[News] Israel Still Angling for Attacks on Syria and Iran
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Sep 18 11:49:25 EDT 2013
September 18, 2013
Red Lines and Green Lights
Israel Still Angling for Attacks on Syria and Iran
by JONATHAN COOK
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted "red line"
around Syria's chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the
international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That
task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used
chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his
stated commitment to intervene should that happen.
According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the
intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the
latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering
the clamour for a US military response.
It is worth remembering that Obama's supposed "dithering" on the
question of military action has only been accentuated by Israel's
"daring" strikes on Syria -- at least three since the start of the year.
It looks as though Israel, while remaining largely mute about its
interests in the civil war raging there, has been doing a great deal to
pressure the White House into direct involvement in Syria.
That momentum appears to have been halted, for the time being at least,
by the deal agreed at the weekend by the US and Russia to dismantle
Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.
To understand the respective views of the White House and Israel on
attacking Syria, one needs to revisit the US-led invasion of Iraq a
Israel and its ideological twin in Washington, the neoconservatives,
rallied to the cause of toppling Saddam Hussein, believing that it
should be the prelude to an equally devastating blow against Iran.
Israel was keen to see its two chief regional enemies weakened
simultaneously. Saddam's Iraq had been the chief sponsor of Palestinian
resistance against Israel. Iran, meanwhile, had begun developing a
civilian nuclear programme that Israel feared could pave the way to an
Iranian bomb, ending Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.
The neocons carried out the first phase of the plan, destroying Iraq,
but then ran up against domestic opposition that blocked implementation
of the second stage: the break-up of Iran.
The consequences are well known. As Iraq imploded into sectarian
violence, Iran's fortunes rose. Tehran strengthened its role as regional
sponsor of resistance against Israel -- or what became Washington's new
"axis of evil" -- that included Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Israel and the US both regard Syria as the geographical "keystone" of
that axis, as Israel's outgoing ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, told
the Jerusalem Post this week, and one that needs to be removed if Iran
is to be isolated, weakened or attacked.
But Israel and the US drew different lessons from Iraq. Washington is
now wary of its ground forces becoming bogged down again, as well as
fearful of reviving a cold war confrontation with Moscow. It prefers
instead to rely on proxies to contain and exhaust the Syrian regime.
Israel, on the other hand, understands the danger of manoeuvring its
patron into a showdown with Damascus without ensuring this time that
Iran is tied into the plan. Toppling Assad alone would simply add
emboldened jihadists to the troubles on its doorstep.
Given these assessments, Israel and the US have struggled to envision a
realistic endgame that would satisfy them both. Obama fears setting the
region, and possibly the world, ablaze with a direct attack on Iran;
Israel is worried about stretching its patron's patience by openly
pushing it into another catastrophic venture to guarantee its regional
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren
claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the
civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel "always
preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren't backed by Iran to
the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran."
That seems improbable. Although the Sunni jihadist groups, some with
links to al-Qaeda, are not natural allies for either the Shia leaders of
Iran or Hizbollah, they would be strongly hostile to Israel. Oren's
comments, however, do indicate the degree to which Israel's strategic
priorities are obsessively viewed through the prism of an attack on Iran.
More likely, Israel has focused on using the civil war as a way to box
Assad into his heartlands. That way, he becomes a less useful ally to
Hizbollah, Iran and Russia, while the civil war keeps both his regime
and the opposition weak.
Israel would have preferred a US strike on Syria, a goal its lobbyists
in Washington were briefly mobilised to achieve. But the intention was
not to remove Assad but to assert what Danny Ayalon, a former deputy
Israeli foreign minister, referred to as "American and Israeli
deterrence" -- code for signalling to Tehran that it was being lined up
as the next target.
That threat now looks empty. As Silvan Shalom, a senior government
minister, observed: "If it is impossible to do anything against little
Syria, then certainly it's not possible against big Iran."
But the new US-Russian deal to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons can
probably be turned to Israel's advantage, so long as Israel prevents
attention shifting to its own likely stockpiles.
In the short term, Israel has reason to fear Assad's loss of control of
his chemical weapons, with the danger that they pass either to the
jihadists or to Hizbollah. The timetable for the weapons destruction
should help to minimise those risks -- in the words of one Israeli
commentator, it is like Israel "winning the lottery".
But Israel also suspects that Damascus is likely to procrastinate on
disarmament. In any case, efforts to locate and destroy its chemical
weapons in the midst of a civil war will be lengthy and difficult.
And that may provide Israel with a way back in. Soon, as Israeli
analysts are already pointing out, Syria will be hosting international
inspectors searching for WMD, not unlike the situation in Iraq shortly
before the US-led invasion of 2003. Israel, it can safely be assumed,
will quietly meddle, trying to persuade the West that Assad is not
cooperating and that Hizbullah and Iran are implicated.
In a vein Israel may mine later, a Syrian opposition leader, Selim
Idris, claimed at the weekend that Damascus was seeking to conceal the
extent of its stockpiles by passing them to Lebanon and Iraq.
Obama is not the only one to have set a red line. Last year, Israel's
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew one on a cartoon bomb at the
United Nations as he warned that the world faced an imminent existential
threat from an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Israel still desperately wants its chief foe, Iran, crushed. And if it
can find a way to lever the US into doing its dirty work, it will
exploit the opening -- regardless of whether such action ramps up the
suffering in Syria.
////*Jonathan Cook* won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for
Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human
(Zed Books). ///His new website is www.jonathan-cook.net
/A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi./
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the News