WarSclerotic

Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk described the Boston terror attack as a shock to the system, remarking that “Israel is usually Ground Zero for terrorism” in an interview on Channel 2’s weekly Meet the Press program on Saturday evening.

“It’s strange that I’m here.. and now it’s happening back home,” he said.

“Home grown terrorism is a very scary thing… to imagine that they are in our beds,” he added.

Indyk said that while people turn to extremist actions for a range of motives, the Internet facilitates “moving to an extreme point,” providing readily available extremist ideologies.

The former ambassador opined that the attack would not have any affect on US policy in the Middle East because he believes that people draw a distinction between having to fight terrorism and avoiding ground wars. “[US President Barak] Obama’s use of drones have led the US public to beleieve they have an easy way of dealing with it,” he added.

Turning to US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Indyk said that the “onus is on [US Secretary of State John] Kerry.” While Indyk said he does not agree with Kerry’s recently stated opinion that opportunity for peace is “going out the window,” he said he is glad that he sees the situation in this way as it inspires him to act.

He also expressed the opinion that Obama is skeptical, but would support Kerry if he put a fair proposal on the table. “If Kerry fails, and the US ends its involvement [in the peace process], then Israel is the one that will end up paying the price,” he warned.

WASHINGTON – A complex $10 billion arms deal in its final stages would strengthen two key Arab allies – the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – while maintaining Israel’s military edge, US defense officials said Friday.

“This not only sustains but augments Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region,” one of the officials said, ahead of a trip to the Middle East by US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “This package is a significant advance for Israel. … This is about giving all three partners in the region added capacity to address key threats that they may face down the road.”

The announcement comes amid mounting concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, with little progress reported at talks this month between Iran and world powers. US officials concede that crippling sanctions have so far failed to force concessions from Tehran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Israel has renewed warnings it reserves the right to resort to military action to stop what it says is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Hagel is preparing for his first trip to Middle East since taking office in February, planning to visit Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE; he was expected to continue discussions about the arms sale at stops along the way.

The deal, more than a year in the making through a series of coordinated bilateral negotiations, would result in the sale of V-22 Osprey aircraft, advanced refueling tankers and anti-air defense missiles to Israel and 25 F-16 Desert Falcon jets worth nearly $5 billion to the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia also would be allowed to purchase weapons with “stand-off” capabilities – those that can be used to engage the enemy with precision at a greater distance, defense officials said.

The deal marks the first time the United States has offered to sell tilt-rotor Ospreys to another country, and the “stand-off” weapons would give Saudi Arabia and the UAE a more advanced capability than they have had in the past, said the defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“This is one of the most complex and carefully orchestrated arms sale packages in American history,” one of the officials said. “That’s not just because of the kinds of equipment that we’re providing to Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. It’s also a reflection of intensive defense shuttle diplomacy.”

Defense officials touted the arms deals as the culmination of US President Barack Obama’s effort to find a way to boost the military capabilities of key Arab allies in light of the threats in the region while still fulfilling the US policy of maintaining Israel’s military superiority.

Officials said the Congress had not been formally notified of the arms sale as part of the approval process. That will come once the different countries finalize their purchase decisions and submit formal letters of request.

While the arms negotiations with the different countries were carried out bilaterally, defense officials said they had been transparent with all sides about the effort to boost the military capacities of all sides to address regional threats.

Sources familiar with the arms sales plans said Israel had asked to buy five or six V-22 Ospreys, built by Boeing Co and Textron Inc’s Bell Helicopter unit, at an estimated price of about $70 million apiece.

The UAE also is interested in purchasing the tilt-rotor aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane, the sources said. But that sale is likely to be included in a separate deal.

The United States sold Saudi Arabia 84 F-15 jets for $29 billion in 2010, planes that are now beginning to roll off the assembly line and undergo testing, officials said.

This week saw a sharp escalation in the emerging confrontation between the Syrian Sunni rebels and the Lebanese Hezbollah organization. This conflict is the result of Hezbollah’s increasingly visible engagement in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime.

Syrian rebels for the first time this week fired rockets into the Hezbollah controlled Hermel region, adjoining the Syrian border. Two Lebanese citizens were killed and a number of others wounded, as rockets landed in the villages of al-Qasr and Hawsh al- Sayyed Ali. The rebels took responsibility for the attacks, saying they were targeting Hezbollah-controlled sites in the two villages.

The firing on the villages was clearly an attempt by the rebels to send a message to Hezbollah and Lebanon. Namely, that if Hezbollah continues to involve itself in the civil war in Syria, the traffic will not all be one way.

The Sunni rebels now apparently feel strong enough to take the fight back across the border, hitting at Hezbollah’s heartland. The rocket fire was accompanied by a statement by the Syrian National Coalition. The Western, Turkish and Gulf-supported coalition regards itself as the political leadership of the rebel side in the war; the Arab League and a number of Western states recognize it as the legitimate leadership of Syria. The statement included a confirmation of rebel responsibility for the rocket attack and noted that the attack came in response to weeks of Hezbollah assaults on villages across the border. The statement included a demand that the Lebanese government “exert control over its borders and put an immediate stop to Hezbollah’s military operations on Syrian territory.”

The Lebanese government, for its part, has issued a complaint to the Arab League, protesting against what it referred to as “border violations.”

Hezbollah claims that it has no sizeable commitment of fighters in Syria.

Rather, the movement admits to training forces belonging to an initiative known as the Popular Committees.

These local Syrian Shi’ite fighters, the movement claims, requested help to defend themselves against Sunni rebel attempts at ethnic cleansing.

So what is really going on? A glance at the map of Syria offers the answer.

Hezbollah claims to be offering support to the 15,000 Shi’ite residents of villages adjoining Hermel, but on the Syrian side of the border. These villages lie close to the city of Homs, still mainly controlled by the regime. The border is poorly demarcated, and barely controlled by border authorities.

But the movement’s real interest in this area goes beyond concern for the residents. It is a vital strategic location.

If the rebels were to gain control of it, this would drive a wedge between the capital city of Damascus and the Alawite majority area on the western coast.

The Shi’ite-populated area adjoins the Homs-Damascus highway. The western coastal area, which contains the ports of Tartous and Latakia, would be the probable destination for the Alawite “hard core” around dictator Bashar Assad if the capital city were lost. It is where the families of many of the Alawite officials in Damascus reside.

But for it to be reachable from Damascus, the regime needs to keep control of the highway. So Hezbollah, its claims to be protecting a Shi’ite community notwithstanding, is also performing a vital task for its allies.

There is also self interest involved.

Were an Alawite enclave on the coast to come into being, it would act as a vital conduit for the continued supply of arms to Hezbollah from Iran. Control of Tartous and Latakia, and of a contiguous ground link to Lebanon, would enable the transfer of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah, even if Assad were to lose Damascus. An Alawite enclave that lost this area would still border Lebanon to its south – but the border area further north is populated mainly by Sunni and Christian Lebanese. So Hezbollah is also defending its own supply lines with its incursion into Syria.

The confrontation in Qusayr, meanwhile, is only one part of what looks like an increasing deployment of both Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian Shi’ite Islamist fighters into Syria. Prorebel sources attribute this to the regime’s depleting number of homegrown fighters on whom it can rely.

They maintain that recent attempts by Assad to recruit reservists have produced only meager results. The Saudi Al-Arabiya channel noted a claim that 1,200 Hezbollah fighters arrived to Syria this week by a sea route, landing in Tartous. The report said that thideployment was part of a much larger process, in which fighters from Iraq and from as far away as Pakistan were also arriving to aid the dictator.

Clear evidence has emerged that Hezbollah fighters have fought and died in Damascus.

Officially, they were there to defend the Shi’ite shrine of Sayyida Zeinab in the city. But more practically, the Lebanese Shi’ite fighters are part of a general concentration by the regime of its most able forces to defend the capital. This has included the redeployment of top army units to Damascus, and the increased presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. The rebels claim that all this constitutes a last-ditch defense by Assad, who can no longer rely on sufficient numbers of Syrians to fight for him.

But at least as of now, Assad continues to hold up quite well. The despot and his regional allies are in effect creating an insurgent-type army to fight against the insurgency. Crewed by fighters loyal to Iran and Assad on sectarian and ideological grounds, this force can be relied on to fight to the end. Its emergence is testimony to Iran’s unyielding determination to hold its position and assets in Syria.

A general mobilization of Iranian regional allies on behalf of Assad appears to be taking place. As a part of it, Hezbollah is heading further and deeper eastwards, even at the risk of provoking a response on the part of the increasingly powerful Sunni armed presence in Syria.

It is a gamble. Then again, as a proxy of Iran, Hezbollah probably has little choice but to obey the mobilizing call of Tehran.