Sunday analysis

This week has seen the U.S. push hard to trigger a conflict in the Middle East and a real and coherent strategy is still absent. Seymour Hersh’s analysis, that the global objective of the current administration is to create an axis between Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, in order for them to join the United States, Great Britain and Israel against Shia countries in the Middle East and the Gulf, seems particularly relevant. An alliance between Shia Iran and a Shia-dominated Iraq is a perceived threat to Sunni countries, as well as the U.S. Oil and military balance in the region would be affected.

In this context, two options emerge for Arab countries: either to join U.S. forces and create a conflict with the Shia before Iraq collapses, or to form an alliance with Iran to negotiate a regional power-sharing agreement. At this point, negotiating a deal could recall the appeasement process running up to the Munich accord sixty years ago.

The first option would be to form an alliance between Sunni and Western forces against Iran and Syria. Many elements point to this stance.

The past week started with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mua’alem visiting Saudi Arabia in order to ease relations after the clash that occurred two weeks ago when Syrian Vice President Al Shaara criticized Saudi Arabia for the failure of the Makkah agreement. This highlighted Iran’s success in exploiting the region’s fragile alliances. The tense atmosphere plays to Syria and Lebanon’s advantages. Presidential elections will be held in Beirut on 25 September, and Syria needs a pro Syrian ally in Lebanon. Since its troops have left the country, Syria is isolated in the region and without support among the Sunni countries. It is therefore in Syria’s best interest to draw closer to Iran. Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming the stage of a proxy war for U.S. and Iran. Because of Iranian interference in the country and weapons being delivered to insurgents, it seems that the U.S. is willing to strike Iran. A number of elements showed alliances being formed this week.

Reports of Russian forces working and training Syrian army and Syrian technicians emerged in Israeli newspapers two weeks ago. This context provides the backdrop for analyzing what can be termed as the Syrian crisis. The Washington Post was among the first to release the information. According to them, Israeli planes have been crossing the border with Syria in order to bomb nuclear facilities in the country. The Syrian Information minister provided a rather strange explanation, saying that the U.S. media was publishing that information to support their Israeli ally. Other explanations were released in U.S. media, namely that Israel could have been testing Syrian air defenses, or stopping Iranian weapons from being delivered to Hezbollah. During the first day, only a few allegations about Syrian collaboration with North Korea in developing nuclear facilities emerged, but more information surfaced later. Israel has allegedly been supplying high-rank officials within the U.S. Government with satellite pictures showing collaboration between Syria and North Korea in certain infrastructures. A North Korean official also allegedly reported to a U.S. official in Beijing in 2003 that his country was helping Syria. It was also revealed that four missiles were launched, one of which hit an infrastructure. Other allegations included that AQ Khan network was behind the scene, or that weapons to be delivered to Hezbollah were destroyed. This last piece of information was revealed in Israel, with allegations of a North Korean cargo that mysteriously disappeared from registers while en route to Syria.

This could well be seen as the beginning of the conflict with a test against Iran, launched by Israel. Israel needs to show that it is still powerful and can win a war. Regardless of the content of those facilities, Israel needs to show Syria and Iran that it knows what is happening around its borders, and that Israel can reach and destroy its targets in foreign territories. Certain observers also saw this strike as an opportunity for Israel to check if it could cover the distance from its bases to the Iranian nuclear reactors (which is likely).

But who was being tested in the end- Iran or Moscow?

Moscow is again increasing its presence in the region and using its old alliances with Syria. A new axis is emerging: Russia-Iran-Syria. Russia was among the few countries to denounce the raid and a few days later Russian Foreign Minister Sultanov was in Damascus to meet with Bachar Al Assad. Russia is also known for supporting Iran’s stance.

On the other hand, if the strike was only directed at Iran, the reaction was quite interesting. The head of the Revolutionary Guard stated that Iran had the means to turn the whole region into hell. Another Iranian official noted that Iran would react if Syria is attacked again, and if Israel attacked Iran directly, the Dimona reactor would be destroyed and 600 Shahab 3 and 4 missiles would be launched.

The Syrian crisis appears as a testing ground for current trends in the region. However, some problems with the allegations. For example, John Bolton, who is not known for being a moderate or pro Iran, is said to have called media outlets in Israel a few days before the strike to denounce an alliance between Syria and North Korea. Allegations about a nuclear network in Syria are not easy to verify as Syria is more known for its chemical activities than for nuclear ones. The coming week may provide more clues on that front.

The second option is a regional power-sharing agreement with an alliance between Iran and the Sunni states. The free trade agreement can be viewed as a step in this direction. Others steps emerged over the past week. President Ahmadinejad sent a letter to the Saudi King, expressing his will to work together to solve the regional crisis in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. This could be a problem for Syria. He also offered during a phone conversation a few days later to help Saudi Arabia in developing its nuclear energy projects, under the supervision of the IAEA. An alliance may yet be formed between those countries, but this would probably err on the side of optimism.