WarSclerotic

It turns out that the visit by an IDF delegation to Moscow to protest Israel’s innocence and to thaw the icy standoff that has developed since has only served to frost relations further and underscore the disparity in the versions that have surfaced between the two sides.

In the briefings that were given to Russian media by President Vladimir Putin’s representatives, the Israeli version was presented as nothing more than fallacious. The Israeli investigation appears not to have interested the Russians, and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s gesture of sending the IAF commander to Moscow left no impression on them. From the Russian point of view, this was purely a perfunctory facade. What they were really interested in was how Israel’s IAF intelligence works.

The Russian newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda” which has close ties with the Russian Defense Ministry and with the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described on Thursday the meeting between the IAF chief Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin and his Russian counterpart as cold, difficult, stern and without smiles. The paper said that the Russians had demanded that Israel, before anything else, recognize that its actions had brought about a tragedy and that “the blame lies with the Israelis. That is our basic position.”

“We made clear to Norkin that our facts contradict theirs, and conclusions such as those reached by the Israelis may have been invented,” he said.

It is important to note that in Russia there are no leaks about sensitive security meetings such as this one. Therefore, Israel concluded that the report was no coincidence and it comes directly from Putin’s spokesman or another senior official in the Kremlin. Either way, the article described the Israelis as people shuffling around uncomfortably in their chairs, as people who avoided answering technical questions and who tried to speak about Iranian responsibility for the incident and Assad’s culpability.

The paper also said that Norkin’s Russian counterpart asked during the meeting: “What did you do in the airspace?” According to them, Norkin admitted that Israel did not look into the presence of Russian aircraft in the area during the attack.The Russian message to Israel is a political and unequivocal one: They do not want Israel to continue flying and launching strikes in Syria and certainly not in the current state of affairs. The downing of the plane is an opportunity for the Russians to change the current understanding with Israel regarding the IAF’s freedom to operate in Syria. Israel now face a dramatic decision on the depth of the crisis and how far it is willing to take it with the Russians. At the moment, the crisis seems insolvable.

In the Israeli security establishment, officials have repeatedly emphasized that Israel will not be compromising on its military efforts to remove the Iranian military presence from Syria and prevent the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah.The message being conveyed from Moscow is that the Kremlin does not encourage visits to Russia by Israeli officials in an effort to bridge the diplomatic rift that has developed. Nor does it support visits by Russian officials to Israel over the matter.

Israel is convinced that it acted in accordance with the agreements reached with Russia and that everything that took place stemmed from a lack of professionalism demonstrated by the Syrians who shot down the plane. Moreover, the Israelis are convinced that the fact that they have hitherto refrained from hitting Syrian and Iranian targets along the Syrian coast has brought about a situation in which the Iranians believe they can establish military facilities in the area under the umbrella of Russian air defenses. Thus, Israel will continue to do everything in order to expunge the Iranian presence from the area.

Nevertheless, beyond the declarations and policies, in the coming days Israel will need to make decisions on the continuation of operations above Syrian territory and on relations with the Russians. Israel believes that time will run its course and the mutual interest in preserving healthy relations will ultimately prevail over the crisis.

The next Israeli strike in Syria will therefore be a test for both sides. It is possible to assume that if and when Israel chooses to strike a target, it will do everything in its abilities to ensure early and thorough coordination with the Russians, even if it comes at the expense of security information, lest it awaken an even angrier Russian bear.

“Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal and is blatantly threatening others with nuclear annihilation, is the most terrifying threat to the peace and stability of the region and the world,” the Iranian president said.

“The countless crimes by Israel against the Palestinians would not have been able to take place without assistance and support from the US,” Rouhani said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

He also added that the passage of the years cannot justify what he described as the “continued occupation.”Rouhani further emphasized that the US decision to transfer its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a flagrant example of Washington undermining regional peace.

He also slammed Israel’s recent passage of the Nation-State Law was another clear example of the country being an apartheid state.

Rouhani criticized Washington for its hostile policy toward his country and said the US approach was doomed to failure.

He  said the United States had waged “economic war” against Iran by reimposing unilateral sanctions, which were lifted under the country’s 2015 multinational nuclear deal in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.

“The United States policy vis-a -vis the Islamic Republic of Iran has been wrong from the beginning, and its approach of resisting the wishes of the Iranian people as manifested in numerous elections is doomed to failure,” Rouhani said.

President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the pact in May, and his administration reimposed sanctions on Iran in August. Harsher sanctions on Iran’s oil and banking sector are expected in November.

“The economic war that the United States has initiated under the rubric of new sanctions not only targets the Iranian people but also entails harmful repercussions for the people of other countries, and that war has caused a disruption in the state of global trade,” Rouhani said.

“What Iran says is clear: no war, no sanctions, no threats, no bullying; just acting according to the law and the fulfillment of obligations.”

Mounting pressure from the Trump administration combined with discontent among many Iranians at the state of the economy are rattling the Islamic Republic, with little sign that its leaders have the answers, officials and analysts say.

The rial has lost 40 percent of its value against the US dollar since April. Iran has blamed US sanctions for the currency’s fall, saying the measures amount to a “political, psychological and economic” war on Tehran.

Threat for threat

To pile on the pain, Washington says all countries must end crude imports from Iran by November 4, hitting the oil sales that generate 60 percent of the country’s income. Iran says this level of cuts will never happen.Tehran has suggested it could take military action in the Gulf to block other countries’ oil exports in retaliation for US sanctions intended to halt its sales of crude. Washington maintains a fleet in the Gulf that protects oil shipping routes.

“The security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has always been important for us … we will confront any and all disruptive efforts in this critical waterway in the future,” said Rouhani.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic artery linking Middle East crude producers to key markets in the Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America and beyond. A third of the world’s seaborne oil passes through the strait in southern Iran.

Trump, in his annual UN speech, said he would keep up economic pressure on Tehran to try to force a change in its behavior. But Rouhani said Iran had no intention of succumbing to the US pressure.

“The United States’ understanding of international relations is authoritarian. … Its understanding of power, not of legal and legitimate authority, is reflected in bullying and imposition,” Rouhani said.

“No state and nation can be brought to the negotiating table by force,” said the pragmatist president, adding that Iran did not want any war.

“Our proposal is clear: commitment for commitment; violation for violation; threat for threat; and step for step, instead of talk for talk,” he said.

Rouhani expressed Iran’s willingness to improve ties with the regional countries. Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia has been at loggerheads with Shi’ite Iran for decades, fighting a long-running proxy war in the Middle East and beyond that has influenced conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Riyadh and its Gulf allies have hailed Trump’s decision to exit the nuclear deal and to reimpose sanctions on Tehran, reflecting their concern about Iran’s influence in the region.

“We believe in the formation of a collective mechanism for the Persian Gulf region with the presence and participation of all regional countries,” Rouhani said.

In recent months, several senior security experts have expressed support for an alternative to Israel’s status quo with the Palestinians. The plan, known as the New State Solution, proposes joining a coastal section of the northern Sinai Peninsula to the territory of Gaza, forming an expanded Palestinian state to the south of Israel.

Irrespective of the political dimensions of this proposed configuration of Palestinian sovereignty, as the immediate past Commander of Israel’s Air Defense Forces, I see distinct advantages in such a plan from the perspective of air defense.

Not reducing Israel’s strategic depth

Every mile of air space under Israel’s control contributes to our reaction time. We are a small country lacking strategic depth.

To understand the value of a mile to air defense, we do not need to look beyond events of the last week, which demonstrate the kind of time frames our air defenses are afforded. Some weeks ago, two missiles fired by ISIS in Syria landed in Israel’s Sea of Galilee. Within seconds of recognizing their trajectory, a decision had to be made whether to intercept the missiles or allow them to impact harmlessly in the water, reportedly within fifty meters (150 feet) of the shoreline.

Just one day prior to that, a Syrian fighter jet, taking off from the T4 Airbase in central Syria approached the Golan Heights at high speed and flew a mile into Israeli airspace before being downed by Israel’s air defenses. The decision to shoot down the plane had to be made and acted upon in the few short seconds it takes for a fighter jet to traverse a mile at high speed.

The day before that, Israel activated its David’s Sling missile-defense system for the first time in its operational history, in order to fire at two Syrian surface-to-surface missiles which were calculated to impact within Israeli territory. Though the Syrian missiles ended up falling short and impacted within Syria, Israeli Air Defense forces had only moments to assess what actions were needed, and to react decisively.

Israel possesses remarkably advanced air defenses, but it is crucial to understand that there is a limit to how much technology can compensate for a lack of strategic depth. In the context of Israeli air defense, geography, topography and territory matter.

It is for that reason that maintaining Israeli air defense control over our skies is vital. Reducing the territory under our air control means reducing Israel’s protective envelope over an already narrow strip of land.

In this context, when discussing alternative security configurations relating to our conflict with the Palestinians, I would consider the expansion of Palestinian territory along Israel’s southern border, as in the New State plan, because it does not reduce Israel’s strategic depth.

Not compromising Israel’s topographical advantage

Expanding the territory of Gaza into Sinai would not negatively compromise Israel’s control over the high ground. Both Gaza and the northern Sinai are situated on the coastal lowlands, with Israel retaining the strategic benefit of the Negev highlands, so a Gaza Sinai plan presents an air defense advantage in the case of airborne attacks launched toward Israel.

By contrast, the Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria (The West Bank) sits on the mountainous ridge overlooking Israel’s populous central coastline. Millions of Israelis live and work in that coastal area. A Palestinian state perched atop the West Bank high ground would render Israeli territory and citizens exposed.

A Palestinian State in the hills surrounding Jerusalem, Hebron, or Samaria could cause harm to the cities of central Israel and could target our strategic sites.

Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport could be exposed to weapons such as shoulder-fired missiles targeting aircraft during take-offs and landings from the nearby Samaria hills. On their landing routes, many aircraft also fly near Route 6, which straddles Samaria, bringing them even closer to potential enemy fire in the event of Palestinian control over this topography.

The Jerusalem Hills are up to 3,000 feet high. Israel’s presence there enables early detection of long-range threats coming from our eastern flank, including airborne attacks from as far away as Iran. These same hills grant Israel aerial control to the west, and any threats emanating from the direction of the Mediterranean. Palestinian control of the Jerusalem hills would expose Israel to a widened variety of projectile attacks.

Not reducing this distance between our populace and potential belligerents

During Israel’s 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense and 2014 Operation Protective Edge, short-range mortar fire from Hamas in Gaza killed Israeli civilians and soldiers and caused significant migration of Israeli residents out of the area adjacent to Gaza. Today, we bear witness to the advent of improvised fire kites launched by Gazans to indiscriminately set fires wherever they land, causing significant damage to open areas, including agricultural fields and woodlands.

While the areas of Israel closest to Gaza are sparsely populated, the opposite is true when it comes to Israel’s central region which is located in proximity to Judea and Samaria. For example, the Palestinian city of Tulkarem is less than nine miles from the major Israeli city of Netanya. Should Palestinians control Judea and Samaria, these areas and more beyond them would be under immediate risk, not just from fire kites, but all manner of airborne attacks, including short-range enemy fire.

Extending the Gaza Strip into part of the Sinai would not reduce Israel’s limited strategic depth. Israel would not cede control of the high ground losing its topographical advantage. Israel would not shorten the distance between belligerents and the Israeli populace.

If the political will for the New State plan can be garnered, I would not oppose it from an air defense perspective. If the people of Gaza would benefit on a humanitarian basis, I would consider that a positive outcome for both the Palestinians and Israel. Bringing stability to Sinai and Egypt would be a boon for Egyptians, the region and the world.

Brigadier General Shachar Shohat was Chief Commander of the Israel Air Defense Forces from 2012-2014, overseeing operations including Operation Pillar of Defense and Operation Protective Edge