WarSclerotic

Pentagon Plans for the Worst in Syria – WSJ.com.

By ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon is stepping up plans to deal with a dangerous regional spillover from Syria’s possible collapse—a scenario it had recently seen as remote—drawing up proposals including a Jordanian buffer zone for refugees secured by Arab troops, said U.S. officials familiar with the discussion.

Associated Press

Israeli soldiers held exercises in the Golan Heights near Syria on Tuesday.

The plans seek to minimize direct U.S. involvement, but they reflect a reassessment of the Pentagon’s hands-off approach. The shift comes after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s trip last month to the Middle East, during which Arab leaders appealed for the U.S. to focus on the danger of Syria’s disintegration into warring sectarian fiefdoms.

“The Syria message was loud and strong,” said a senior diplomat briefed on Mr. Hagel’s trip. “Everybody’s scared. And nobody knows what the hell we are going to do there.”

The U.S. fear is that Syria could break apart and fighting and additional refugees could spill into Jordan—an American ally and peace partner with Israel—threatening it and other U.S. interests in the region, these people say.

Related Video

What’s stopping the U.S. from getting involved in the Syria conflict? Jerry Seib joins The News Hub with three big concerns keeping Washington from action. Photo: Associated Press.

A buffer zone along the Syria-Jordan border, if put into effect, would provide a way to shelter a Syrian refugee population that is overwhelming Jordan, the U.S. officials said. It would also be a possible conduit for the U.S. and Europeans to funnel aid, including arms, to Syrian rebels, they said.

In recent days, some of the most pessimistic U.S. scenarios for the war’s trajectory appear to have been confirmed—with claims of chemical-weapons use in Syria, back-to-back airstrikes inside the country that have been attributed to Israel and reports early this week that several thousand Iran-backed Hezbollah militants are fighting alongside Syrian regime forces. On Tuesday, a Syrian rebel group abducted four United Nations peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, the U.N. said.

The prospect of a Syrian breakup was raised Tuesday by Secretary of State John Kerry, who met in Moscow with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in an effort to move Syria’s warring sides toward a negotiated solution.

“The alternative is that there is even more violence. The alternative is that Syria heads closer to an abyss, if not over the abyss and into chaos,” Mr. Kerry told reporters. “The alternative is that there may be even a breakup of Syria.”

As part of the military’s stepped-up contingency planning, a U.S. Army command team being deployed this month will work with Jordan’s military on options that include planning for a buffer zone, the U.S. officials said. The Pentagon announced last month that it was sending Army troops to bolster its presence in Jordan but didn’t specify that role.

U.S. and Jordanian officials have been privately discussing the buffer zone idea for months, a senior administration official said. Jordan’s embassy in Washington had no immediate comment.

U.S. military leaders have also suggested increasing the number of trainers working with Jordanian forces, according to officials. The military could offer air support, including embedding U.S. Air Force tactical controllers in Jordanian ground units, these officials said.

Egyptian officials have told their American counterparts that Cairo would be prepared to be part of an international stabilization force in Syria “under certain circumstances,” according to a senior American official. Egyptian officials in Washington had no immediate comment.

For months, the White House has debated options that would boost the U.S. role in supporting more moderate factions battling Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Leaders in the region privately complained the U.S. wasn’t being decisive enough and urged the U.S. to set a policy path that would corral Arab states that have often worked at cross-purposes, U.S. officials said—asking the U.S. to play a “midwife” role, as one of these people put it.

In recent weeks, Arab leaders have traveled to Washington to put their cases directly to President Barack Obama. Jordan’s King Abdullah privately told top White House policy makers last month that Syria could become a new al Qaeda safe haven, according to senior U.S. officials.

In the Mideast, Mr. Hagel listened as Egyptian Defense Minister Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi told him Syria’s breakup would be a “huge disaster” for all sides—not only for King Abdullah but for U.S. interests in the region, according to U.S. officials.

Mr. Hagel came away from the trip, which also included stops in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, “seeing storm clouds on the horizon,” one of Mr. Hagel’s advisers said. Last week, he became the first U.S. official to say publicly that the administration was weighing arming the rebels.

The contingency planning shows the extent to which Pentagon leaders now see a breakup as a real threat to U.S. interests in the region. Providing support to rebels risks inadvertently arming forces allied to al Qaeda. Standing back could lead to a disorderly collapse, including the possibility that Jihadist militias emerge with territory to govern. The potential for a disruptive spillover has spurred renewed interest in ideas the Pentagon and White House had previously ruled out.

The White House remains cautious about commitments that could draw the U.S. into the war and has been treading gingerly given the constrained options.

On Tuesday, President Obama said the U.S. has moral and national-security obligations to respond to bloodshed in Syria but continued to urge caution about what he said was “perceived” use of chemical weapons in the Middle Eastern country.

Officials said it could be easier to win support for expanded American military involvement for efforts aimed at humanitarian relief. The growing refugee problem could also provide legal justification for intervening in Syria if the U.S. determines that key allies such as Jordan are seriously threatened, U.S. officials believe.

But how to create a buffer is controversial. Syria has repeatedly said that establishing such zones in the north or south of the country would be considered an act of “foreign aggression.” A safe zone inside Jordan, meanwhile, could also end up drawing more refugees to the beleaguered kingdom.

Americans for now envision any buffer zone being set up on Jordanian soil, where U.S. troops could be stationed. Some Jordanian officials want it to be on Syrian territory, U.S. officials say, which would limit involvement of American personnel. The U.S. has so far ruled out putting troops on the ground inside Syria but could send intelligence officers.

Cash-strapped Jordan has taken in 520,000 refugees from Syria, straining an already anemic economy and sowing public discontent. King Abdullah has referred to one camp, which houses 110,000 to 120,000 Syrian refugees, as Jordan’s fifth-largest city. Protests against poor living conditions at the camp are common. A growing number of Syrians want to return home.

The U.S. faces a difficult balancing act in shoring up King Abdullah without undercutting him. A large overt U.S. military presence in Jordan could backfire and fuel unrest aimed at the king. Islamists already see the kingdom as an arm of the U.S. government and Israel, and there have been several protests demonstrating against U.S. intervention in Syria.

Jordan is concerned about the Jihadi threat, especially the Al Nusra Front, an arm of al Qaeda that plays a central role in the fight against Mr. Assad and which has recruited hundreds of Jordanian nationals. A senior European defense official said Jihadists were eager to “settle scores” with the kingdom for providing aid to the U.S. against al Qaeda.

The U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff started presenting military options to the White House in July 2012 that ranged from training and arming moderate rebel factions to conducting airstrikes on Syrian air defense and leadership targets.

Of those, Mr. Obama has authorized nonlethal support from the State Department, a limited Central Intelligence Agency training program and deployments of U.S. military personnel to train Jordanian forces in how to deal with Syria’s chemical-weapons threat.

More recently, Mr. Obama has moved toward authorizing the U.S. to provide body armor and night-vision goggles to the rebels, and has revived the option of arming some rebel factions—a proposal he rebuffed last year.

Officials said the buffer zone along the Jordan-Syria border could be the transit point for arms and aid distribution, possibly to include gear to protect fighters from chemical and biological weapons.

“Syria affects so much of the Middle East, nothing happens independently in the Middle East,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff said on Tuesday. “If we don’t get this right, it could change the whole face of the Middle East.”

—Paul Sonne in Moscow, Joe Lauria at the U.N. and Suha Maayeh in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this article.Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 8, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Pentagon Plans for the Worst in Syria.

Israeli attacks in Syria aimed at Hezbollah, not as aid to rebels – latimes.com.

Supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad march in the Yemeni capital, Sana, in protest of Israeli airstrikes on weapons convoys in Syria. Israel claims a right to prevent sophisticated arms from being acquired by the Hezbollah militia, although it has yet to confirm it waged the recent attacks. (Mohammed Huwais / AFP/Getty Images / May 7, 2013)

By Carol J. Williams

May 8, 2013, 5:00 a.m.

Israeli airstrikes in Syria on Iranian weapons destined for Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia could be seen as heralding wider international involvement in Syria’s intractable civil war.

Reports  of sarin gas attacks in Syria also conjure the threat of further foreign intervention.  President Obama has said any use of chemical weapons would “cross a red line.”

But Syrian President Bashar Assad and his backers in Iran and Hezbollah have responded to the latest signs of outside intrusion with little more than blustery vows to repel all enemies. The lack of specific threats of retaliation lends plausibility to a prevailing sense that Israel and its adversaries are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken.

Israel, which hasn’t publicly admitted to bombing the weapons caches, appears to be confident that its airstrikes will be seen as preemptive defensive action to keep the weapons out of Hezbollah hands, not intervention on behalf of the rebels. Many of the groups fighting Assad are backed by Arab countries, Islamic political movements or armed factions that are declared enemies of Israel and would be loath to be seen as its comrades-in-arms.

As for concerns about Washington intervening militarily, its dubious decisions to go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan with the goal of regime change are likely curbing any appetite for fresh involvement in a faraway conflict, even with the reported chemical weapons use justifying more decisive action.

On Tuesday, the Alawite Syrian newspaper Al Watan reported that Assad had given a breakaway faction of Palestinian militants based in Damascus “a green light to attack Israeli targets.” Later in the day, though, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quoted an unnamed senior member of the same group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, as saying the warning was symbolic and not intended to spark renewed hostilities in the Golan Heights along the Syria-Israel border.

Assad can ill afford opening a new battlefront with nuclear-armed and heavily defended Israel, as his forces are hunkered down in the third year of fighting with motley factions of jihadists and insurgents across the country.

Syrian officials have branded the Israeli airstrikes “a declaration of war,” and Assad on Tuesday boasted after a meeting with visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi that his forces are “capable of facing Israel’s ventures.” Salehi warned that Israel was “playing with fire.”

But few familiar with the balance of forces and domestic interests at stake in and around Syria see much risk of Israel’s targeted strikes against Iranian-made Fatel-110 surface-to-surface missiles provoking a major escalation.

“Israel does not want to get involved in the Syrian conflict. But Israel has an interest in stopping the shipment of dangerous, game-changing weapons to Hezbollah,” former Israeli government minister and lawmaker Dan Meridor said, without confirming that Jerusalem was behind the airstrikes.

The fall of Assad would be a serious blow to Iran and Hezbollah, Meridor noted. But the rebel groups likely to fill the power vacuum in Damascus could prove even more problematic for Israel, he said, as some are aligned with Arab countries hostile to Israel or hard-line Islamic forces that deny Israel’s right to exist.

Charles Ries, a career diplomat and Middle East expert who is now vice president of Rand Corp.’s international division,  described the Israeli action as “a propaganda cudgel” for the Syrian regime but unlikely to alter the course of the war.

“Assad will try to use the Israeli attack to discredit the rebels,”  Ries said. “He will associate them with Israel and say they’re Israeli allies.”

As Assad and Salehi caucused in Damascus, the chief diplomats of the erstwhile superpowers scrambled to head off any escalation or further complication of the Syrian conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent five hours in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, resurrecting a dead-letter peace plan proposed in Geneva nearly a year ago. It calls for Assad and rebel representatives to engage in peace talks — something both sides have firmly rejected.

Kerry, in remarks to reporters after the Moscow meetings, observed that the United States could hold off arming the rebels it supports if viable peace talks were underway. He also said that whether Assad goes or stays is a matter for the Syrian people to decide, stepping back from previous U.S. demands for Assad to resign before a new leadership can be negotiated. The U.S. policy shifts address Kremlin concerns that the United States is more focused on ousting Assad than ending the conflict.

But it remains unclear whether Moscow can compel Assad to sit down with the opposition figures he has branded “terrorists,” or if Washington can convince rebel leaders to meet with the autocrat they blame for 26 months of bitter fighting that has killed about 70,000.

Lavrov said he and Kerry agreed to try to assemble the parties as soon as the end of this month, and to try to salvage as much of the so-called Geneva communique as possible. Kerry also struck a more collaborative pose with his Russian counterpart, if not one that brimmed with optimism.

“Despite different points of view, committed partners can accomplish great things together when the world needs it,” Kerry said. “And this is one of those moments.”

Hezbollah Takes Risks by Fighting Rebels in Syria – NYTimes.com.

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

A billboard of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and President Bashar al-Assad in Baalbak, Lebanon. Hezbollah has supported Mr. Assad in the Syrian war.

By ANNE BARNARD

Published: May 7, 2013

On Tuesday, Syrian opposition activists reported that rebels had killed 15 Hezbollah fighters in Qusair. But they also said the rebels were besieged in the town and in danger of losing it, after black-clad Hezbollah fighters swept them from surrounding villages.

Recruited and trained to battle Israel and defend Lebanon, Hezbollah’s Lebanese Shiite guerrillas are pushing more and more deeply into a very different fight: in neighboring Syria, against fellow Arab Muslims trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad. Their leaders have made it increasingly clear that Mr. Assad’s war is their war, too.

Though Hezbollah has never been militarily stronger — it has more than replenished the weapons and fighters it lost in its brief war with Israel in 2006 — it finds itself in an unaccustomed situation. It is struggling to preserve credibility at home and fend off an array of new challenges abroad as it fights what it sees as a battle to preserve Mr. Assad’s rule, and the crucial arms pipeline he provides.

Its chief patron, Iran, is suffering under sanctions over its nuclear program. Its members have been jailed on charges of helping to kill Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, as Europe considers joining the United States in labeling it a terrorist organization. It is facing heightened sectarian talk from its rivals in Lebanon — all while trying to keep its focus on its primary enemy, Israel.

That challenge burst into view on Sunday with a series of spectacular airstrikes that brightened the night sky over the Syrian capital, Damascus. American officials said Israel unleashed the attack to knock out sophisticated long-range missiles on their way from Iran to Hezbollah.

Israel has hit such shipments regularly in Lebanon and twice recently in Syria, but the sheer scope and boldness of Sunday’s strikes, analysts said, threw down a gauntlet to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria that could put the Lebanese group at greater risk as Israel appears to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to hit its nemesis with near impunity.

Politically, the strikes could help Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has sought to defend Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria by defining the uprising as an Israeli-American plot to destroy Mr. Assad and Hezbollah for opposing Israel.

But the strike also could undermine Mr. Nasrallah, said Mahmoud Haddad, a professor at the University of Balamand in Lebanon, if Hezbollah, not wanting to open a new battlefront, does not retaliate.

“They talk the talk, but as you say in America, they don’t walk the walk,” he said.

Militarily, even frequent Israeli strikes at its weapons in Syria would not immediately harm Hezbollah, said Timur Goksel, an editor at Al-Monitor and a former political adviser to United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon. It has an estimated 60,000 missiles in the country already, more than enough to deter Israeli attacks, and to strike back.

But, Mr. Goksel said, as Israel and Hezbollah deepen their involvement in Syria’s civil war, the chances grow of a miscalculation or mistake that could spark direct conflict or a regional conflagration.

Hezbollah is eager to avoid that; it might be able to bloody Israel and survive its bombardment, but the political costs in Lebanon would be high, experts said.

“What do I care if they destroy Tel Aviv and lose Beirut?” said Amin Hoteit, a retired Lebanese colonel close to Hezbollah.

But Hezbollah may face pressure from its own ranks to respond, said Nicholas Blanford, the author of “Warriors of God,” a military history of the group.

“Hezbollah guys don’t join to go and fight Arab Muslims in Syria and turn the other cheek when Israeli jets go and blow up weapons,” he said.

Hezbollah has already paid a political price for its Syria stance. Supporting Mr. Assad’s brutal crackdown has already destroyed its reputation in the wider Arab world as a champion of the underdog.

Now it is stoking anger in Lebanon, where rivals say that Hezbollah, the most powerful political player, has betrayed promises to use its arms only to defend Lebanon.

But instead of backing away from Mr. Assad, Hezbollah has doubled down. Early in the Syrian conflict, it quietly tried to mediate a solution, then played down its involvement in Syria. Now, by comparison, it practically trumpets its presence.

Funerals for the small but steady stream of Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria honor them as martyrs with all the pomp, circumstance and television coverage previously reserved for those who died fighting Israel. Hezbollah says they are defending Lebanese civilians in Syria, but no longer claims that they are individuals fighting on their own initiative.

“They are very organized; no one can breathe without orders,” said Abdulrahim Mourad, a member of Hezbollah’s March 8 parliamentary coalition.

And they are handling crucial missions in Syria. Mr. Mourad said that when he visited Mr. Assad in Damascus recently with a March 8 delegation, the president described the fight in Homs Province — where Hezbollah is fighting in Qusair — as a top priority. It is an arms corridor for rebels and links the capital with the coastal region that is a government stronghold.

Hezbollah is also helping train Syria’s pro-government militiamen into a more formal National Defense Force, Israeli and American officials say.

Success on the ground is intensifying the backlash from Sunnis, fueling sectarian anger. Sunni fighters have filmed themselves burning Shiite religious centers in Syria and sent calls for help to protect them from Hezbollah’s “Shiite dogs” or “the party of the devil,” a play on Hezbollah’s name, the Party of God.

Last month, rebels lobbed shells across the border at the Hezbollah-controlled town of Hermel, killing a boy and a man visiting his fiancée, the group Human Rights Watch reported.

That has only toughened Hezbollah’s conviction that the Syrian revolution threatens the Shiites, who are believed to be the largest group in Lebanon, but a minority in the region.

Lebanon’s Sunnis and Shiites are fighting on opposite sides in Syria, but so far not in Lebanon, even though the border along the Bekaa Valley teems with Hezbollah and Sunni militants heading in and out of Syria.

Despite all this, Hezbollah is still vigilant on the Israeli border, and its military is not too stretched to fight Israel, Mr. Blanford, the author, said. It has at most a few thousand fighters in Syria, analysts say, while its total force has grown to about 5,000 full-time fighters and as many as 15,000 in reserve.

If Mr. Assad falls, Hezbollah fears Israel would go after it, knowing it could no longer replenish its arms.

In the meantime, Syria is “a training battle,” said Dr. Kamel Wazni, another Lebanese analyst close to Hezbollah. “Preparation for the bigger battle.”

What Israel Air Strikes on Syria Reveal About Blueprint for Iran Attack – Forward.com.

Will U.S. Get Advance Warning of Attack on Nukes?

getty images

Tensions RIse: U.N. peacekeepers keep wary eye on border area between Syria, Israel and Lebanon after Israel mounted air strikes on a missile facility last weekend.

By Nathan Guttman

Washington — Israel’s punishing air strikes against Syria highlight the delicate dance about sharing information with the U.S. — a balance that provides a blueprint for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Following a pattern set in decades of military cooperation, Israel did not provide the U.S. with advance warning about its intention to launch two strikes on advanced missiles near Damascus, sticking to boilerplate statements about the need to “take any action needed.”

But insiders say prior consulations would be required before any Israeli attack on Iran, because — unlike the Syria attacks — such a strike would likely drag the U.S. into military intervention of one kind or another.

Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official involved in U.S.-Israel relations, called an attack on Iran “the big one” and stressed that Israel would have to share information at the highest level of decision-makers.

“It’s not something that you can come on Sunday and say ‘we’re attacking on Tuesday,’” Miller said, suggesting that approval from the U.S. would take some time.

Still, even in this hypothetical case, the White House would not expect Israel to provide exact details in advance.

“It’s inconceivable that the Israelis will say: ‘We’re going to attack Iran on this day at this hour,” said Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush.

He predicted that the U.S. would not require such specific information and Israel would be reluctant to provide it, fearing leaks from the administration. But Abrams agreed that Israeli officials would tip their hand that an attack was certain, even if they withheld some details.

“Maybe they’ll come and say: ‘we reached the point of high probability,’” said Abrams, who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The air strikes on Syria took place on May 3 and 5 and were aimed at warehouses storing dozens of advanced surface-to-surface Fateh-100 missiles.

The missiles, provided by Iran, were on route to Hezbollah in Lebanon and were viewed by Israel as game changing weapons in its ongoing battle against the Lebanon-based terror group. The U.S. administration was quick to make clear it had received no advance notice about the attacks.

President Obama, in an interview while travelling to Costa Rica, announced his support for Israel’s action, saying he believes “Israelis justifiably have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.”

The decision not to provide advance notification to the United States and not to seek pre-approval fits a long standing pattern of military coordination between the two countries, one that can best be described as following the rule of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Ambiguity is helpful for both sides. For Israel, determined to prove its sovereignty in making security-related decisions, lack of advance notice makes clear all decisions were made independently. For the United States, as it tries to avoid taking responsibility for Israeli actions, this ambiguity provides a safe distance from the events. “The American side wants to be kept in the loop, but at the same time, the U.S. also wants to maintain some deniability,” said a former Israeli official who has dealt closely with this intersection of relations. “The result,” the official added, “is a compromise between the need to know and the need not to know.”

History shows that the calculus about whether Israel needs to provide details to the U.S. depends on the degree to which American interests are directly involved.

In the case of Syria, there was no direct impact on the U.S. Hence, there was no need for any advance warning.

“I don’t think this is terribly consequential to the United Stats,” said Miller, who currently serves as vice president for new initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Even without specific advance warning, the Obama administration was not surprised by the Israeli action. In private conversations with their American counterparts, as well as in public statements, Israelis have made clear they will not tolerate transfer of weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. This was enough to convey the message that an attack could occur.

“We do not have a green light, red light relationship with Israel,” Abrams said.

The policy of ambiguity in sharing exact details of military action has been honed in the crucible of repeated Israeli military actions during Mideast crises.

In 1981 Israel took out Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a bold air strike thousands of miles from its border. Israeli officials had raised their concerns over the Iraqi nuclear program with the highest levels of the Reagan administration, but upon hearing America’s reservations regarding taking action against the nuclear site, Israel launched a surprise attack, triggering a furious response from Washington.

Since, the two nations improved their communications and avoided friction over military actions. The decision to start two widespread military campaigns in Gaza and the second Lebanon war followed the pattern of discussing the policy in general terms with the U.S. in advance while stopping short of actual notification about the exact timing, scope and operational details of the upcoming attacks.

This system was put to its most significant test with the September 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear site, which was being built in northern Syria. Elliott Abrams recalled in his recent book “Tested by Zion: The Bush administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” discussions held between the two governments before the attack. Israel expressed its concerns over the evidence that Syria was building a nuclear reactor and when the U.S. suggested dealing with it by diplomatic means rather than launching a strike, Israel made clear it would consider a military option, but provided no details.

“It took two months before the Israelis attacked,” Abrams said in an interview, “the only advance notice we had was the discussion months before.” Still, the Bush administration did not condemn Israel for the attack.

For America, experts and former officials agree, not knowing the details is, more often than not, the best case scenario. Specific advance knowledge of Israel’s military plan could imply that the United States gave its stamp of approval to the operation and would also suggest that Israel cannot act without prior approval from America. Both would be unwelcome.

“There is a desire on both sides to make clear that these are sovereign national security decisions,” Abrams said.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman

Iran says will turn Golan into ‘Fatahland’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

After alleged Israel attack on Syria, Iran issues war-like declarations, orders Assad army to protect homeland, according to Hezbollah-affiliated newspaper. ‘Front open to Syrians, Palestinians, to all who wish to fight Israel’

Roi Kais

Will the latest attack allegedly carried out by Israel on the Syrian front awaken a military response from the Assad regime and its supporters?

On Wednesday, the Hezbollah-identified Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar quoted Iranian officials who claimed that Iran received a message from the United States and Russia stating that the alleged Israeli airstrike was not an attempt to launch a war against Syria.

According to the sources, Tehran responded to both sides by stating that operational command officers of the Syrian army were ordered to automatically respond to any attack against their homeland.

As with other reactions in recent days, it appears that the involved parties are intent upon warning against future attacks, and not eager to enter into a full scale war.

Iranian officials have warned that their reaction to preceived aggressions would likely would be expressed in one of two ways. The first, one of the sources said, would be “a blow below the belt in more than one location,” both within and outside of Syria, as they approached “the Day of Judgment.”

The same source indicated that “a final decision has been taken to turn the Golan Heights into the new ‘Fatahland’ and the front will be open to “Syrians, Palestinians and to all who want to fight Israel.”

The second manner of response, according to the same sources, would be expressed on the political level. Preparations are currently underway for a far-reaching Syria conference, to be held in Tehran, in which the Syrian regime will be represented by Syrian Minister for National Reconcilation Ali Haider and by the Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil.

In addition, preparations are underway for an international conference of states designated “Friends of the Syrian people,” which is scheduled to take place two weeks from now in Tehran. Forty states have been invited to participate. Iran will take the opportunity to announce a new initiative to solve the crisis in Syria.

The Kuwaiti newspaper, Alrai, quoted statements by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in closed meetings. He rejected the possibility that Israel would enter into southern Lebanon, because, according to him, Israel knows Lebanon would become its “cemetery.” He was quoted as saying that “the Iron Dome (missile defense system) which Israel boasts about has proven that it is more feeble than a spider web.”

The report also said that Nasrallah recently participated in more than one session of the Hezbollah’s “Jihad Council.” The newspaper claimed that during these meetings, the secretary-general stated, “Israel believes that if it attacks facilities and strategic stockpiles, it changes the resistance capabilities. This is an erroneous assessment.” He said,”The reason being that the stocks of the resistance have been filled with all that it needs.”

Nasrallah also warned, “If Israel attacks any (arms) cache of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the response will be immediate and total war.”

Israeli airstrikes target Iran, not Syria – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

The latest uncertainties | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

Those who took the time to click on the link in my recent note to the promotional video, Israel: Seeing is Believing, might want to balance it with  a BBC production, Israel: Facing the Future. It will take an hour of your time, but is worth it on several dimensions. 

• What did the attacks on Syria accomplish? and
• What will they cost us?