A Possible Syrian/Israeli War by Proxy
by Bishara Nassar Sharbel
20 Sep 2007
It may seem far-fetched to believe that the recent Israeli violation of Syrian airspace near its northern border with Turkey could lead to the outbreak of an all-out Syrian-Israeli war. However, it would not be implausible to consider that the present increase in tensions between the two countries could give way to a new war. The current dangerous situation in the region and the ominous political crises it is witnessing could serve as a catalyst for such a possibility.
Even after several days of Syrian announcement of the Israeli incursion, an air of mystery shrouds the event and there is a lot of speculation on what the Israeli air raid actually achieved. Some sources deny any bombing action took place; while others suggest that Israeli airplanes dumped their excess fuel on Syrian territory. The most probable of the scenarios, however, seems the launch of four missiles, one of which struck a military location serving as a transit point for the passage of Iranian weapons to Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Still, theories that Israeli Air Force might have wanted to test its effectiveness or to detect the new missile armament in the Syrian arsenal cannot be discounted. Even the contention that this could be an exercise for a prospective raid on Iran, in case Israel wanted to carry out an effective operation against specific targets in that country, also seems a plausible proposition.
However, the indisputable fact remains that Israel infiltrated into the Syrian airspace to send out a multi-faceted message to Damascus that would unnerve the Syrian regime and keep it from trying out its weapons.
Perhaps, the first aim of this raid was the attempt by the Israeli military establishment to regain self-confidence after the shock and sense of defeat it suffered in the July 2000 war, because it jolted the myth of Israeli army’s invincibility, and exposed the apparent vulnerability of Israeli territories and its citizens to bombardment from beyond its borders. Therefore, it might be possible that the Israeli military might be planning for a new round of hostilities by which it could prove that it has learned its lessons from last year’s war and restore its image of a superior army that is capable of upholding the security of its country and imposing peace on its own terms.
The second aim could be strategic, through which Tel Aviv could impress upon both Damascus and Tehran that the obvious disparity in the balance of power will not deter it from reconfirming its supremacy. The Israeli challenge depends on blackmail and threat perception. However, it has become known that the chemical and biological weapons of Syria and Iran could counter nuclear weapons in the possession of the Jewish state. It is well-known that the Israel’s air supremacy could outmatch the near and long-range missiles that Syria and Iran could launch from their countries, and through its bases in Hezbollah’s sector of Lebanon or from Gaza—where Hamas would not mind acting as an advance force for the Iranian-Syrian axis.
The third aim comes within the threat-of-force paradigm, amid talks of a new conference to be held in autumn, to which Syria has not yet been invited. The conference comes at a time when the Iranian nuclear issue has reached a critical stage towards a resolution between Washington and the Europeans, or toward the end of any hope for a possible settlement of the issue. Hence, Israelis may be thinking that Damascus would find itself in a weak position at the conference, or that Americans and Israelis might think that Iran could feel the imminent danger facing it, if it does not respond positively to Western demands over the nuclear issue.
Military experts agree that Israel has taken all necessary measures that a professional army could undertake to overcome the 2006 defeat. It has dismissed many officers, and punished the delinquents. However, the same experts feel that Israel is not yet ready to wage a new war; as the lessons have not yet been learnt, and the guerilla warfare training has not yet ended. In addition, the rebuilding of the morale of the army, especially the infantry, will still take some time, despite attempts by the Israeli military specialists to shorten the period.
These facts suggest that the chances of an Israeli–Syrian war are not imminent, neither at the political nor at the military level, especially after the experience with Hezbollah last year. Syria would also not engage in a conventional war with Israel but would rather concentrate on a costly guerilla war of attrition that focuses more on human causalities in a war, and not on technological success.
Many ridicule the standard refrain of Syrian officials whenever Israel violates the sovereignty of the country their country, when they say that Damascus will not be drawn into a fight and would determine the time and place of the battle. This has happened many times—such as after the Israeli air force flew above the palace of President Bashar Assad last year, and when it bombed a site populated by Palestinian refugees in the Syrian Ein Al-Saheb village. However, this time the Syrian rhetoric might not be of propaganda value only, but could be reflective of a measure of self-control, not because Syria wants war but because it could achieve many objectives from the present “no-war and no-peace” status. This is largely because Syria believes that it would have to wait for years to reclaim the occupied Golan. Syria is also preoccupied with its regional role and is worried about losing its diplomatic influence, and is also wary of exposing its regime to the possibility of a collapse. For this reason, it has taken an unswerving position that primarily intends at preserving the longevity of the regime, counteracting American policies, and developing a network of protective alliances.
The regime—despite the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon in April 2005, and the rise in the US and European drive against it with the establishment of the special international tribunal for the prosecution of the assassins of President Rafik Hariri—is still internally strong and has few concerns about its present position.
Syria has also been able to upset the US in Iraq and has helped in preventing the US achieve its objectives there. It has also played a role in the failure of the US alliance in the region, the undermining of the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, and the subversion the reform process initiated by the “Cedar revolution” in Lebanon.
As for its alliance with Iran, many believe this pact has weakened its position in the Arab world and has upset its two Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Still, Syria has opted to confront until the very end, and not to accept American terms that start with the demand for a change in behavior of the regime and end with seeking a change in the constitution of the regime itself.
Israeli raids and Syrian preparedness are not merely acts of posturing. They carry within them the danger of an outbreak of war. However, this war will not be waged in the near future, except by proxy.
This is highly probable, as Lebanon offers an open arena for the sides for a war by proxy. It has been this way for the last thirty years, it was this way last year in the July war, and it could again all be in the same manner. The Syria-Iran axis can confront Israel militarily through this arena. In the same way, it could it create an opening in its war with Washington.
Source: ECSSR
And even if it is not coming from Arabic press, I think it could be relevant to highlight the following article extracted from the Sunday Times.
Snatched: Israeli commandos ‘nuclear’ raid
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, Sarah Baxter, Washington, and Michael Sheridan
Also from Sarah Baxter: Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid | Secret US air force team to perfect plan for Iran strike | Israelis 'blew apart Syrian nuclear cache' | Alan Greenspan: "Blair was clearly an aide to Brown"
ISRAELI commandos from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit – almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms – made their way stealthily towards a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria. They were looking for proof that Syria and North Korea were collaborating on a nuclear programme.
Israel had been surveying the site for months, according to Washington and Israeli sources. President George W Bush was told during the summer that Israeli intelligence suggested North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site.
Israel was determined not to take any chances with its neighbour. Following the example set by its raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak 1981, it drew up plans to bomb the Syrian compound.
But Washington was not satisfied. It demanded clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing. The task of the commandos was to provide it.
Today the site near Dayr az-Zawr lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15Is on September 6. Before the Israelis issued the order to strike, the commandos had secretly seized samples of nuclear material and taken them back into Israel for examination by scientists, the sources say. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. America approved an attack.
News of the secret ground raid is the latest piece of the jigsaw to emerge about the mysterious Israeli airstrike. Israel has imposed a news blackout, but has not disguised its satisfaction with the mission. The incident also reveals the extent of the cooperation between America and Israel over nuclear-related security issues in the Middle East. The attack on what Israeli defence sources now call the “North Korean project” appears to be part of a wider, secret war against the nonconventional weapons ambitions of Syria and North Korea which, along with Iran, appears to have been forging a new “axis of evil”.
The operation was personally directed by Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, who is said to have been largely preoccupied with it since taking up his post on June 18.
It was the ideal mission for Barak, Israel’s most decorated soldier and legendary former commander of the Sayeret Matkal, which shares the motto “Who Dares Wins” with Britain’s SAS and specialises in intelligence-gathering deep behind enemy lines.
President Bush refused to comment on the air attack last week, but warned North Korea that “the exportation of information and/or materials” could jeopard-ise plans to give North Korea food aid, fuel and diplomatic recognition in exchange for ending its nuclear programmes.
Diplomats in North Korea and China said they believed a number of North Koreans were killed in the raid, noting that ballistic missile technicians and military scientists had been working for some time with the Syrians.
A senior Syrian official, Sayeed Elias Daoud, director of the Syrian Arab Ba’ath party, flew to North Korea via Beijing last Thursday, reinforcing the belief among foreign diplomats that the two nations are coordinating their response to the Israeli strike.
The growing assumption that North Korea suffered direct casualties in the raid appears to be based largely on the regime’s unusually strident propaganda on an issue far from home. But there were also indications of conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials and intelligence reports reaching Asian governments that supported the same conclusion, diplomats said.
Jane’s Defence Weekly reported last week that dozens of Iranian engineers and Syrians were killed in July attempting to load a chemical warhead containing mustard gas onto a Scud missile. The Scuds and warheads are of North Korean design and possibly manufacture, and there are recent reports that North Koreans were helping the Syrians to attach airburst chemical weapons to warheads.
Yesterday, while Israelis were observing Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the military was on high alert after Syria promised to retaliate for the September 6 raid. An Israeli intelligence expert said: “Syria has retaliated in the past for much smaller humiliations, but they will choose the place, the time and the target.”
Critics of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, believe he has shown poor judgment since succeeding his father Hafez, Syria’s long-time dictator, in 2000. According to David Schenker, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he has provoked the enmity of almost all Syria’s neighbours and turned his country into a “client” of Iran.
Barak’s return to government after making a fortune in private business was critical to the Israeli operation. Military experts believe it could not have taken place under Amir Peretz, the defence minister who was forced from the post after last year’s ill-fated war in Lebanon. “Barak gave Olmert the confidence needed for such a dangerous operation,” said one insider.
The unusual silence about the airstrikes amazed Israelis, who are used to talkative politicians. But it did not surprise the defence community. “Most Israeli special operations remain unknown,” said a defence source.
When Menachem Begin, then Israeli prime minister, broke the news of the 1981 Osirak raid, he was accused of trying to help his Likud party’s prospects in forthcoming elections.
Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads Likud today, faced similar criticism last week when he ignored the news blackout, revealed that he had backed the decision to strike and said he had congratulated Olmert. “I was a partner from the start,” he claimed.
But details of the raid are still tantalisingly incomplete. Some analysts in America are perplexed by photographs of a fuel tank said to have been dropped from an Israeli jet on its return journey over Turkey. It appears to be relatively undamaged. Could it have been planted to sow confusion about the route taken by the Israeli F-15I pilots?
More importantly, questions remain about the precise nature of the material seized and about Syria’s intentions. Was Syria hiding North Korean nuclear equipment while Pyongyang prepared for six-party talks aimed at securing an end to its nuclear weapons programme in return for security guarantees and aid? Did Syria want to arm its own Scuds with a nuclear device?
Or could the material have been destined for Iran as John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has suggested? And just how deep is Syrian and North Korean nuclear cooperation anyway?
China abruptly postponed a session of the nuclear disarmament talks last week because it feared America might confront the North Koreans over their weapons deals with Syria, according to sources close to the Chinese foreign ministry. Negotiations have been rescheduled for this Thursday in Beijing after assurances were given that all sides wished them to be “constructive”.
Christopher Hill, the US State Department negotiator, is said to have persuaded the White House that the talks offered a realistic chance to accomplish a peace treaty formally ending the 1950-1953 Korean war, in which more than 50,000 Americans died. A peace deal of that magnitude would be a coup for Bush – but only if the North Koreans genuinely abandon their nuclear programmes.
The outlines of a long-term arms relationship between the North Koreans and the Syrians are now being reexamined by intelligence experts in several capitals. Diplomats in Pyongyang have said they believe reports that about a dozen Syrian technicians were killed in a massive explosion and railway crash in North Korea on April 22, 2004.
Teams of military personnel wearing protective suits were seen removing debris from the section of the train in which the Syrians were travelling, according to a report quoting military sources that appeared in a Japanese newspaper. Their bodies were flown home by a Syrian military cargo plane that was spotted shortly after the explosion at Pyongyang airport.
In December last year, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah quoted European intelligence sources in Brussels as saying that Syria was engaged in an advanced nuclear programme in its northeastern province.
Most diplomats and experts dismiss the idea that Syria could master the technical and industrial knowhow to make its own nuclear devices. The vital question is whether North Korea could have transferred some of its estimated 55 kilos of weapons-grade plutonium to Syria. Six to eight kilos are enough for one rudimentary bomb.
“If it is proved that Kim Jong-il sold fissile material to Syria in breach of every red line the Americans have drawn for him, what does that mean?” asked one official. The results of tests on whatever the Israelis may have seized from the Syrian site could therefore be of enormous significance.
The Israeli army has so far declined to comment on the attack. However, several days afterwards, at a gathering marking the Jewish new year, the commander-in-chief of the Israeli military shook hands with and congratulated his generals. The scene was broadcast on Israeli television. After the fiasco in Lebanon last year, it was regarded as a sign that “we’re back in business, guys”.
Source: Sunday Times
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire