WarSclerotic

Persian Purim Summit In Damascus – The Philadelphia Bulletin.

By DAVID BEDEIN, Middle East Correspondent

JERUSALEM — Purim festivities throughout Israel last week celebrated the defeat of a Persian politician who sought to rally the world to murder every Jew on earth and also to stifle the return of the Jews to Jerusalem 2400 years ago.

Middle East headlines of the past week seemed tailor-made for Purim, as the president of Iran — the modern day Persia — arrived in Damascus to meet with the president of Syria, and the secretary general of Hezbollah met on Thursday in Damascus with today’s Persian politician opening their summit with a declaration that he looked forward to “a Middle East with no more Jews.”

The meeting between Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the rare occasions that Mr. Nasrallah left one of the safe-houses he uses in Lebanon.

Mr. Nasrallah told the media that he began the meeting by outlining a number of scenarios in which Israel might begin an attack on Hezbollah.

He said he believed that the chances of that happening were slim, but noted, “We have to be ready and prepared for any possibility.”

Mr. Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad were joined by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who invited them to dinner in the palace.

The three leaders said that they discussed the level of Hezbollah’s readiness and military preparations, the ties with the Lebanese army and the level of training being given by the Iranians in Hezbollah training camps.

The Iranian president capitalized on his visit to the Syrian capital to meet with the leaders of the ten Palestinian factions that have offices in Damascus—the “rejectionist front”—first and foremost, Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashal.

A Hezbollah spokesman announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad gave everyone their own job in the event of a war with Israel: “Syria is ready for any attack by Israel, either large or small. It has a commitment for full Iranian backing and support.”

Abed Albari Atwan, the editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, described the summit meeting as a “war council.” “Not since the great wars against Israel,” he wrote, “has there been a meeting of this magnitude and of this power… This is Assad’s answer to Hillary Clinton’s demand of Syria, on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s visit, to weaken its ties with Iran.

Assad informed her, for all intents and purposes: I’ve given up on the American axis, which is a joke, in my opinion, and hasn’t given me anything. I have no intention of dismantling a 30-year-old strategic alliance with Iran. As far as I’m concerned, Syria can continue to live without an American ambassador in Damascus.”

David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us.

NTI: Global Security Newswire – U.N. Powers Could Dodge New Iran Penalties, Say U.S. Officials.

MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi editor ‘Abd Al-Bari ‘Atwan wrote: “The [February 25] tripartite meeting in Damascus of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, his Iranian guest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, was a ‘war council,’ [at which the three] outlined future courses of action and assigned tasks and roles in case of an Israeli attack on one of the sides, or on all three at once…

“Also [noteworthy was] the expanded meeting between Ahmadinejad and the commanders of the Palestinian [resistance] factions… The timing [of this meeting], the manner in which it was held, and the press conference that followed it indicate that a strategic alliance is coalescing and a new front is forming, to serve as a spearhead against the U.S.-Israel alliance and the Arab governments that will join it, openly or covertly, should war break out. The Iranian president assessed that this war will break out… within a few months…

“We are witnessing a new language, an unprecedented [level of] confidence, and a readiness [to endorse] reactions the likes of which we have never seen – especially on the part of the Arab regimes – since [the adoption of] the peace option… embodied by the Arab peace initiative, which was carefully concocted in the American kitchen by expert chefs…

“It seems that the Syrian leadership has determined its position: It has decided to shut the door on America’s cheap and pathetic attempts to court it, and [has resolved instead] to strengthen its strategic alliance with Iran. This was its clear response to the advice of U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who demanded that Syria distance itself from Iran, the regional troublemaker…

“It seems that the imminence of conflict [in the region] has prompted [Syria] to abandon the course of quiet diplomacy and half-open doors to [rapprochement with] the West, and to begin preparing for the possibility of ‘the mother of all wars.”[2]

Lebanese Al-Akhbar Daily: A New Equation vis-à-vis Israel, with Iran Replacing Egypt

Ibrahim Al-Amin, chairman of the board of the pro-Syrian Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, wrote that whoever thought Syria would be intimidated by the threats of war against it and would distance itself from Iran has been proven wrong, and that the Damascus summit was meant to create a new balance of power vis-à-vis Israel, in which Iran takes the place of Egypt: “The young [members of] the March 14 [Forces] were not the only ones who spoke of Syria’s [alleged] intention to distance itself from Iran and from the resistance forces. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan, some European countries, and the U.S. State Department, there were also those who thought that [Syria would choose] this option.

“The basis for this [belief] was [their assessment] that Syria would be unable to withstand the threats of war against it, and that, faced with a choice between its own [survival] and its political position, the [Syrian] regime would quickly withdraw [from its alliance with Iran]…

“Then came the warnings: The Europeans conveyed direct threats from Israel and the U.S., to the effect that Syria would be a target [of attack] if it continued to transfer weapons to the resistance in Lebanon and Gaza, and that the continuation of its alliance with Iran would mean continued isolation and pressure [for Syria]… Influential circles in Tel Aviv, Washington, and other capitals thought that these threats would be enough to deter the opposite camp…

“[However, ultimately it was] Iran that conveyed a message to the U.S. and the West in general, and to Israel in particular – by means of Ahmadinejad’s visit to Damascus – to the effect that it was willing to supply Syria with all the support in needed to withstand any war [launched] against it. The visit ended with an Iranian-Syrian summit attended by Nasrallah, and with the convening of the Iranian conference for supporting the Palestinian resistance. [The aim of the summit and the conference] was to create a new equation vis-à-vis Israel, the essence of which is that the resistance forces will no longer agree to any war waged according to [Israel’s] perception…

“The notion that without Egypt the Arabs are unable to form a new equation for the conflict with Israel is no longer supported by reality. This is because Iran compensates for Egypt’s absence, both politically and militarily…

“The future of the Arab-Israeli conflict thus no longer depends upon one of the dangerous deviations in Arab [history, namely] the Camp David [Accords]…”[3]

Al-Quds Al-Arabi: The U.S. Did Not Provide Syria with Sufficient Incentive to Distance Itself from Iran

‘Abd Al-Bari ‘Atwan mocked the incentives offered to Syria in attempt to persuade it to distance itself from Iran: “Syria cannot withdraw from its strategic alliance with Iran, which has endured for over 30 years. It would be no exaggeration to say that [Syria] never even considered this option, because the alternatives offered to it were ridiculous and humiliating. Mrs. Clinton, whose demand that Syria distance itself from Iran violated [all] diplomatic and moral standards, offered Syria nothing in return, except some hints that the U.S. might recall its ambassador to Damascus – as though Syria cannot live without an American ambassador… What has Washington offered Syria in return for its moderate [policy]? Has it given it back the Golan? Has it [permitted] investments [in Syria]… or removed it from the list of terrorist states?…”[4]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Muhammad Sadeq Al-Diyyab stated that the U.S. demand that Syria distance itself from Iran without any suitable compensation, “[such as] a serious vision for solving some of Syria’s problems, first and foremost the Golan Heights… [means] that the U.S. wants Syria to sacrifice several of its relationships for free…

“Syria cannot not be expected to be satisfied… with being seen as having the proximity or distance [in its relationships] forced on it by others… The U.S. – which is seen to be damaged by this [Syria-Iran] relationship – needs to look at its accounts, its policy, and its political discourse, and to distance itself from dictating, issuing orders, and forcing its will on others. The world has changed, and the time has come for the U.S. to listen to the Arabs’ just demands.”[5]

Saudi Columnist: The Iran-Syria Alliance is Long-Standing and Ideological

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Hamid Al-Majd wrote that foundation of the years-long Iran-Syria alliance is ideology – despite their obvious differences in ethnic origin and in their connection to the religion. He emphasized that Iran has military capability and influence, unlike the Sunni Arab world, which is rife with internal disputes: “…Some observers do not understand that… the Iran-Syria relationship is not like the Libya-Chad relationship, which waxes and wanes in accordance with the political atmosphere and individual mood. The [Iran-Syria] relationship is an example of the importance of ‘ideological affiliation’ in the deepening and stability of alliances in spite of the changes and calamities wrought by time.

“Many observers, in a superficial view, pinned their hopes on the certain collapse of the Iran-Syria alliance after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, or at the very least on its gradual weakening. Their view relied on [the fact that] Saddam was the bitter enemy of both countries… But the days that followed the fall of the Saddam regime proved that this alliance was long-term and deeply rooted, not transient…

“The Syria-Iran relationship developed on the economic and cultural levels, [and] was translated into several trade and cultural agreements… even though the Syrian regime is pure Ba’thist, ‘not religious,’ and a clear contradiction to the Iranian regime. [Likewise], the Syrians are Arabs, and their Iranian colleagues are Persians. Ultimately, ideological ties are the strongest and most stable – and this is what several Arab and Western commentators fail to comprehend.

“Facing this powerful alliance is the Sunni world, constituting the vast majority of the Muslim world – and most of which is not useful at all, because the Muslim world has no country that compares to Iran in ideological influence or in military [might]… Time has proven that the Iranians have a tremendous ability to plan and to influence. Iran, in its shrewdness, has successfully mocked and rejected the West with its ‘evasion’ on its nuclear capability, which it will ultimately use to strengthen its ideological influence – while some governments in the Sunni world are still struggling with their electorate [within their countries, in an attempt] to prove that they have disengaged their Islamic affiliation. [These countries’] identity has been lost – drowned in the disagreements that have caused their failure… [allowing] Iran and those around it to be the main players.”[6]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: Assad’s Contempt for Clinton Contradicts Syria’s Previous Statements

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat editor Tariq Alhomayed wrote: “Whilst U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that her country has asked the Syrians to distance themselves from Iran, the Syrian president [welcomed] his Iranian counterpart to Damascus, celebrating the occasion of Mawlid [the birth of the Prophet Mohammed]. [The two presidents] signed an agreement to cancel [the need for] travel visas between the two countries. Was this [a case of] Syria challenging the U.S. – or just public embarrassment [for the U.S.] in response to Secretary Clinton embarrassing Damascus, especially as Assad’s comments about Clinton were clearly sarcastic…

“But if Damascus is the one that determines how things go, and believes that its interest lies in consolidating its ties with Tehran, then why is Syria openly asking the Americans to intervene in negotiations with Israel[?]… If Damascus agrees with Ahmadinejad… that the ‘Zionist entity is on its way to disappearing,’ and ‘will be confronted by all nations in the region, especially Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq,’ then why is Syria cooperating with the Americans on security issues and with acknowledgement from Washington, as the number of foreign [jihad] fighters heading to Iraq [via its borders] has decreased?…

“…If the Syrians want to normalize relations with the U.S. and want the U.S. to mediate between Syria and Israel, then how can they fight on Ahmadinejad’s side and agree with him on eliminating Israel?… If the idea of Syria negotiating with Israel is accepted by Iran, then why does Tehran denounce others as traitors?…

“…[W]ho is deceiving whom? There is something not right about the Damascus-Tehran relationship today. The loud voice suggests that one side is nervous whilst the other is portraying something contrary to what is on the inside. Let us wait and see!”[7]

Endnotes:
[1] About the Assad-Ahmadinejad summit, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2829, “At Damascus Summit, Ahmadinejad and Assad Attack U.S. and Israel; Ahmadinejad: Israel’s Elimination is Near; Assad: The Resistance Is Winning,” February 26, 2010,

Israel’s pre-emptive nuclear precedent.

Sitting across from Iran in the Gulf, the world’s largest oil producer is undeniably as threatened by a nuclear Iran as Israel is. While Saudi Arabia may have an interest in the higher oil prices which would result from targeted air strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, the Saudis also know they represent the chief guarantor of economic recovery for a battered global economy requiring cheap oil.

What Saudi Arabia is not, however, is the publicized target of Iran’s soon-to-be-nuclear missile arsenal.

Israel knows that the window for stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is quickly closing. Action must be taken soon to prevent Iran’s manic leaders from obtaining the world’s most lethal weapon to achieve their goal of “wiping Israel off the map.” Tragically, the international community appears feckless in stopping Iran — even with widespread protests against an increasingly hated Iranian regime and growing unity in the Iranian opposition movement.

As one of Israel’s few remaining vocal allies, Canada must support Israel. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated an “attack on Israel is attack on Canada.” If Israel follows its historic precedent and conducts unilateral military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Harper must stand up for Israel’s right to self-defence against the world’s most dangerous regime and largest state sponsor of terrorism — the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Decision makers, be warned! – Haaretz – Israel News.

By Emily B. Landau

As repeated deadlines related to Iran pass, and evidence of its military nuclear program mounts, it might appear that the world has woken up to the problem, and is ready to adopt a tougher stance. Yet, beyond some tough-sounding rhetoric about the need for more severe and targeted steps, nothing very serious is actually on the international agenda – certainly not the so-called crippling sanctions. Indeed, China is expressing a new and more adamant opposition to sanctions, Russia too is dragging its feet, and the new EU foreign minister – well, she seems to have not even realized that the latest round of diplomacy has already failed. But perhaps more troubling are two additional themes that have become increasingly evident as the international community becomes more and more aware that it is powerless to stop Iran from progressing toward its goal. Both themes reflect the dangerous cynicism that characterizes international attitudes today on this topic, at both official and unofficial levels. The first theme is manifested in a growing tendency among analysts who were previously dubious that Iran was even seeking nuclear weapons, to forget the problem-ridden efforts of the past seven years that were meant to check Iran’s advances, and to focus instead on the idea that a nuclear Iran is now a fait accompli. The tenor of this blase approach is: So what if Iran acquires nuclear weapons? It’s no different from other states that have built a bomb. Suddenly, the lack of a smoking gun, and/or the clear evidence of Iran’s noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; challenges that plagued efforts to constrain Tehran for years; are brushed aside. And Iran’s advance toward the bomb – which the same parties once considered unsubstantiated U.S. or Israeli paranoia – is now treated as an undisputable and unavoidable fact. And who cares if Iran cheated to get to where it is? All is fair in love and balance of power. At least for Iran. The second, and more implicit, theme is also the more cynical and dangerous one in terms of its implications. It involves the option of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Officials whose statements were previously in the vein of, “Oh no, Israel cannot be allowed to attack!” are now beginning to sound as if they mean: “Israel cannot refrain from attacking.” Sometimes the feeling is that the speaker is actually hoping that Israel will decide to go ahead and attack Iran. Think about it. At this stage, even in light of official American rhetoric to the contrary, an Israeli attack would actually have some clear advantages for the Western states confronting Iran. First, it would immediately take the heat off the West, and divert attention from the fact that its efforts to stop Iran have failed. It would have the added benefit of releasing the United States from the need to follow through on its own threats of “consequences.” Second, an attack would most likely cause at least some damage to Iranian facilities, which would be positive in and of itself. It would also shake things up enough so that the United States could then sweep in and try to restrain Israel (after it has attacked), while working to restore stability in the region more generally, possibly shoring up desperately needed foreign policy points for the Obama administration. Finally, all blame for aggression would be conveniently directed at Israel. Although the United States cannot escape being implicated to some degree, the strong rhetorical position it has taken against an Israeli attack can be expected to minimize the fallout. Indeed, even Iran may secretly harbor a desire for an Israeli attack on its facilities. This idea is fueling an odd speculation making the rounds in Washington these days, as analysts struggle to explain why Iran has moved almost all of its low enriched uranium (just short of 2,000 kg) to an above-ground facility that can enrich to 20 percent. Doing so exposes the LEU to attack, hence the theory that Iran actually intends to lure Israel to make a move, in order to spur Iranians to rally around the regime, as well as to allow their country to look like the victim rather than the aggressor. The fact that an Israeli attack on Iran could actually serve the interests of both Iran and the countries that confront it is an unnerving idea that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The highly cynical benefits that others could gain at Israel’s expense should make Israeli decision-makers even more wary of contemplating military action against Iran, which would in effect let the international community off the hook. Emily B. Landau is director of the Arms Control and Regional Security program at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University.