WarSclerotic

The West and some of the Arab and Islamic nations are gearing up for a possible military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s criminal regime, and their preparations coincide with the changes in Egypt and the recently renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This situation highlights Hamas’ confusion in the Gaza Strip.

The series of events plaguing Hamas as a result of the regional upheaval jeopardizes its position in Gaza Strip and in the Palestinian theater. Some say it is on the verge of catastrophe, while other hedge that this is a time of opportunity for the organization.

A glance at the geostrategic climate in which Hamas was operating prior to the events in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt reveals the kind of heaven even Hamas co-founder Ahmed Yassin never dreamed of before he went to hell. Syria was its extended headquarters, providing it with funding, weapons and a link to Hamas leaders worldwide, while the Gaza regime served as a de facto government, challenging the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy by adamantly refusing to reconcile with it.

Hamas has fired missiles at Israel and its leadership declared its intention to annihilate the Jewish state. Gaza’s rulers were popular with various countries worldwide, especially with Turkey, which sent the Mavi Marmara to its shores in a show of solidarity. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a Muslim Brotherhood man, even planned to visit Gaza Strip.

Hamas’ government was an example for a “Brotherhood revolution.” It received millions of dollars in suitcases that traveled through the underground tunnels in Rafah and fostered thriving “tunnel economics” policies. It allowed Hamas to bring weapons and vehicles into Gaza and pay collaborators with cash and jobs. This method was successful, and Hamas deliberately manufactured conflicts with Israel to prevent the transfer of goods though the crossings.

Shiite Iran offered Hamas terrorists training and sent money and weapons to the Gaza Strip, inspiring Hezbollah to do the same. Qatar lent Hamas Al-Jazeera’s services as its mouthpiece, seeking to remain in the good graces of Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal, his top delegate in Gaza Mahmoud al-Zahar and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Other Persian Gulf states, wary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing power, paid the leaders of the “besieged and struggling” Gaza Strip a fortune.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s rule in Egypt facilitated Hamas’ paradise, as he was willing to overlook the booming tunnel industry and the arms flowing through them from Iran, Lebanon and Africa. The Sinai Peninsula had become an extraterritorial terror hub controlled by al-Qaida and global jihad, serving as the base of operations and logistics for Hamas in Egyptian territory.

The government formed by Mohammed Morsi in the post-Mubarak era, which was endorsed by Hamas even after it was deposed, tried to appear as if it was fighting Islamist terror to appease the West, and slowly razed a few tunnels in Sinai, but for the most part, it overlooked what was going on in the area, opting to participate in the Brotherhood’s Gaza-based charade.

The storm clouds gathering over Hamas are the product of the backlash against it in Egypt, as the Egyptian public pushed back against the dozens of terror attacks that were attributed to Hamas in Sinai, where it is in cahoots with radical Islamists. These attacks killed dozens of Egyptian soldiers, compromised the gas pipeline, and tried to drag Israel and Egypt into war.

The Egyptian opposition accused Morsi of conspiring with Hamas against Cairo’s interest, with the intent of giving Sinai to the Palestinians, and allowing the smuggling of goods into Gaza at the expense of the Egyptian public. The coup led by Defense Minister Col. Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, which targeted Hamas as well, has all but obliterated the tunnel industry, blocking Hamas’ arms and money route.

The massacre performed by Syrian President Bashar Assad has driven Hamas’ top operatives out of Syria, and there is no love lost between them and Jordan, as everyone knows. Tehran and Hezbollah, which support Assad against the Muslim Brotherhood, have cut off the flow of funds and arms, and other Arab nations have distanced themselves from them as well. Hamas is on the verge of bankruptcy and is losing its popularity in Gaza. It is likely to fall from grace in the West Bank as well.

Some believe that Israel would prefer the weakened Hamas to remain in charge in Gaza, which will perpetuate the Palestinian rift and allow Israel to avoid reaching an agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Hamas’ imminent downfall — despite Turkey’s backing — is unlikely to push it to pursue reconciliation with the PA, let alone negotiations with Israel. After all, “he who talks to Allah, does not talk to Abdullah.”

The forecast for impending events in Syria contains a mixture of certainty and uncertainty. It appears that the U.S. Air Force and Navy will attack targets belonging to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. The only questions are to what extent, what will be the defined goal of the mission and when will it start?

As is customary when a war is about to break out in the region, Arab officials have been issuing classic anti-Semitic statements. Although Israel has refrained from becoming involved in the fighting in Syria, it is serving as the target for spokesmen of the Syrian and Iranian governments. The Jews are always guilty and always responsible.

Similar things have happened in the past. During the First Gulf War, Saddam Hussein launched dozens of missiles at Israel, but then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir acceded to U.S. pressure and did not respond, leaving punishment of the Iraqi leader to the Americans. Shamir’s decision to not retaliate against Iraq is still controversial. In my opinion, he acted wisely. But others disagree. And in any case, the current situation is different.

One should remember that when two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah in July 2006, the world accepted Israel’s response, which included the destruction of the Shiite neighborhood of Dahiya in Beirut. The West, as well as most Arab countries, gave Israel a long leash for military action. Israel has only itself to blame for the failures of the Second Lebanon War. It had plenty of time to act.

The freedom of action Israel was given after the July 2006 kidnapping would be multiplied several times if it was forced to act against Assad, who has massacred his own citizens with chemical weapons. Given its aversion to the brutal Assad regime, the world would understand if Israel had to strike back after being attacked by Syria for no reason.

If I were Assad, I would listen very carefully to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, all of whom have said that any attack on Israel prompt a harsh response, which could mean the toppling of the Assad regime. Netanyahu essentially set a Syrian attack on Israel as a casus belli that would necessitate an all-out war against Assad. Netanyahu almost will not have a choice in such a scenario. But the situation likely won’t come to that.

Assad is a mass murderer, but he is also rational. Israel has the power to eliminate his ability to fight against the rebels and determine the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Israel could paralyze Syria’s airports and would certainly take the opportunity to reduce the strategic threat represented by Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal.

One can understand the vigilance of the Israeli public, which is flooding gas mask distribution centers. But panic seems unnecessary. If Israel is attacked, the IDF will have great freedom of action and there will not be a repeat of the Second Lebanon War. Israel is not interested in a war, but if it is compelled to act, its response will be shorter and sharper than the pessimists are predicting.

The world has been thinking out loud about the expected Western attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. The question is no longer if, but rather how and when. The media is inundated with pictures of victims from the regime’s use of chemical weapons.

And now it is not only the generals who are preparing for the strike, but opinion makers are preparing the world for it as well. U.S. President Barack Obama would obviously prefer to be dealing with other things. Truth be told, so would we. But since when has the Middle East ever promised us and the world that it would be quiet?

Four of the most powerful and central countries in NATO — the U.S., France, Britain and Turkey — have ramped up their rhetoric in the past 48 hours. In their eyes, the U.N. chemical weapon inspectors’ work in Damascus, set for Wednesday, has already become pointless. Assad crossed the line this time and needs to be punished. The question of whether an alternative to Assad is preferable is not even on the table. The answer to that is clear, and no one is fooling themselves into thinking that if and when Assad falls Syria will be come a better place for the region and the world as a whole.

No one believes that after this attack — the scope of which has yet to be determined — a democracy will arise in Syria. After Western actions in Muslim lands such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it has become clear that the day after will not be pretty.

But the West does not have much choice. Standing idly by as chemical weapons are used would make the West look like a pointless and impotent moral force, even in its already limited capacity. The West would turn into an all-bark, no-bite entity. The age-old global divide between good guys and bad guys would make way for a world split into bad guys and weaklings. Washington understands this cannot happen. Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Monday night was something we expected to hear from America.

The question is how Assad’s friends will react in case of an attack. Tehran has recognized the use of chemical weapons, but is a staunch opponent of any attack on Syria and has threatened dire consequences if one takes place. It is fair to assume that Iran will not become involved. It is the last thing it should do during a time when it wants to keep a low profile and allow its centrifuges to continue spinning. Tehran is more concerned with its own regime’s survival and its nuclear project. It is likely that Iran will do as it did during the U.S. invasion of Iraq: Keep its head down, and perhaps advance its illegal nuclear project until things settle down.

The real test is Russia. This is without a doubt the biggest confrontation between the U.S. and Russia since the end of the Cold War. While we have seen disagreements between the superpowers over Kosovo and Iraq, this time the clash appears to be much more serious. Since the beginning of Syria’s civil war on March 15, 2011, Russia has become Assad’s guard dog. It will be interesting to see just how far Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to go in his opposition to the slated attack on his last ally in the Middle East. Let’s not forget that this diplomatic showdown is taking place on the heels of the NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden affair.

Clearly, there is some set of actions that could accommodate both Russia and the Obama administration: One such scenario could be a surgical strike by the Americans using cruise missiles on Syrian targets — something which could be carried out over a very short span of time — while at the same time moving up the scheduled talks between the U.S. and Russia in The Hague, originally set for October, before the second round of Geneva talks. It would be very convenient for Obama to attack, it would fulfill his obligation while not going overboard, and now he has the international green light and the means to a quick diplomatic solution. Assad can also live with this scenario, especially if he gains Russia and Iran as active members in the second round of the Geneva talks.

The winds of war have blown as far as Australia, which is now stepping in line with the U.S. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke with Obama over possible NATO plans for a strike on Syria.

Assad, just like Saddam Hussein in 1991, is threatening to set the region ablaze. He has no choice. But a united world has no reason to fear Assad, and a united West needs to stop fearing him as well. Even the ailing Arab world, in a fragile state after the events of the past two and a half years, is unable to prevent an attack on Syria. There may be no democracy in the Arab world, but the will to live in freedom has grown and so has the sway of the Arab street, which has long ruled on Assad. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah did not see this and nearly lost everything as a result.

Assad is long due to be the sixth Arab leader to be ousted since 2011. The pictures we have seen for months of children’s bodies in Syria have it made it clear as day: He has to go. But the West will presumably be satisfied with simply preventing the use of chemical weapons, something which the U.N. Security Council should have taken upon itself from the beginning. Removing Assad from power was not supposed to be part of the plan.

Success for Obama in Syria spells success for us as well. Woe to the world which stands silent while unconventional weapons are used. And to think we still have a regional madman striving to get nuclear weapons.

Given the current global disposition against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, a U.S.-led strike seems almost inevitable. Western leaders such as David Cameron, Francois Hollande, Chuck Hagel and others, invested a great deal of effort on Tuesday to build up an atmosphere that will enable the West to launch such an attack without evoking too much antagonism from their publics.

The U.S. has made clear that the looming attack is a “punishment” for Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and not an attempt to topple his regime or intervene in the civil war that has been tearing Syria apart for nearly three years. In that case, it is safe to assume that the attack may take a “standoff” shape, most likely a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from U.S. battleships against several quality Syrian targets, such as missile depots, air bases and power stations. Chemical weapons depots are unlikely to be targeted, so as not to cause mass collateral damage, especially among civilians. There is also the possibility that hitting WMD sites could render them vulnerable to rebel looting.

It is quite clear that the West is unwilling to jeopardize a single soldier’s life in this affair.

The big question is what Assad will do in the event of a strike. Logically, he should take it for what it is, a punishment for having crossed the line, like a slap on the wrist. He can tolerate a symbolic response by the West, minimize his losses and secure his regime. But, as we have painfully witnessed over the last couple of years, logic in the Middle East seems to be on an extended hiatus. There is a serious possibility that since Assad cannot really hit U.S. targets, he will choose to rain his missiles on Israel. Iran, Hezbollah and Assad himself have stated, loudly and clearly, that Israel will pay the price of an American attack on Syria. Though not an original idea — Saddam Hussein did the same thing in the 1991 Gulf War (and look where it got him) — it is a threat that Israel should take seriously.

Defensively, Israel is well-equipped and has the Iron Dome system against short-range rockets and missiles, and the Arrow 2 defense system against ballistic missiles. The Patriot PAC-3 also has some limited anti-missile capabilities, but this is not its primary mission.

Unfortunately, the David’s Sling system, which is supposed to bridge the gap between short- and long-range threats, and deal with medium-range threats, is not operational at this time, and won’t be operational for the foreseeable future. And that is exactly where Assad’s forte lies: He has a huge arsenal of heavy, medium-range rockets (M-500 and Iranian built rockets), which threaten the heart of Israel.

What should Israel do? Israel’s strength is in offense. The Israel Air Force is far superior to Syria’s air force, or any other Arab air force, in sophistication, equipment, experience and sheer strength. This is a formidable might that can literally wipe Assad’s army out within a very short span of time. So, this is what Israel should use if the need arises.

If Assad launches a serious attack, conventional or unconventional, Israel should not wait for the second wave. It should strike, and strike hard, at the Syrian missile launching pads, at strategic infrastructures, and at quality military targets. A fierce attack, for which Israel is well-equipped, will also send a very clear message to other parties in the area, who might be contemplating joining the party, to stand down.

As I write this, an American strike on Syria is a fait accompli and the countdown to it has begun. The strike is likely to take place in the next few days, and the U.S. seems to be debating the mission’s objectives, as the campaign is meant to achieve deterrence, but not necessarily a decisive result. Israel is currently out of the game, and our leaders have sent undiplomatic messages to Damascus to that effect, meant to deter Syria from even thinking about striking Israel.

These messages were sent despite military assessments that Syria will not risk a confrontation with Israel at this time. The events of the last few years, including the attack on the nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor 2007, the assassinations of Imad Fayez Mughniyeh and Gen. Muhammad Suleiman in 2008 and the airstrikes of the recent months — all of which were attributed to Israel — have taught Bashar Assad that he is operationally vulnerable.

As a president desperate to hold on to his seat, he is unlikely to initiate a military conflict that is sure to spell his downfall. That is also why the Israel Defense Forces has not changed its level of alert at this time. Heightened vigilance has been in place for days, but no orders have been given to call up the reserves or open up the tactical command centers. That will likely happen once the Americans inform Israel that the strike is underway, at which time the Homefront Command and the Israel Air Force will go on high alert.

Still, despite these reassurances, we are unlikely to escape completely unscathed. Assad has already proved that he does not play by the West’s rational rules, and he will have to vent his frustration somewhere, to save face. The immediate soft underbelly, as far as Syrian’s enemies go, is Jordan — or the Golan Heights.

Assad may launch rockets at the Golan Heights directly, or use his proxy, Hezbollah, and as cynical as this may sound, the consequences of such a move would be acceptable for everyone: The Syrian regime would flex its muscles in the limited Golan theater, not placing itself in any actual risk, and Israel would mount a limited response, avoiding an all-out war.

But the Israeli concerns in this case are peanuts. The real question here is, what will the Americans aim for, Assad’s chemical weapon depositories, missile caches, military units or symbols of government? It is believed that the planned strike will be a limited one, as U.S. President Barack Obama is reluctant to find himself embroiled in a lengthy military campaign and the West is not interested in toppling Assad’s regime, fearing the radicals who may take his place would be much worse.

The American strike will most likely aim to deter, punish and degrade Syria’s ability to employ chemical weapons again, as a manner of enforcing the red lines it drew for the regime. As far as Israel is concerned, this will send an important message not only to Damascus but to Tehran as well, which hopefully would understand that playing with fire will get you burned.

Until the fog of war clears and the results of the attack become evident, we are sure to face some tense days in the Middle East. During this time, our gut feeling is that Assad must be made to pay for his crimes, but our heads will urge caution. In between, cool logic and composure will be required to ensure that Israel remains out of the bloody battlefield in Syria.

One of the hallmarks of U.S. foreign policy throughout history has been a carefully thought-out decision-making process. Unlike their Israeli counterparts, American policymakers prefer not to wing it. This reduces uncertainty.

As was the case in previous U.S.-led interventions, there are two main phases in U.S. strategic planning. The first involves an internal discourse among administration officials over what the preferred strategy should be and what alternative courses of actions could be pursued. Then, it is up to the president to make a decision.

Because the decision-making process in the U.S. puts an emphasis on continuity — administrations like to rely on precedents and on previous formal decisions that have a legal footing — the initial planning was rather simple this time around. The clear delineation of red lines by President Barack Obama a year ago, and their subsequent breach, meant that it was unnecessary to deliberate on the question of principle of whether a forceful response was required.

That is why the administration proceeded to issue an indictment against the regime, based on incriminating information gathered by the intelligence community. And that is why a military strike against the regime has won across-the-board support within the administration early on. This consensus, which included Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — who is as dovish as they come — grew as the suspicions against Syrian President Bashar Assad mounted. Obama has indicated that he is party to this prevailing sentiment many times. But he has yet to answer the biggest question being asked in the Oval Office: What form of military action should be taken?

All eyes are on Obama as he deliberates. Meanwhile, his cabinet members and his senior advisers are pitching the military option to a skeptical and critical public. Even this would be carried out through meticulous planning and with a clear delegation of responsibilities, with each cabinet member allotted their share of airtime. And Obama, even as shoulders the responsibilities as the top decisionmaker, is busy marshaling international support for the emerging strike.

The mystery will be solved in coming days, once the missiles start flying and the artillery fires.