Syria and Israel: Itching for a fight?

[LSN80]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A missile strike on Sunday that targeted research facilities in Syria that were believed to be transferring weapons to Hezbollah,an Islamic militant group located in Lebanon. Syria, in the midst of a civil war, was said to be warned by Israel not to transfer weapons Hezbollah, which is believed to using chemical warfare, including sarin gas. Israel is purported to have told Syrian leaders that they would intervene if done so, and now, 42 soldiers are dead, with another 100 people missing. Israel denies culpability in the strike, but Syria isn't buying it. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad told CNN the following:

"This amounts to a declaration of war(by Israel). The details are not clear on what happened. Did they fire missiles? ... It is not clear for me, because I don't know how it happened, and of course it is worrying, but Israel will suffer the same."

Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the attack, other countries aren't buying it. Iran, an ally of Syria, has vowed a "crushing response", while Russia has called Israel out and said their involvement in Syria's civil war is "very troublesome." A high ranking U.S. official has confirmed that Israel was behind this strike, and a strike last week as well near Damascus, where they purportedly targeted 110 missiles stored there.

In all, the civil war in Syria has lead to the deaths of 70,000 people in all. The war has pitted rebel fighters against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Al-Assad had initially been seen as a agent of peace, but both rebels and the U.N. have been calling for his resignation since he ordered a mass crackdown and military sieges on protesters, which lead way to the Arab Spring and the subsequent Civil War which has lead to the 70,000 deaths. Iran is aligned with Syria and al-Assad because they can use a milita base in Lebanon as leverage with which to threaten nuclear warfare against Israel. Iran Foreign minister spokesman said the following:

"Iran said will stand by Syria, and if there is need for training, we will provide them with necessary training. Syria and its allies will give a crushing response to the aggressions of the Zionists".

Who happens to be the biggest allies of the Israelis? The United States. Israel has turned to the United States for political, financial, and military funding for the past 60 years. The goal of the United States, Russia, and others has been to keep the Israeli/Lebanon border as is, which has been peaceful for some time now. The biggest fear of the U.N. has been that the war in Syria will spill over their border into other countries. Said Shaul Mofez, an Israeli lawmaker:

"We are watching everything when it comes to the movement of these types of weapons. We have the means to do that. Israel isn't meddling with Syria's civil war. But Israel must protect itself from Lebanese militants. For Israel, it is very important that the front group for Iran, which is in Lebanon, needs to be stopped."

It's just a matter of time before we have a big old war on our hands, isn't it?

 

[Rayne]

First off, when dealing with Middle Eastern politics and war, ignore everything that people say- but remember it. It's more important to understand who is in a position to do, and do what.

There are two stories going on at once here. The first is the regional one. Loosely grouped 'opposition' forces with international links have formed for the duration of the conflict, but there is no representative 'opposition' group prepared to take political control in the case of the fall of the Assad regime. What would happen in the result of an opposition win tomorrow is that those groups would then fragment, form alliances amongst themselves, and try to seize power. This is what's happening in Libya; after people armed the Libyan opposition and they won, they promptly turned around and raised an Islamic insurrection in Mali. That's why you haven't seen international support to the Syrian opposition on a scale that would tilt the war one way or another; who would then take over? After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, no one, including the United Nations, will want any piece of an occupying or peacekeeping force.

Then there's the international front. Several countries have interests in Syria:

Russia: Russia's historical weakness has been the lack of a warm-water port, which means year-round access to the oceans for trade. When it comes to the Atlantic Ocean, they have two choices- the northerly route through St. Petersburg and the Baltic Sea, or the southerly route- through Syria and the Mediterranean. Russia most certainly has a quid pro quo with the Assad regime; give us a deal on getting our products to the international market, and we'll get you slack at the UN- plus give you all of those soul-crushing weapons with which to mow down dissent. If that seems a bit conspiratorial, Russia's been making those deals for two hundred years- and the US only claimed to give it up a few decades ago. On the flip side, the opposition appears to be no friends of the Russians- while the Russians have extended offers that they are willing to work with the opposition (assuredly, in return for warm-water port access post-war), the opposition has been being chased around for two years by Russian-made attack helicopters sold at a discount to their oppressors. Yikes.

China: China wants no part in this, but they've been forced into a legal position as a result of their veto power on the UN Security Council. They can't approve any resolution which would handcuff their ability to deal with dissent in their own country or controlled territories. Hence, a repeated string of votes against resolutions dealing with a country in which they have very little geopolitical interest.

Israel: No matter who wins the war in Syria, Israel loses. With the Assad regime in power, they had a regime with which they had an uneasy, but controllable peace. Syria was prevented from 'game-changing' actions, like building a nuclear power plant, but allowed to remain in power as they could control their population. That's not the case anymore, and none of the powers vying for control of Syria have an Israel-friendly outlook in their plans. What they have to do is maintain the balance of power in the region, which means preventing any non-state actors from acquiring biological/chemical weapons or long-range missiles. Reports are coming in that rebel forces have been using sarin gas, which isn't too implausible- remember the opposition consists largely of troops which have deserted the Syrian Armed Forces. Israel absolutely does not want to be drawn into a larger war if they can avoid it.

Iran: Iran is a big x-factor here. Do they have a role, and if so, what? Ostensibly, the Assad regime is their ally, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that they have decided to fund an insurrection as a way to say internationally, "if you stress us one way, we can stress you another". (This is exactly the Russian strategy during the 1960's in the Cold War, vis a vis Berlin, Central America and Southeast Asia.) On the other hand, they may not have any pull with the opposition, or quite possibly, a hostile relationship. It would then be in their interest to move any arms they've supplied to the Assad regime- and still control- to other actors.

This explains attempted weapons transfers to Hezbollah, when viewed through the prism of the hostile Iran-Israel relationship. In the past, it hasn't been worth it for Iran to ignite a regional war with Israel by providing Hezbollah with better striking power. Hezbollah has been limited in the arms that they've been provided by their state sponsors. If Israel launches- or has launched- an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities (don't assume every attack has to be physical today), it could become worth it for Iran to supply Hezbollah with... dirtier weapons.

Israel doesn't have a strong defense for such a tactic- only a very strong offense. Yikes.

United States: We want the hell out of the Middle East. Much of the Middle East wants us the hell out. And we're trying to get out, without leaving the house burning in the process. Right now, the United States is praying that someone we can deal with comes out of the woodwork. Don't get your hopes up. The US (and UK) will be limited to harsh words against the Assad opposition, while preventing either side from obtaining a decisive victory. The longer this draws out, the more likely the slim odds of a workable actor appearing for the US/UK are.


Break it down, and here's what you get: Almost ever actor involved in Syria has a motivation to maintain the civil war as it is, and the only actor who has a reason to make any kind of forward move is Iran. The rest of the world will be forced to react to any major Iranian movement on the Syria situation. Try not to sweat too much.

 

[HBsam31]

I think it time for these middle eastern countries to chill the fuck out. Israel has seemingly been at odds with someone whether it is their fault or not for as long as I have been alive. This is not my area of expertise by any means, but I had a Jewish friend who would fill me in on all of it. It seems like Israel is like the annoying little brother who pulls us into everything that affects them, and I think we need to cut the shit. Lets face it folks, the U.S is not in all that great shape right now, but we are the first people to step in on behalf of someone else. It's time to stop. The Middle East wants us out, and I saw we oblige them. This will undoubtedly lead to our troops having to yet again defend someone else at the cost of their own lives. What ever is going on over there is sad, but enough U.S and UK lives lost for the sake of groups of people who are never ever ever going to get along.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The Middle East wants us out....

Yes, I'm sure they do....and as soon as the U.S. is gone, the Arab countries blow Israel out of existence, which is what they believe is their destiny to do. There's no negotiating that's ever going to make a difference; how do you negotiate with people who don't believe your nation has a right to exist? How do you find middle ground with people who sincerely believe the only way to get what they want is to kill as many people as they can.....and have convinced themselves they're doing it in the name of God?

When people start believing God is on their side, anything can happen.....and history has shown us it usually does.

 

[Rayne]

Yes, I'm sure they do....and as soon as the U.S. is gone, the Arab countries blow Israel out of existence, which is what they believe is their destiny to do. There's no negotiating that's ever going to make a difference; how do you negotiate with people who don't believe your nation has a right to exist? How do you find middle ground with people who sincerely believe the only way to get what they want is to kill as many people as they can.....and have convinced themselves they're doing it in the name of God?

This is why Israel maintains an undeclared nuclear deterrent; if they go, everyone else in the neighborhood goes too. No one wants that, and this is the crux of Middle East Politics these past forty years- no one wants a war, but there's plenty of political capital to be earned by looking like the guy who will start a war, or for that matter, finish one.

It's also why Iran is trying to build one; something they don't even need to accomplish to be able to use the political leverage from. If people believe they COULD have a nuclear weapon, and COULD use it, it serves the exact same purpose as a nuclear weapon.

The great powers of the world (currently, the US, China, and Russia) aren't vacating the Middle East permanently anytime soon. So long as the Suez Canal remains a thing, everyone has an interest in keeping that trade route open. (Also: Strait of Hormuz). A regional war in the Middle East, even one kept to conventional weaponry, would result in a fight over the Suez Canal as a supply route. While the US, China, and Russia all have interests in keeping the Suez open, no one's sure if they all have the same interests in keeping it open. There's also the issue of Islamic extremism; no great power wants the various Muslim groups to unify into a strong rival. There's three players in the club; why add a fourth? (For a good historical lesson, look at how the United Kingdom divided their various mandates into countries post-WWII. It's practically a recipe for causing ethnic warfare.)

We don't support Israel because they're such jolly good guys; we support Israel for the same reason we've supported Egypt- they're actors whom will act (for the most part) in our interests on a geopolitical stage. We don't care what Mubarak or Morsi do to their people in Egypt, just so long as the Suez stays open.

I see the possibility of a war of annihilation in the Middle East as slim, even with nuclear weapons. Much like the Cold War, two parties will bump up against each other directly, realize what that would mean- and then settle in for a series of small, very nasty proxy wars. The real risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is that when Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will decide they need the bomb- and the Saudis can straight up purchase one if they need to. North Korea needs the cash- there won't have to be a ten-year period of development. Once Saudi Arabia gets the bomb, Jordan will decide that they don't want to be the smallest big kid in the neighborhood. The more people get nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the more likely it is for someone to take that one action that leads directly to a larger exchange.

It only makes sense to destroy Israel if you can avoid destruction yourself. From a standpoint of religion, it makes no sense to spend the Muslims to kill the Jews so the Christians can take over the world.

 

[HBsam31]

Yes, I'm sure they do....and as soon as the U.S. is gone, the Arab countries blow Israel out of existence, which is what they believe is their destiny to do. There's no negotiating that's ever going to make a difference; how do you negotiate with people who don't believe your nation has a right to exist? How do you find middle ground with people who sincerely believe the only way to get what they want is to kill as many people as they can.....and have convinced themselves they're doing it in the name of God?

When people start believing God is on their side, anything can happen.....and history has shown us it usually does.

I get what you are saying, but at what point do we say ok no more US lives should be lost in the name of these fanatical people? Enough has to be enough. In a different thread in the symposium was talking about starving people here, but yet we spend millions and millions on military each year. I don't think anyone should be blown out of existence, but our troops are dying, our people are starving, and it's all in the name of protecting someone else. There has to be a point where we say enough. Again this is not my area of expertise, but it seems like we are trying to stop people from fighting that were born and bred to fight. We are never going to be able to put that fire out so at what point do we just stop trying?

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I don't believe as far as U.S Policy in the middle east is concerned, The US wants another war. In the American Public's eyes this government is illegitimate. Read the polls. I don't need to explain that reasoning. The problem is that the U.S's interests say that a regime change is needed in Syria. And her government will likely not get physical in order to not rile up her people. However. If Israel gets into a physical war with Syria itself the U.S will likely have to enter it. If anyone thinks this is the start of World War 3, think again. We're already IN world war three folks.