Meir Javedanfar on Israel’s View on Iran’s Elections

Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-born Israeli Middle East expert. He lived in Iran until eight years after the revolution. He was educated in British universities and now lives in Israel. Asia Times called him “one of the best informed observers” of the Middle East.

Mr. Javedanfar is the publisher and editor of the website Iran–Israel Observer. Previously, he worked as a foreign affairs expert at BBC Persian. With Yossi Melman, Mr. Javedanfar co-authored “The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran“. He has briefed officials and academics on Iranian affairs from more than 30 countries. Mr. Javedanfar speaks Persian, Hebrew, English, Spanish, and Portuguese. He sat down with Reza Akhlaghi of Foreign Policy Association to discuss Israel’s views on Iran and the country’s upcoming presidential elections.

____________________________________________________________

Which political faction in Iran, in your opinion, is most ideologically distanced from the Supreme Leader and could this ideological distance entail less tensions with Israel, should the faction in question assume presidency in the upcoming elections?

There are already more politicians who are distancing themselves from Ahmadinejad’s antisemitic holocaust denial comments. This includes moderate conservatives such as Tehran Mayor and presidential candidate Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf as well as Alaedin Boroujerdi the head of the parliamentary commission for Foreign Policy and National Security, both of whom openly and publicly condemned Ahmadinejad for his comments on the holocaust.

We must remember that regime policy with regards to Israel is set by the supreme leader in consultation with the IRGC. The same goes for regime strategy and policy with regards to Hezbollah. Therefore, anyone who wants to have a political future inside the regime has to be very careful about what they say with regards to this subject.

The regime’s Israel policy has brought few benefits for Iran. Any simple strategic accounting could show you that Iran has lost far more than it has gained because of the regime’s Israel policy. It seems that there are parts of the regime that are becoming concerned because of the price that the regime is paying for its Israel policy. A policy which has put Iran on the front line of the anti-Israel front in the Muslim world. The recent comments by Ayatollah Rafsanjani stating  that Iran is not at war with Israel clearly show a trend in thinking which I believe is gaining popularity among not only reformists and moderates, but also moderate conservatives. One would believe that the price Iran and the regime are paying for its current anti- Israel policy is simply unjustifiable. The fact that even Hamas these days has moved away from Iran and towards Egypt is likely to have strengthened such views.

What form of a post-conflict Syria could reduce the geopolitical rivalry between Israel and Iran?

A Syria which is run by the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be of much concern to both Iran and Israel. It could also reduce tensions, up to a limited extent. A Syria which is divided into different states (Sunnis, Kurds and Alawites) could also reduce tensions like Israel and Alawistan. Both states are going to be grappling with challenges as non-Sunni minority states and could feel threatened by extremist Sunni organizations.

However, it must be noted that the level which such developments could reduce tensions depends very much on Iran’s nuclear program as well as on the Supreme Leader’s Israel policies. If the status quo continues with regards to inside the halls of decision making in Iran, the reduction in tensions because of events in Syria is likely to be small.

What’s your take on the view that far from being about military threat, the discourse around Iran’s nuclear program has become a tool for manipulation by both Israel and Iran as part of their on-going strategic rivalry for regional supremacy?

The current Iranian regime (not the people of Iran) is a military threat to Israel. The Supreme Leader has openly stated that he views both the government of Israel as well as the people of Israel with hostility. Ayatollah Khamenei stated his view after Ahmadinejad’s ally, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, in Septemnber 2008 stated that Iran is friends with all people, including the people of Israel.

While slamming Rahim Mashai for his statement, Khamenei, among other things, called the people of Israel the “dark side of the Zionist army Divisions”.

As well as its verbal threats, the regime has financed the death of hundreds of Israelis in buses and cafes during the second intifada. So when a government with whom you share no border says that you should be wiped out, its president denies the holocaust, and its Supreme Leader does nothing to stop him and finances the death of innocent civilians in your country, then you have every reason not to want this regime to have nuclear weapons.

This is damaging to the people of Israel and the people of Iran. There is every justification for Iran to have nuclear energy. I remember all the blackouts we used to have because of lack of electricity. It is also Iran’s right to nuclear energy. But when the country does not answer IAEA questions such as why it was doing work on a nuclear trigger system in the past and breaks IAEA laws by building the secret enrichment site at Fordo, then it’s not difficult to see why Israel is concerned.

Israel’s point of view with regards to possible Iranian ambitions for a bomb really depends on who is ruling Iran. Israel did not complain about the Shah’s nuclear program because he did not threaten Israel. In fact, Israel was developing the Jericho missile together with Iran (it later financed the project) in order to boost Iran’s strategic capabilities and weight in the region. A strong Iran was in Israel’s interest as it neutralized Iraq and other hostile Arab nations. Israel does not want the current regime to have nuclear weapons because of its hostile actions and words, not because of rivalry. Anyone who says it’s only because of rivalry should take a closer look at the Iranian regime’s policy and actions towards Israel.

Israel and Iran have both been working on undermining each other’s interests by utilizing cyber technology. And it is no secret that Israel has a highly advanced information technology (IT) infrastructure and industry. However, for Iran, is there a role played by pro-Russian IT expertise that advances Tehran’s cyber capabilities?

This is not my area of expertise; however, I believe that cyber security is an area which is becoming important to all major regional powers, including Iran and Israel. Even North Korea is investing resources in this field. It is logical that Iran would want to develop its cyber security and cyber technology. Development of this area because of sanctions is likely to have become more difficult for Iran. As a result, Iran is most likely to look to outside expertise to supplement its resources.

Israeli officials have been ardent proponents of the sanctions regime against Iran. Is there a particular election outcome in Iran that could change Israel’s stance on sanctions?   

In Israel the focus is on Iran’s nuclear program and related policies proposed by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and approved of or rejected by the Supreme Leader. The president only has one vote in the SNSC. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, the president does not hold much sway. Therefore, as long as the Supreme Leader continues with his current nuclear policies, Israel’s stance on sanctions is unlikely to change, no matter who the president is.

A turning point may have been reached in Jerusalem with the development of a recent plan to offer a sacred area each to two separate groups. Alas, even before implementation of that plan could occur, though, a riot and violence erupted.

That paradigm has torpedoed peace processes between Israel and the Palestinians time and time again. Whether terrorism from Hamas or Israeli settler attacks, peace plan attempts meet the same fate–irrelevance.

But today’s clashes in Jerusalem have nothing to do with the peace process, and instead reflect the very divergent interpretation of Judaism by the ultra-orthodox Jewish community and a group believing in egalitarian prayer. But, like the peace process, stone throwing and police intervention became necessary.

The dispute stems from the role of women in prayer — particularly whether they should wear the Jewish prayer shawl known as a talit, don prayer boxes known as tefilin, and read directly from the Torah. The ultra-orthodox, who have largely controlled the Western Wall for decades, argue that women should not participate in those ways during the prayer service. Conversely, a group of women–known as the Women of the Wall–believe that both genders should have access to the holy site and be able to practice Judaism in their own ways.

A ruling in the Jerusalem District Court sided with the Women of the Wall, and Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced that it would not appeal the ruling. As a result, women can now pray at the Western Wall while wearing prayer garments and even, if they choose, read from the Torah.

In comes preparation for Shabbat. Friday morning, a time filled with joyous anticipation that the day of rest is near. Hours filled with bustling around Jerusalem to make all last minute purchases before the Shabbat meal and all comes to a stand still. However, this Shabbat would prove to be radically different, as the Women of the Wall, emboldened by the recent court ruling, prepare to exert the right affirmed to them by praying at the Western Wall. On the other side, thousands from the ultra-orthodox community were committed to stopping that from happening.

As expected, ultra-orthodox men surrounded and intimidated the women, blocking their path. Rocks were thrown at the women praying, as police intervened to prevent further violence and disruption.

The irony of this moment should not be lost. Not too long ago, Jews of any stripe were not welcome to pray at the Western Wall, the most holy site in Judaism. There were periods during Ottoman times when Jews could pray at the Western Wall, which was used as the garbage dump for the Temple Mount. Yet, Jews would pray in those squalid conditions, with sewage–not just rocks–raining down on them from the Temple Mount.

Natan Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency, developed a plan to provide a separate egalitarian prayer area at Robinson’s Arch toward the southern end of the Wall. That plan has come under fire for, among other reasons, not being archaeologically feasible. The first phase of this plan could be completed within a year.

The urgency to implement the Sharansky plan–or another tactic–is clear. Even in the best case scenario, the Women of the Wall and the ultra-orthodox community will likely spar for months. An intermediate solution is necessary, or else similar riots are prone to break out in future months.

Both the ultra-orthodox and egalitarian Jewish communities deserve an opportunity to practice their faith as they choose, without harassment or in the midst of purposefully provocative actions.

Since Israel obtained control of Jerusalem, followers of all the city’s religions–Judaism, Christianity and Islam–can for the first time in history openly pray at their holy sites. Without an immediate and long-term solution. that dynamic is liable to change among the city’s Jews.

Source: Combatants for Peace

In Israel, Yom Hazikaron, the country’s Day of Remembrance, commemorates the lives of fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism. At eleven in the morning a siren sounds throughout the country. For two minutes life stands still as people stop to remember those who died as a result of violent acts. Drivers stop cars and emerge from their vehicles. People walking down the street stop. Teachers stop teaching. All aspects of life freeze for 120 seconds. Then, like a movie going from pause to play, life resumes. Throughout the day traditional ceremonies are held at parks, town squares, schools, and cemeteries to honor the deceased. However, alternative and unconventional ceremonies honor the tradition of Yom Hazikaron while simultaneously using it as a platform to expand peoples’ understanding of relevant, contemporary issues.

Organized by Palestinians and Israelis, the Combatants for Peace Movement denounces violence and provides a platform for people from both backgrounds to work together to achieve a shared objective of peace. Arguing the ineffectiveness of violence, Combatants for Peace promotes the idea that, “only by joining forces will we be able to end the cycle of violence.” Unlike traditional ceremonies that solely honor the memory of Israelis whose lives were tragically destroyed by violence, Combatants for Peace uses Israel’s Day of Remembrance as a platform to recognize the effects of violence on Israelis and Palestinians while promoting the organization’s mission to end the current and prevent future violence between the two groups.

Source: Combatants for Peace

Started in 2006, Combatants for Peace’s alternative Day of Remembrance has attracted attention (not all good) in its eight years. Approximately 2,500 people attended the April 14^th event in Tel Aviv. Only 44 Palestinians were in attendance due to difficulty for Palestinians living in the West Bank to obtain permits. 120 applied. A Combatants for Peace spokesperson commented on the number of Palestinian attendees saying, “We would of course like as many Palestinians as possible to attend, but we cannot circumvent the Israeli military and its permit policy.”

Throughout the event, Israeli and Palestinian speakers shared their personal stories and their desires for peace. Unable to attend, Nur al-Shehadeh, a resident of Samu, recorded a video that was played at the beginning of the ceremony. He said:

Today is Memorial Day, the day the Israeli people remembers its victims. But there are also Palestinian victims. Enough. We must learn a lesson. I hope that this day will serve as an engine for vigorous action to achieve peace.

The bipartisan movement encountered more difficulty than prospective attendees securing travel permits. Several days before the event, an Internet petition demanded the Tel Aviv Municipality not allow the Combatants for Peace event. The government ignored the petition. On the Day of Remembrance, a small group of protestors congregated outside the ceremony shouting, “We won’t let you scorn the memory of the fallen.” Although the demonstration was short-lived, it was a reminder of the challenges facing the Israeli-Palestinian movement.

Despite attracting more attendees each year, protests and efforts to thwart the movement continue. A spokesperson from Combatants for Peace commented on how the public views the event, saying, “In general, I can say that the ceremony is very badly received. People view it as offensive, in bad taste, and thoughtless.” Although demonstrators, and others, may not like the untraditional Day of Remembrance ceremony, it is hard to understand how an event that commemorates everyone affected by violence and advocates an end to fighting is blasphemous to the memory of the deceased. In fact, it seems likely that those who died from, and others who have and continued to be affected by, violent acts would desire peace. Peace cannot be achieved when two sides continue to hurt each other. Instead, it must be achieved by working together.

Obama appeared to soften his stance during his visit to Israel last month, and this week Chuck Hagel, in his first visit to Israel since becoming the U.S. Secretary of Defense, affirmed that Israel is a sovereign nation and can choose to strike Iran if and when it sees fit. This would seem to be as green a light as Israel is going to receive, at least publicly, from the United States on this issue.

It is possible to see this as a continuation of posturing — a “good cop, bad cop” situation — from the U.S. and Israel as they work to create a united front against Iran. Sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy considerably, and the regime has been pushed to the very edges of the international community. But there has been no popular uprising in Iran. The lights are still on in Tehran. And most significantly, they are still advancing their nuclear program.

One way to understand Hagel’s comment is to assume that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are working from the same play book, and are still trying to make Tehran blink.

But these comments did not come in a vacuum; they were preceded by several other relevant developments in the region in recent weeks.

Before Israel and Turkey cut ties over the Mavi Marmara incident, the two had a strategic partnership. Along with diplomatic and economic cooperation, their militaries had a strong working relationship.

In the wake of the 2010 incident, in which nine Turkish nationals were killed (one had dual citizenship with the United States), Turkey downgraded diplomatic ties with Israel, and expelled Israel’s ambassador.

Last month, minutes before President Obama departed Israel, he convinced Netanyahu to speak on the phone with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and to apologize for the incident, something Netanyahu had long avoided. While Erdogan’s response in the days following was not exactly gracious and relations are still far from healed between the two states, this was a significant move for Netanyahu that certainly did not win him favor within his coalition.

Did Obama make promises about Iran’s nuclear red lines in return for Netanyahu’s apology to Erdogan or did he simply convince Netanyahu that Israel cannot survive without friends in the region and that it is in the interest of all three actors — the U.S., Israel and Turkey — that they start to rectify their diplomatic situation?

More important to Israel than getting their ambassadors back into Turkey however, is getting their air force back into Turkey.

In the words of an Israeli military source, “until the recent crisis, Turkey was our biggest aircraft carrier. Using the Turkish airbases could make the difference between success and failure once a showdown with Iran gets underway.”

And the New York Times reported this week that “the Defense Department is expected to finalize a $10 billion arms deal with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates next week that will provide missiles, warplanes and troop transports to help them counter any future threat from Iran.”

Part of this deal will reverse previous U.S. policy, allowing Israel to purchase aerial refueling planes. They will also be be able to secure “new missiles designed to take out an adversary’s air-defense radars,” “advanced radars for its own warplanes” and will be the first foreign military that the U.S. has permitted to purchase the V-22 Osprey troop transport aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter, but flies like a plane and has air-to-air refueling capacity.

Is the U.S. preparing Israel to attack Iran? Or are Israel and the U.S. working in concert to further their “bluff” against the Islamic Republic? Will Turkey be partner to the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities? What would that mean for the current civil war in Syria? These are difficult questions. Share your answers in the comments or talk to me on twitter. @jlemonsk

The hacker collective Anonymous this week launched a massive cyber attack against thousands of Israeli webpages–including sites for the Prime Minister’s Office and the Holocaust memorial museum Yad Vashem. Despite the efforts of hackers around the world to deface Israeli websites and the social media accounts of the country’s citizens, the cyber onslaught was largely repelled and any compromised webpages were quickly returned to normal.

Despite the massive failure of Anonymous’ #OpIsrael, the attempted cyber war provides several lessons on activism that both pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions should consider, especially if the United State’s new push for a peace deal gains momentum under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry.

Organizing #OpIsrael required significant interest around the world and a platform for orchestrating the attacks. All that effort, at the end of the day, generated virtually–pardon the pun–no advances to the anti-Israel agenda.

On some level, Israel is benefited by all that energy and resources poured into an ineffective cyber campaign. Conversely, the hate towards Israel could have transformed into terrorist attacks–such as suicide bombers–on Israeli civilians, which would have had far more devastating impacts and repercussions.

But the level of organization and effort begs the question: What if anti-Israel activities were re-purposed to improve Palestinian lives?

To date, anti-Israel groups–including Hamas–spend considerable effort launching rockets at Israeli civilians, smuggling weapons across borders, training children to hate their neighbors, and organizing failed cyber attacks, among other things.

Meanwhile, Palestinians lack the proper infrastructure to improve their lives–including robust internal security, banking, healthcare, and economic systems. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad initially launched a movement to build some of these institutions, but his effort is still relatively nascent and has not progressed to its full potential.

Instead of focusing on terrorizing Israelis through rocket attacks and cyber warfare and in lieu of internal efforts to bread hatred among its population, re-channeling that energy towards constructive programs would have a far greater yield toward improving Palestinian lives.

Some may argue that the focus on destructive actions–such as terrorism–reveals that these organizations care more about hating Israel than helping the Palestinian people. That is assuredly the case with some groups, however other organizations should realize that their true desired outcome is not to harm Israel, but rather improve the health, education, economy, and lives of the Palestinians.

The next time an anti-Israel organization considers launching a rocket or cyber attack, perhaps that group should pause and think whether to embark on a counterproductive campaign to harm Israel or re-purpose that animus toward constructive efforts that will actually improve lives.

For those organizations that realize the value of productive actions, perhaps they will turn their own #OpIsrael into #OpPalestine.

SAUL LOEB/GETTY IMAGES

By Sarwar Kashmeri

It would be a mistake to view President Obama’s visit to Israel as just a fence-mending exercise. It is in fact part of a planned redesign of U.S. foreign policy that will change the face of American leadership around the world.

The redesign began with the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Both complement Vice President Joe Biden, and the president’s new chief of staff, Dennis McDonough. All of them, I believe, share a keen understanding of what it means to live in a world of seven billion interconnected people, in an age where the basic equation of geopolitics, that superpower equals ultimately getting one’s way, no longer holds.

The next stage of the redesign is now being rolled out with strategies to deal with today’s five key foreign policy issues: Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and the end game of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Each is a ticking time bomb loaded with unforeseen consequences for U.S. national interests around the world, for America’s fragile economic recovery, and for a military still recovering after a decade of non-stop wars.

None of these issues lends itself to an America-only resolution. All five require the support and active cooperation of Russia, China, Israel and Turkey. That is why the president has moved aggressively in the last two weeks to remove impediments to better relations with each of these countries.

Russia is Syria’s benefactor and also the key to unlocking an alternative route for the removal of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan. Although the Pakistani port of Karachi is the shortest route out of Afghanistan the United States cannot afford to predicate its military exit solely on the on-again, off-again goodwill of Pakistan.

American-Russian relations have suffered because of the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile system on the borders of Russia. To be set up in four phases through 2020, this battery of anti-missile weapons is being rolled out to protect Europeans from Iranian missiles. But the Russians have never seen it that way. They see it as an American attempt to weaken the deterrent effect of Russia’s long range nuclear arsenal. Although the Russians object to the entire anti-missile project it is the project’s fourth phase, in which sophisticated interceptors would be deployed in Poland and perhaps Romania, that is of particular concern to them.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced last week that this phase will now be abandoned. There were technical and funding reasons that also contributed to the decision, but a major irritant to American-Russian relations is now off the table.

Relations with China, already tense, plummeted with the announcement two years ago of America’s “pivot to the East.” The Chinese interpret this phrase as a signal that the United States views China as a potential military competitor. The United States has tried to explain that the pivot is not really a pivot citing America’s century old presence in the Pacific and Asia. But to no avail.

To bridge this credibility gap with China the Obama Administration cited cuts to the Defense Department’s budget in announcing a study to review the “pivot” of U.S. forces to Asia. This buys time to try and fine tune the “pivot” to allay Chinese concerns

Finally, In spite of his very strong support for Israel, the president has been perceived as being wobbly in recognizing the uniqueness of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. These perceptions have now been put to rest by the president’s visit to Israel during which he delivered unequivocal statements like this one reported by CNN,

“You are not alone,” Obama said in both English and Hebrew, prompting a standing ovation when he declared that “those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel’s right to exist might as well reject the earth beneath them and the sky above, because Israel is not going anywhere.”

President Obama’s visit has already borne fruit. Before Obama left the country Israel had apologized to Turkey for the 2010 killing by the Israeli military of Turkish citizens on the flotilla headed to Gaza to break the Israeli-imposed blockade. Within hours, the apology led to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey, two of America’s closest Middle-Eastern allies are again its partners in dealing with Syria and Iran.

I predict that a thaw in the Palestinian-Israeli relationship will be the next result from the Obama visit to Israel. Is this wishful thinking? Perhaps it is. But if I am correct in believing that both Israelis and Palestinians are finally convinced that nothing can shake the bond between the United States and Israel, reality will drive both sides to a bargain. To increase the odds of this thaw Vice President Biden, who accompanied the president to Israel, has stayed on to strengthen the initiatives launched by his boss.

If this be the first act of the McDonough-Biden-Kerry-Hagel foreign policy team’s debut, all I can say is bravo! Pedal to the metal gentleman, and God speed!

Sarwar Kashmeri is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association. He is adjunct professor of Norwich College, and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center for International Relations. His most recent book was NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete? You can find the original article at the Huffington Post, which was reposted with the author’s permission.

Anniversaries are dangerous days.  There is often a flash of attention, lots of words and supposedly deep thought and meaningful promises. Then the sun goes down, and life goes on as before. The world often notes an anniversary without real thought or determination on how to take the steps needed to make it meaningful.

As the second anniversary of the civil war in Syria passes, there continues a swirl of uncertainty with that nation and similarities to the sad disillusionment of past anniversaries elsewhere.

Among the items on Syria’s anniversary table: Military leaders of the Syrian rebel force denounce the new head of the civilian political opposition, Iraq continues to let Iranian flights to Syria pass overhead uninterrupted, reports of the one million refugee has crossed the border and of increased military aid to the rebels, new worries about chemical weapons, and Israel and Turkey making up with each other, which has longer term implications for Syria and the broader Middle East power dynamic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/25/syria-qatari-influence-rebels-arab-league

Now, what will tomorrow bestow?

To frame that response, perhaps other March anniversaries may lend perspective. This same time period has brought the 10^th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the 25^th anniversary of the chemical gassing of Kurds in Halabja, the 35^th anniversary of the United Nation’s ongoing mission in Lebanon and the 40^th anniversary of the U.S. troop exit from South Vietnam. What lessons have been learned from those anniversaries and, crucially, what knowledge has been applied other than March being an ominous month for anniversaries?

Sadly, very little.

The uprising started with anti-government protests on March 15, 2011, escalated as residents of Deraa took to the streets after troops arrested teenagers who scrawled anti-regime graffiti on a wall, then metastasized into a civil war with an estimated 70,000 people killed, according to the U.N. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it is “deplorable” that people are getting used to the fact so many civilians are being killed each day in Syria. “These ongoing violations of international humanitarian law and of basic humanitarian principles by all sides must stop,” said Robert Mardini, who heads the Red Cross’ regional operations.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/2013315112715330950.html

Good luck with that demand.

With the exception of Aleppo, which is divided between loyalists and insurgents, the government still maintains its hold on Syria’s largest cities. It has resorted increasingly to airstrikes, artillery barrages and surface-to-surface missile attacks to reach rebel-held areas where loyalist ground troops no longer operate.

Now, as the third year of the war begins, we see more of the stories that were written about the Bosnia conflict emerging from Syria – including such “down the road” stories as the U.N. warning about a lost generation of young people and how those crucial middle class skilled workers and thinkers are fleeing to seek lives elsewhere.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report/97736/Syria-s-brain-drain-another-twist-to-the-country-s-crisis

The son of a former colleague is doing a paper on genocide and recently asked me some questions about the genocide in Bosnia.  Among those posed: what did the world learn from Bosnia? The question pinpoints a key issue; the answer is realizing the crevice between learning and then applying that knowledge.

The world cannot always stop genocide, yet it can often take steps to mitigate in and sometime stop it. It chooses not to.

The Bosnia intervention lesson is clear: The bullies would continue until stopped and, like many bullies, they were not going to mess with someone stronger. While it was fun for them to humiliate and shoot at U.N. troops from some nations, when Canadians and British were involved, there was less of that. And when their fear – that a U.S. backed NATO mission would occur – came true, they backed down.

That lesson is specific to Bosnia in the 1990s and not easy transferable to Syria. Assad is fighting for his life, unlike the Bosnia Serbs who were fighting for power and greed. Careful specific steps are needed.

The Washington Post does not want caution. It predicts Syria will crack into pieces controlled by rival authorities, with fighting along sectarian lines and between extremist and moderate Sunnis, fighting will spread into Lebanon and Iraq, with the possible use of chemical or biological weapons. “The means to prevent this implosion are the same that could have stopped the ignition of the civil war: aggressive intervention by the United States and its allies to protect the opposition and civilians. This would not require ground troops, only more training and the supply of heavy weapons to the rebels, and airstrikes to eliminate the regime’s warplanes, missiles and, if necessary, chemical weapons. The recognition of an alternative government led by the civilian Syrian National Coalition would send the message to wavering regime supporters that it was time to defect and would help to isolate al-Qaeda before it is too late,” the Post opined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bloody-second-anniversary-of-syrias-civil-war/2013/03/14/e5c96dc4-8bf9-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

Yet those steps are already feeble as the Syrians themselves resort to bickering. Today in Syria, a common thread is optimism running low and anger increasing at the west.

Anniversaries in March. Beware those ides.

(Photo credit: Global Post)

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity and among other things, stands with Israel and defends the safety of Jews worldwide. For the past three years, the SWC has been putting together an annual list of the “Top Ten Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Slurs,” what they say is mainstream anti-Semitism that threatens the world. In publishing this list, SWC wishes to “exposes the growing menace of Jew hatred from people and movements who wield real power” and asks the readers to: 1.) donate to the cause of stopping the spread of such hatred and 2.) spread the word.

Isn’t “spreading” this word — highlighting  hate-speech (whether the comments that are dubbed as such are in fact hateful, I will leave to your judgement) counter-productive to the SWC’s agenda?

In the 2010 and 2011 lists, there was a Palestinian, a German and a film director amidst the ranks. 2010 included the social media, in general, to it: Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo were all culprits — even though individual citizens, not the team that runs Facebook or Twitter, are responsible for the posts that go up there or the events that are created, such as “Kill a Jew Day.”

In 2012, seven out of ten to make the list were organizations or political parties or “European Soccer Fans” (ranked at number four). The three that weren’t groups were a Jakob Augstein (German writer), Carlos Latuff (Brazilian cartoonist) and Louis Farrakhan (leader of the Nation of Islam in the United States).  The Brazilian cartoonist responded to his being placed on this list by making another cartoon.

(Image From: http://tundratabloids.com)

It is such a response that Muslim comedians across the United States have taken post 9/11, to dispell all myths about how threatening Muslims are. There is a thin line between freedom of speech and inciting hatred, a line that U.S. courts have been grappling with for years. It is this line that Jakob Augstein is accused of crossing in his representation of Israeli policies in his journalistic writings. One such example quoted by SWC is, “Gaza is a place out of the end of times.” Dieter Graumann, 62, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, in an interview with leading German newspaper, Spiegel, accused Mr. Augstein of focusing solely on Israeli policies and said, by analogy, that by ignoring faults of other regimes, he was being an anti-Semite.  In his response, Mr. Augustein said, “If I don’t write about something, it certainly does not conversely imply that the situation is any less grave elsewhere.”

Gideon Levy, the Israeli writer and journalist who has been traveling to Gaza to tell his readers about what really goes on there, hasn’t been placed on SWC’s list but has been shot at by the Israeli Defence Force, threatened, and faced demands from government ministers that he be tightly monitored as a security risk. In 2006 the Israeli government changed its laws which have stopped Mr. Levy from traveling to the Occupied Territories. His crime: attempting to “rehumanize the Palestinians.” In covering small stories of regular citizens in the Occupied Territories, Levy attempted to look beyond the few narratives that are a product of “a whole machinery of brainwashing in Israel.”

The entire concept of making this list is counterintuitive. It is giving importance to hatred that should be ignored in order to overcome it, not further spread and given the importance it was seeking in the first place. As Rabbi Nachman of Breslov said, “[s]ome famous people owe their fame to controversy.” Therefore, as important as it may be to recognize that some people are spreading hatred and as important as it is to curb such actors (Hungarian politician, Marton Gyongyosi’s remarks spurred other lawmakers to wear Jewish stars in protest and led to public demonstrations and Thilo Sarrazin the German Banker was made to resign from his post – both as a result of their anti-Semitic remarks), it is just as important for us not to give life to hate-speech by repeating or advertising it.

Alternatively, the SWC could use its funds and energies in promoting the other story, their story. As the Muslims in the U.S. have started doing, laughing at themselves in order to spread awareness of the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, the SWC could promote such avenues that will help spread awareness of the good that Jews around the world are doing. Hate only further instigates hate.

Up until President Obama touched down in Tel Aviv earlier this week, the headlines roared for years
about new tensions between the United States and Israel, not to mention the sour relationship between bout countries’ head of state.

During the last U.S. election, Republicans and their sympathetic pundits branded the incumbent president as one of the most anti-Israel American leaders of all time. They further extended the anti-Israel mantel onto the entire Democratic party. As evidence, we heard time and time again that President Obama has not taken a hard line against Iran, the administration does not sufficiently recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Republicans are the only saving grace to continued U.S. support for the Jewish state.

Despite all this dominating the news cycle for the better part of four years, President Obama was greeted with open arms, captivating the hearts and minds of the Israeli people and heralded as a one of the greatest friends to Israel of all time.

Israel’s top leaders from President Shimon Peres, a long-time peace process proponent, to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanayhu, the leader of a Israel’s right-wing bloc on-and-off for two decades, all welcomed President Obama and repeatedly expressed their thanks to him.

From the ceremonial welcome at Ben Gurion Airport to the departure to Jordan, President Obama and his Israeli counterparts acted like best friends reunited for their twentieth (…to be nice…) high school reunion. President Obama joked about a hit Israeli television show and fluidly—albeit not flawlessly—spoke a few meaningful Hebrew phrases.

Israelis are very in touch politically and are not, as demonstrated by President Obama’s Jerusalem speech heckler, not wary of voicing their views.

Therefore, either the perception of Obama as anti-Israel was pure hogwash or it’s truly amazing what a warm smile and a few good jokes can do. It’s a combination of both.

Both President Obama and Israel’s leaders had to show a unified front. President Obama just faced a somewhat tough reelection fight and a damaging effort to confirm a new defense secretary that many think is not pro-Israel. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu cobbled together a coalition, that includes the Yesh Atid party, which represent many young Israeli voters that are not as anti-Obama as the constituents of some of the other parties. Maintaining that coalition, given how difficult it was to assemble, will require some politicking by Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose outward hostility toward President Obama during the last term was not terribly welcomed in Israel. Lastly, as a potential war with Iran brews, the United States and Israel must showcase a uniform front.

More importantly, the policies—and not the rhetoric—of both President Obama and congressional Democrats demonstrate their views on Israel, and there has been nothing but support for the Jewish state.

Prominently, the United States throughout Obama’s tenure has committed hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the development of the Iron Dome missile defense system, which has saved countless lives as terrorists in the Gaza strip lob rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians in southern—and increasingly central—part of the country.

On Iran, the United States has helped promulgate tough sanctions that have demonstrated significant impacts on the Iranian economy. Militarily, the United States has dispatched more forces to the region, allegedly helped engineer a debilitating computer virus to destroy Iranian computers, and President Obama has indicated that an Iranian nuclear weapons program is unacceptable. Only time will tell if the United States follows through with military attack, but President Obama has indicated that he does not “bluff.”

With Jerusalem, the United States policy has been the same for several presidential administrations under both parties. Yet, some build a false case that somehow President Obama is changing U.S. policy.

The list goes on and on. President Obama and the Democrats continue to support Israel—in some unprecedented ways—yet some distort this record.

President Obama may have been vilified in some American circles for being anti-Israel, but the Israeli people reflected the true nature of the relationship.

As Shimon Peres said at the outset of the visit: “Mr. President, Wherever you go in our land, you will meet the friendship and warmth of the people of Israel. The people of Israel want you to feel at home. Welcome home Mr. President.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just before introducing Israel’s 33rd coalition. Photo by Emil Salman

After weeks of negotiation, and, predictably, right before his already-extended deadline was set to expire, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced the formation of a majority coalition in the Knesset (Israeli legislature).  The coalition, in addition to including the pre-election alliance between Likud, the main right-wing party, and Yisrael Beiteinu, the Russian immigrant-oriented party headed by Avigdor Lieberman, also includes newcomer Yesh Atid, the new centrist party led by former TV personality Yair Lapid, Habayit Hayehudi, a religious-Zionist party led by former settlement leader Naftali Bennett, and Hatnuah, a hastily formed center-left party led by former Kadima leader Tzipi Livni.

The most notable theme that emerged from the elections was the glaring absence of the peace process in the parties’ respective agendas.  Hatnuah was the only significant party that urgently advocated for renewed negotiations with the Palestinians.  Under the coalition agreement, Tzipi Livni will be given the task of restarting these negotiations, but given that Hatnuah is a junior party with only six seats, it seems unlikely that Livni will wield enough power to drive the process forward.

There are various reasons for the absence of peace negotiations in the parties’ respective platforms. The social protests that swept across the country in the summer of 2011 forced most parties to focus on domestic issues such as job growth and affordable housing. In fact, these protests largely account for the revival of the Labor Party, the once-dominant left-wing party that had been marginalized in recent elections.

Secular Israelis’ growing irritation with the military draft exemptions and generous subsidies granted to the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community also helped to push diplomacy off the national docket. The meteoric rise of Yesh Atid was partially fueled by its demand for Haredi military conscription, and its emergence caused the Haredi bloc to lose its traditional role as kingmaker in coalition deals.

Meanwhile, Habayit Hayehudi is ideologically opposed to the creation of the Palestinian state, while Likud-Beituni has shown little interest in reviving peace talks over the last four year while they were in power.

Finally, most Israelis are disheartened by the lack of progress in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. After unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, they have been rewarded with a fairly steady barrage of rockets by Hamas into southern Israel. The Palestinian Authority has not only failed to consistently condemn Hamas for their militancy, they have engaged them in an off and on courtship over the last few years. These overtures have signaled to Israelis that the Palestinian Authority is disinterested in truly making peace.

These factors have all contributed to the formation of a government that will be decidedly lukewarm about resurrecting peace talks in the coming year.

The news media lit up late Thursday on news that North Korea threatened to use preemptive nuclear warfare against the United States and canceled its non-aggression pact with South Korea. The regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, equipped with nuclear capabilities, seems less interested in peace and only throughout the last 24 hours upped its rhetoric against the West.

Sadly, these aggressive threats could become far more common in the years to come, especially if the world is subjected to another lunatic armed with nuclear weapons, this time in the form of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

To date, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. While the country’s leaders claim that they only seek domestic nuclear energy capabilities, the technology built–including the 3,000 advanced centrifuges–are only necessary for the development of nuclear warheads. 

With every passing day, Iran closes in on realizing its goals of obtaining these weapons of mass destruction, only one of which could make Israel nearly uninhabitable or annihilate thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the region.

Despite not yet having nuclear capabilities, Iran’s rhetoric outpaces that of North Korea.

For years, Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel, hoping that the the “Zionist regime” will be “wiped” off the map. These repeated direct threats against Israel are coupled with similar accusations toward the United States, from claiming that the U.S. government planned the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks to aspiring for a world without America.

North Korea has the nuclear capabilities and the desire to slaughter millions of people. Iran is only one step behind, but rapidly approaching parity as it enriches uranium and further develops its nuclear program.

To date, sanctions have been moderately successful in harming the Iranian economy. Covert activities — including the assassination of key scientists and the release of debilitating computer viruses — have handicapped Iran’s work. Yet, despite all these efforts, Iran continues to advance its nuclear program and is ever closer to obtaining devastating weapons with every passing day.

Unless Israel, the United States and other Western powers take decisive action against Iran soon, the world will simultaneously face two nuclear-armed regimes, both intent on committing mass genocides and directly targeting the United States and its allies.

The Washington Monument–a massive obelisk within sight of both the White House and Capitol — and Israel, a small democracy wedged in between its enemies — are not often mentioned in the same article or newscast.

However, with the $1.2 trillion sequestration cuts set to slash funding across the federal government within days, both Israel and the Washington monument have more in common than most realize.

Those similarities became exceedingly clear in a recent letter sent from Secretary of State John Kerry to Congress on how the pending budget reductions will impact foreign policy.

Confused yet? Let me explain.

Government spending battles are nothing new to Washington. Annual appropriations fights have threatened federal programs from the newest Pentagon acquisitions to farm subsidies. To demonstrate the potentially detrimental impact of any budget reductions, federal agencies inform Congress that the most popular and visible programs will bear the brunt of those cuts.

This theory is termed the Washington Monument Syndrome. When the National Park Service faces cuts to its budget, the agency does not threaten reduced hours at a small park in Kentucky or to end tours of a historical site in Nevada. Instead, the National Park Service warns that spending reductions will be affect all members of Congress in a highly visible way right when constituents are visiting their representatives in the nation’s capital, through closing the Washington Monument. (Clearly, this was more of a threat when the public could enter the monument before the earthquake led to its closing, anyways. But, the point is the same.)

In foreign policy, Israel is the Washington Monument. In both the House and Senate and across party lines, nearly all Democrats and Republicans support continued aid to Israel and often back an expansion to the security cooperation with Jerusalem. At even the prospect of cuts to Israel’s security, Members of Congress reaffirm their commitment to the Jewish state and send a message that the United States will not abandon its closest ally in the Middle East.

Kerry has been around Washington for a long time and knows that the best way to save programs on the chopping block is to replace them with the most vital and politically popular initiatives.

This bluff on slashing funding to Israel is not a policy statement that Israel isn’t important — quite the opposite. It’s an affirmation that the State Department and White House know the importance of continued support for Israel and to demonstrate that the rhetoric of budget cuts has real consequences — ones that threaten countless lives.

As the country nears the edge of the fiscal cliff, Congress faces a clear choice: make thoughtful, smart policy decisions to place the country on a strong economic path, or let the country’s Washington Monuments go dark.

Last week, Syria was hit by an airstrike, just a few miles from Damascus. Israel has all but taken responsibility (credit?) for the strike. This level of aggression between the two neighboring nations is rare. The two have continued their battles in rhetoric and by proxy since the birth of the Jewish state, but Israel has not made such bold headways into Syria since the still relatively mysterious bombing of a presumed nuclear facility in 2007.

It has been heavily reported that Israel informed, and was accorded a green light by, the U.S. before taking out their target: ground-to-air missiles purportedly being transferred to Hezbollah.

Following the strike, Saeed Jalili, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, stated that Israel “will regret its latest aggression on Syria.” He continued that “the Muslim world should be ready to defend the Syrian people.” It has been reported that Assad asked Iran to do just that, to “hit back” at Israel, but was rebuffed, being told that they must “take care of [their own] business.”

Rather than striking back against Israel themselves, Syria made an utterly bizarre excuse for opting out of a retaliation. Syria claimed that they had no reason to retaliate against Israel, as the Israeli attack had itself been a retaliation against Syria.

Syria is attempting to use this attack to tie Israel to their own rebels. They are claiming that because they have been defeating the rebels, Israel felt the need to get involved. At the same time, the Syrian regime blamed the rebels for weakening Syria’s defenses and creating the vulnerabilities which allowed Israel to strike without Syria even “throw[ing] a pebble” while Israeli jets were hitting targets in plain view of Assad’s palace.

With surprising honesty, Syrian Minister of Defense admitted on TV this week that Syria’s air defenses have been weakened due to their ongoing civil war. This comment was just one day after Assad claimed that “Syria’s military was capable of confronting any aggression.”

The rebels on the other hand, with no apparent particular loyalty to Israel, have “slammed” Assad for his lack of a response, calling it “proof of his weakness and acquiescence to the Jewish State.”

Turkish-Israeli relations have been very rocky of late, but it appeared recently that their was a possible warming on the horizon. But rather than calling for calm or investigations, Turkey’s immediate reaction to the conflagration was to “slam” Assad for not responding to the Israeli strike. He went further to say that Turkey “will not stand by as Israel attacks a Muslim country.”

But Turkey has also been struggling with the conflict raging in Syria. There has been cross-border fire several times in recent months between the two nations, and just last month Turkey permitted US and NATO troops to deploy armor and help them shore up their own border with Syria. This did not make Iran happy. In the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, “The deployment of Patriot missiles will achieve nothing but provocation.”

I am sure that these are just a few of the things that President Obama will be discussing with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his first visit to Israel since becoming President. The trip is scheduled for early this spring.

Follow me on twitter @jlemonsk

Copyright: BBC – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21293598

On February 1, U.S. Embassy in Ankara – in a calm, residential and business neighborhood — was bombed. At the time of writing this, police statements indicate that it is believed to be a suicide attack and the attacker(s) detonated the bomb inside the security checkpoint bunker, killing at least one security guard. Growing up in the nice and pleasant middle-class neighborhood around the embassy, the attack was of particular shock to me.

Who attacked the embassy or what their motives were, will definitely be clear as the investigation continues, however the timing of the attack was of particular importance. Most specifically, CNN-Turk’s Nevsin Mengu has brought several important factors into consideration:

1. Earlier in the morning on February 1, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law Suleiman M., was captured by a joint CIA – MIT (Turkish National Intelligence Agency). The police statement indicates that Suleiman M. had entered Turkey as a political asylum-seeker, with the final goal of traveling to Saudi Arabia to reunite with his wife.
2. Israeli airstrike on Syria – and the fact that Israel had contacted Washington before the strike – infuriated not only Syria, but also Iran and Russia. A preemptive Israeli airstrike is not new in the region, but the consent and knowledge of Washington at this political juncture is seen as a very serious act of indirect hostility by the Syria-Iran-Russia axis.
3. Turkey had requested NATO Patriot-missile protection on its Syrian border later in 2012 – NATO had responded positively and a number of Patriot missile sites were established with a group of American, German and Dutch military oversight mission. The final shipment of Patriot missiles and launcher system had arrived several days earlier and the full system went operational earlier on February 1.

***

One, or a combination of these factors have possibly caused the attack today – U.S.-Turkish relations have recovered significantly from its 2003-2008 “low” and both countries have been cooperating extensively in a number of very critical strategic policy issues. U.S. Embassy bombing in Ankara may be an indicator of how this cooperation is seen as a threat, as the attack probably sought to punish both Washington and Ankara.

Yesterday’s strike on a convoy heading from Syria to Lebanon is but one act in an ever constant drama. Israel, for better or for worse, has had a history of violating both the air space and the territorial integrity of neighboring countries. Given that the Jewish State’s geographical location and the fact that it is surrounded by hostile states, Israel has chosen to act in an aggressive manner towards Arab states. A brief look at the past 40 years provides a variety of examples:

June 1981: Israeli jets bomb the Osirak reactor in Iraq. At this point in time Tel Aviv was understandably worried about two things. Israel was worried first and foremost at the prospect of another state achieving nuclear weaponization in the Middle East. Secondly, the fact that these weapons could be in the hands of a blood-thirsty dictator, Saddam Hussein, brought an increased need for action.

October 2007: Israel violates Syrian airspace, defying one of the most intricate networks of anti-air systems in the world. Purportedly, Israel first released a virus into the Syrian military network, which allowed for jets to bomb a secret nuclear reactor in Deir ez Zor governorate. The North Korean backed project has since been denied by Damascus.

October 2012: The most recent strike before today. Israeli jets hit a weapons factory in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. The facility, though to be supplying weapons to Hamas, was pictured burning throughout the night.

This brief overview admittedly misses a variety of historical attacks within Lebanon and Jordan carried out by the Israeli Air Force since the establishment of the Jewish State. That being said, these three incidents, perpetrated by Israeli air assets, are arguably the most important occurrences. They have been documented, as state submitted complaints, by the United Nations in the organization’s  annual year books and provide a great resource for anyone wanting to research the history of Israeli strikes against its neighbors.

Preemption:

Israel’s use of air power, in all of the three above mentioned cases, has one underlying theme in common. Preemption, a word brought to the forefront during the Second Gulf War and muddied during the same experience, after American troops found themselves stuck between Shiite militias and al-Qaeda insurgents. Israeli leaders have historically acted to ensure that surrounding Arab countries do not gain parity in either conventional or unconventional (chemical or nuclear) weapons and in turn challenge their military dominance of the region. In recent years, these preemptive strikes have taken the form of covert operations targeted at Israel’s main regional rival and nuclear weapon aspirant, Iran.

Military and Physical Factors: 

These same leaders have benefited from a variety of factors as well. In terms of operational planning, for a large part the surrounding Arab states have lacked the coverage provided by advanced anti-aircraft systems. Non-state actors, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, located on Israel’s Western and Northern borders respectively, have also been unable to access anti-air weaponry, particularly the lucrative Man Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) I have discussed here.

Israel’s neighbors also suffer from a geographical and meteorologic disadvantage, located on flat terrain, much of it covered in desert where rain is infrequent. This provides an advantage to the Israeli Air Force, which, due in part to this topical reality, has the ability to strike targets that are situated right out in the open at any time. The only limitations are the flight range of Israeli aircraft and an underdeveloped mid-air refueling capacity— a reason why any airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities would require the material support of the United States.

Note the expanses of desert in Syria and Iraq. 

Instability:

Israel has also benefited from another factor in the region, instability. While dotted with beautiful mountains, forests and vallies, Lebanon has suffered from decades of internal strife and a continual low-level struggle for power between the country’s Shiite and Sunni constituencies. Instability, and the secondary factors created by mistrust among confessional groups have ensured that the Lebanese Army remains under-equipped and relegated to policing outbursts of sectarian violence. The beneficiary is of course, Israel and I’d argue the pilots of the Israeli Air Force. The lack of anti-aircraft capabilities in Lebanon has allowed Israel to provide a constant reminder to Hezbollah of its conventional military dominance by near-daily fly overs of the south of the country. It also has provided a gateway to Syria, allowing pilots to avoid the military build-up on the Golan Heights, which has now lessened from the redeployment of Syrian troops to Damascus.

The strike inside Syria and the estimated fly-over of Lebanon by Israeli jets. (Courtesy www.israelandstuff.com) 

The same theme of instability is of course occurring in Syria, with its bloody two year revolution. Fighting occurs across the entirety of the country, the Syrian regime has lost control of nearly 40 percent of its territory and is unlikely to ever regain it. Furthermore, having been battered in 2011, Syrian rebels of both the secular and Islamist variety have coalesced into battalion sized units during 2012.  This has allowed the rebels to make a concerted push on regime strongholds, bases, checkpoints and airfields. Outgunned, rebel groups have sought to deal a blow to smaller regime installations which have tended to include anti-air and helicopter bases. These attacks, in search of heavy weapons, MANPADS and anti-tank missiles have put a large strain on the regime’s anti-air capacity. Syria, home to one of the widest anti-air coverage in the world, has had this capacity withered away by these rebel attacks, leaving a significant amount of its airspace unprotected. As the Israeli strike shows, the Syrian regime is no longer capable of maintaining a potent anti-air defense, one that was able to shoot down a Turkish jet last June.

The various circles represent Syria’s pre-revolution anti-air coverage, each black indicator represents the type of system and its range. 

Instability and Spillover: 

While the instability of Israel’s neighbors provide the Jewish State with the tactical openings to mount airstrikes against these countries, it can also have a variety of negative aspects. The Israeli strike this week concretely highlights this issue. Spillover from the Syrian conflict has been characterized by increased sectarian tension in Iraq, clashes between pro- and anti-Assad militias in Lebanon, border tensions with Turkey and an unstable refugee flow into Jordan. All of these factors make the region increasingly unstable and will surely create long term negative effects for the political balance, economic vitality and civil unrest in these countries.

What is new, and aptly seen through Israel’s strike, is the fact that weapons are now leaving Syria as part of a concerted effort to keep the “Axis of Resistance”  (Iran-Syria-Hezbollah) relevant and operationally capable. This signifies a new step towards increasing spillover and is also a sign of  According to sources, the convoy which was hit included advanced anti-air weaponry, SA-17 missiles to be exact, that were being transferred from Syrian stockpiles to Hezbollah. At first glance this may seem counter-intuitive; a country under threat by the international community, which has included talk of a no-fly zone, in turn siphons off its anti-air capabilities.

Russia built SA-17 anti-air system. 

While transporting advanced weaponry out of the country may not be the most clever scheme, it is probable that the regime of Bashar al-Assad views the creation of a no-fly zone over Syria as an unlikely occurrence. Given the lack of involvement by the West and the political unwillingness for NATO intervention, couple with the fact that rebel demands for a no-fly zone have fallen on deaf ears, Assad and his cronies have bigger issues to worry about. Instead, the attempted transfer of advance anti-air weaponry to a non-state actor, Hezbollah, could be explained by three scenarios.

Hezbollah’s New Toys: 

Why, at this point of the Syrian conflict, are we witness to a weapons transfer of such a provocative nature? All of the players included: Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, are  privy to the fact that Israel would interpret the shipping of advanced anti-aircraft weaponry as a existential threat to its ability to patrol Lebanon’s skies and strike against Syria’s chemical weapons facilities if need be. Furthermore, in shipping such systems, these actors must have acknowledged that there was a risk of Israeli intervention during the transfer process. So why take the risk now, particularly when Hezbollah is under pressure in Lebanon for supporting Assad, the Syrian regime is crumbling and Iran is slowly being strangled by international sanctions?

These are the three possible scenarios:

1. The SA-17 system and other advanced weaponry was meant to be used to ambush Israeli jets over Lebanon: This scenario has been touted by analysts as a strong possibility, one with which I highly disagree. The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War (The Second Lebanon War) was predicated on Hezbollah operatives ambushing Israeli soldiers on their side of the border, pulling the injured back into Lebanon and then destroying Israeli tanks in pursuit. The result was the destruction of the south of Lebanon and a vicious bombing campaign against Beirut. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, has said that if he would have known that Israel would respond in such a manner the initial operation would not have occurred. Hezbollah learns from its lessons and would not repeat the same mistake.
2. The systems were to be set up in the Bekaa Valley, so overflights, such as the one that hit the convoy, could not occur into Syria: Again for the reasons detailed above, I am sure that Hezbollah would not want to directly confront Israel in a manner that would hurt the Jewish State’s pride, along the lines of the operation in 2006 highlighted. Blowing up an Israeli jet over Lebanese territory would do just that and the Israelis have already threatened to “level Beirut” if another war with Hezbollah occurs. Taking on Israel at a time when Hezbollah troops are fighting to prop up Assad’s regime and when domestic public opinion is against the organization does not seem like a wise move by this rational militia-cum-political party.
3. Assad is fearful of losing his anti-air weapons to rebels and Hezbollah is building up its arsenal: This seems like the most plausible reason for why the SA-17 system and other advanced weapons were being sent to Hezbollah. Having lost a variety of anti-air weapons to rebels in the north of the country and around the capital, Damascus, Assad fears that these systems will be turned against his air force. With increasing numbers of helicopters and MIG jets being shot down by rebel forces and the regime’s reliance of air power to attack rebel strongholds and resupply its forces, this situation makes sense.

Furthermore, if reports are correct that senior members of Iran’s elite al-Quds forces, know for covert operations, were killed while guarding the convoy, the shipment is characteristically Iranian–a regional power playing the long game. Building up the capacity of Hezbollah to launch an attack if Iranian nuclear facilities are hit or if Israel decides that now is the time to end or significantly weaken the threat on its northern border, given the loss of the Syrian weapons corridor, makes perfect sense. Iran’s relevance as a regional player and its deterrence capabilities vis-a-vis Israel and the United States for that matter, rely on the ability of Hezbollah to strike the Jewish State. The loss of this capability, particularly after Assad’s fall would stifle Iran’s regional ambitions.