the opportunity ever presented itself. Yet, after Israel openly violated international law, there was not a word from the European Union or any of the governments, liberal or conservative. In fact, nobody is willing to confirm on the record that IAF even did what we all know it did. So why?
During the Lebanon War last year, both the US and EU not only allowed Jerusalem to attack, but some countries, like France, actually encouraged it to be more aggressive during the war. Israel got all the time it needed until it became clear that its strategy is failing and the plug was pulled on the war.
It is true that over the last few years, as Yassir Arafat proved himself an unreformed terrorist, as the World Trade Center went down, and as Europe came under attack from its own Muslims, there had been a very significant shift towards Israel. A generation ago, the Jewish state was a pariah only slightly ahead of apartheid South Africa. The peace agreements led many to warm their relations with the Jewish state, but it was actually the faltering of the Oslo process couple with anti-American and anti-European terror that made many realize that the Jews aren’t uncontrollable rascals, but rather part of the Western front against Islamist Jihad.
But that is only a small part of the reason why no government in Europe condemned a clear violation of international law by Jerusalem.
EU, as well as the US and Israel, realize that Iran presents a problem and that its nuclear program must be dealt with. But a military attack or even economic sanctions against Iran would trigger terrorism. Last year, I was shown classified European documents on the hundreds of people suspected of being Iran-linked terrorists. Hizballah, the largest Iran-sponsored terror groups, depends on Tehran – as well as Syria – for money and arms. If Iran doesn’t like the West’s actions, Hizballah will be told to attack or face the cutoff of Iranian arms and money. This much is not in dispute according to any intelligence and military sources I’ve ever met.
It is likewise clear that it isn’t going to be Norway or Portugal dealing with Iran and its proxies. Since its independence in 1948, the Jewish state’s main service to the West is to be its attack dog. Israel was used for that purpose by London and Paris when Egypt nationalized British and French property, and cut off the Suez Canal.\
The United States had a lukewarm relationship with Israel until 1967, maintaining at least a partial arms embargo for most of Israel’s first 19 years of independence.
But after Egypt and other Arab states turned away from Washington – despite President Dwight Eisenhower’s clear support for Egypt during the 1956 war against Israel, Britain and France – United States needed a reliable ally that can be relied on to permanently serve as an American base and as a vanguard against Communism and later Islamism.
During the 1967 war, Israel established itself as a regional superpower. The hostility the Jewish state faced from the Soviet Union made it a logical partner for the United States, which realized that even if Israel wanted to ally itself with Moscow, unlike the Arabs, it would be unable to do so.
Europe meanwhile engaged in Charles De Gaulle’s “Eurabia” fantasy where Western Europe would join with Arab states to create a third superpower against the US and the Soviet Union. The Eurabia dream collapsed in recent years as Muslims flooded Europe, and not only changing its national character, but also engaging in anti-Western rhetoric that inevitable led to terror amongst the more extreme elements.
Awaken from a dream that turned into a nightmare (“It’s not cool anymore to support the Arabs,” told me a young parliamentary aide in London), Europe reverted back to its old policy of using Israel as a Western military base.
Useless rhetoric aside, European politicians on both the left and the right realize that at least a threat of military action is necessary to get Iran to surrender the military program it so dearly wants. Europe likewise realizes that it is Paris, Brussels, Oslo, London and Rome that will fall victim to terror in response to any serious sanctions against Iran. Again, this much is not in dispute except by arm-chair radicals on the far-left.
More than anyone, EU needs Israel to reign in Hizballah to cut off Iran’s means to harm European capitals.
It is for that reason that EU and the US both supported Israel in last year’s Lebanon war. Even after Jerusalem’s original strategy failed, the IDF got a second chance to get it right. It was only when it became clear that Defense Minister Amir Peretz was incapable of handling his job (which he only got because everyone was afraid to appoint him as a Finance or Foreign Minister, but had to give him a major portfolio as a leader of the second largest party), that the West finally ended the war. It is doubtful Israel would’ve continued the war even if the US and EU let it.
But the Hizballah problem remains and needs to be resolved. Ehud Barak, Israeli hero and former Defense Minister (and Prime Minister) is once again the country’s Defense Minister, giving new hopes to the IDF. The IDF also has a new chief of staff General Gabi Ashkenazi, who has the trust of the soldiers. (“This one is good, we all like him, but the previous one is an Air Force guy who knows nothing about the army,” was a response to my question to an active-duty Israeli soldier about the new Chief of Staff.)
The one lesson learned from the last Lebanon war is that the Air Force cannot win the war alone, at least not one as small as Israel’s. (In fact, many countries going back as far as WWII have failed when using the Air Force as it’s primary power, rather than as a supporting force).
To win the war against Hizballah, Israel will have to go deep into Lebanon, crossing more than half of Lebanese territory into the Beqqa Valley. The danger to Israel is that either the Lebanese or even worse, the Syrian military might strike it in the back.
Thus, Syria must understand in no uncertain terms that its only ally is Iran. Europe will no longer side with the Arabs in a military confrontation with Israel. All the Western powers, from Australia to the EU to the US, will be squarely in Israel’s corner. Screaming and crying won’t help. It won’t be Israel who’ll get sanctioned, it will be Syria if it gets involved.
The only way to avoid a total destruction by the IDF is to stay out of the war. Let Israel come after Hizballah. Cry and scream if you choose, but keep your military within your borders.
Another Israel-Hizballah war is coming. Probably next summer.
Meanwhile, the West will let Tehran know that the fly-over above Syria is a first step to the destruction of Hizballah, which itself is a stepping stone to the destruction of not only Iranian nukes, but its Revolutionary Guard as well.
The information will be “leaked” to Iran as an intelligence scoop from a “double agent” or by a supposedly gullible government official who opens his mouth after drinking too much with an Iranian diplomat who he pretends not to know belongs to Vevak (Iranian intelligence agency).
The left went along with it because it realizes that such a threat will make the Mullahs much more amiable to negotiating a settlement. Whether you believe that what is needed is negotiations or sanctions or war, this first step is necessary to show Tehran that the West is united and determined to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power.
And that is why nobody in Europe (or the United States) is willing to criticize Israel for its blatant violation of international law.
Source: Global Politician
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire