LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِApril
26/2010
Bible Of the
Day
I Corinthians 13:4-8: "Love is patient, love is kind, Love does not
insist on its own way. Love bears all things, believes all things, Hopes all
things, endures all things. Love never fails"Numbers 6:24-26"The LORD bless you and keep you;
the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD
turn his face toward you and give you peace."/Now Lebanon
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Israel must topple Assad in next conflict with
Syria proxies/By Oded Tira/Ha'aretz/April
25/10
Is Israel Facing War with
Hizbullah and Syria?/By: David Schenker/April
25/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 25/10
Report: US leaked warning on Hezbollah Scud
possession/Ynetnews
Hariri
Seeks Consensus in Beirut, March 14 Christians Reject Being Overstepped in
Dialogue with Aoun/Naharnet
Feltman: What Do
Nasrallah's Christian Allies Think about his Treatment as a President/Naharnet
Jumblat Devoted to
Clinching Election Consensus Deals in the Mountains/Naharnet
Salim Aoun Says Talks Back
to Square 1 in Zahle, Blames Skaff/Naharnet
Report: Bad Sesame
Shipment at Beirut Port/Naharnet
Aoun: Municipal Polls
Timing Unfortunate but We've Always Won Hard Battles/Naharnet
Hariri Inspecting Puma
Aircrafts: We Must Build Up Our Armed Forces to Defend Lebanon/Naharnet
Armenians in Lebanon Mark
Genocide with Massive Rally/Naharnet
Bassil: Solving
Electricity Problem Needs Bold Decision by Government/Naharnet
Barak: Advanced Hizbullah
Arms Destabilize Regional Balance of Power/Naharnet
Qawouk: Israel seeks to
exploit Lebanon’s municipal elections/Now
Lebanon
Iranian Vice President
to visit Syria Wednesday/Now
Lebanon
'There are no Scud missiles in Lebanon,' says army chief/Jerusalem
Post
TV Mystic Awaits Execution in Saudi Arabia/New
York Times
'No Scud missiles in Lebanon'/Jerusalem
Post
Egypt rejects Scud suspicions/Ynetnews
Syria threatens to send Israel back to
'prehistoric times'/Ynetnews
Egypt dismisses Israel's
Hezbollah Scud warning/AFP
Iran's Growing Influence in Latin America/Spero
News
Hamas releases animated clip depicting captured IDF
soldier Gilad Shalit/Ha'aretz
Escalating War of Words Between Israel
and Syria/Yeshiva World News
LF, FPM discuss Beirut’s municipal
elections/Now
Lebanon
Chances of reaching consensus with
FPM in Beirut elections very low, says Pharaon/Now
Lebanon
Dib sets numbers for FPM
representation in Beirut’s municipal council/Now
Lebanon
Israel must topple Assad in next conflict
with Syria proxies
By Oded Tira
Syria, according to recent reports, is supplying Hezbollah with Scuds and other
missiles that possess a range covering all of Israel - prompting the question as
to the implications of such military hardware during wartime. The missiles have
the capacity to carry a ton of explosives or another warhead, and they don't
require great sophistication to operate. The use of solid fuel might also make
it possible to launch these missiles more quickly than the smaller missiles that
were directed at Israel during the Second Lebanon War. Though the larger weapons
are launched from mobile launch pads, they are more easily identified and
destroyed than the smaller missiles.
The accuracy of the current Scuds is a matter of hundreds of meters, a higher
level of precision than that of the missiles which landed in Israel during the
Second Lebanon War. At the same time, a missile that strikes an urban area does
not require great accuracy. If Hezbollah arms itself with several hundred Scuds,
over the course of a two-week war it could fire several dozen large missiles a
day, causing physical damage or injury as well as affecting morale. And a strike
at the commercial heart of the country could deter foreigners from doing
business with Israel.
The fact that Syria is arming Hezbollah with Scuds reinforces the assessment
that the Syrians are not interested in direct confrontation with Israel,
preferring instead to use a proxy to exert military pressure without exposing
itself to an Israeli response which, it is thought, could topple Bashar Assad
and the Alawites from power. The Syrians' fear of such a prospect should be the
primary leverage used against them, and in response to their arming Hezbollah
with Scuds.
Advertisement
Israel should be conscious of several factors in the face of the threat from the
north. First, on the margins, one should bear in mind Justice Richard
Goldstone's ruling in his report to the United Nations on Operation Cast Lead -
that hitting a country's infrastructure is a war crime as it constitutes
collective punishment, which is banned under international law. I am not saying
that Goldstone must be obeyed, but his ruling must be taken into consideration.
On a tactical level, Israel must develop the intelligence capability necessary
to destroy the maximum number of Scuds possible and especially the missile
launchers, either at the beginning of a war or even beforehand. Israel should
also try to shorten the duration of any fighting as much as possible by hitting
Lebanese infrastructure, but only in response to Israel's being hit first.
In the event of war, Israel's strategic goal should be the overthrow of the
Alawite regime in Syria, and with that aim should continue developing its mobile
ground forces along with massive aerial firepower. Within the Israel Defense
Forces' mobile units, the infantry forces and the special forces - particularly
those that have the capacity to reach any location in the theater of battle -
must be strengthened.
Israel must prepare the international diplomatic community for a war of this
kind and will have to make it clear from the beginning that we have no
alternative. Israel will be tasked with explaining that, because the enemy is
protecting terrorists during a time of war, we have no choice but to hit the
enemy's home front and infrastructure. The very fact of an international debate
on this issue is liable to deter the Syrians on the one hand, though it might
also put Israel under international diplomatic pressure to restrain itself on
the other - but that is a risk worth taking.
Above all, Israel must make it clear right now that, in the event of a missile
attack from the north, it will act on the goal of immediately deposing the
Alawite regime in Syria even before turning its attention to the missile threat.
Such a statement could deter the Syrians from arming Hezbollah with Scuds, out
of concern that the Muslim organization might fire the missiles without first
coordinating with Syria.
**The writer is a reserve brigadier general and former head of the IDF artillery
corps.
Iranian Vice President to visit Syria
Wednesday
April 25, 2010 /Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported Sunday that Iran's First
Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi and an official technical delegation will
arrive in Damascus on Wednesday following an invitation by Syrian Prime Minister
Mohammad Naji Ottari. Rahimi is to head the Iranian delegation during the
Syrian-Iranian Higher Joint Committee meetings on Wednesday and Thursday. He
will also meet with Syrian officials to discuss strengthening bilateral
cooperation in a manner that serves the interests of “the two brotherly
peoples,” SANA added. -NOW Lebanon
Qawouk: Israel seeks to exploit Lebanon’s municipal elections
April 25, 2010 Israel wants to exploit the May municipal elections, Hezbollah
official in South Lebanon Nabil Qawouk said Sunday, reported the National News
Agency (NNA). The Jewish State will use the elections at Lebanon’s expense, he
added. “The closer we get to the date of the municipal elections, the more
Israel will increase violations and threats,” he said, reiterating that the
Resistance should be ready for a possible Israeli attack.Qawouk added that the
Resistance benefited from local and regional changes to increase its “deterring”
strength at the popular, political and military levels. -NOW Lebanon
Feltman: What Do Nasrallah's
Christian Allies Think about his Treatment as a President
Naharnet/The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
indirectly criticized the Free Patriotic Movement and said President Michel
Suleiman was "ignored" during the tripartite meeting between the Syrian and
Iranian presidents and the Hizbullah leader. In an interview with An Nahar
newspaper published on Sunday, Jeffrey Feltman said it was painful to see that
Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was treated as a head of a
state during his meeting with Presidents Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in
Damascus last month. The U.S. diplomat wondered whether the Christians who
signed an agreement with Hizbullah are realizing that President Suleiman was
ignored during the Damascus talks at a time when "a militia leader was being
treated as a head of state."Feltman voiced his concern over recent reports that
Syria may have provided Hizbullah with Scud missiles.He told An Nahar that these
reports are very dangerous if they are true, and all steps should be taken to
reverse or end this situation because it takes all sides involved into a very
unstable direction.
Hariri Seeks Consensus in Beirut, March 14 Christians
Reject Being Overstepped in Dialogue with Aoun
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri has kicked off efforts to achieve consensus
in Beirut over the municipal polls at a time when March 14 Christian leaders
refused attempts to ignore them in dialogue with Free Patriotic Movement leader
Michel Aoun. On Saturday, Hariri met with Former Minister Fouad Butros in the
presence of ex-Minister Ghattas Khoury and later held separate talks with MP
Tamam Salam and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea. Signs indicated that
consensus efforts had reached the starting point after Minister Michel Pharaon,
who was tasked by March 14 Christians to negotiate with the FPM, failed to agree
with the movement. However, Hariri's move on Saturday was described by Beirut
media as a last attempt to take charge of the negotiations himself in order to
reach consensus and avoid an electoral battle. Following his talks with the
prime minister on Saturday, Geagea said March 14 was devoted to "arranging
Christian seats at Beirut municipality." "We openly and directly suggested to
the FPM to join us in the coalition," he said. However, he criticized the
movement for "apparently preferring negotiations to take place through Hizbullah
with the prime minister.""But this time, things won't be that way," Geagea
warned.
In the absence of a US foreign policy
Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Now Lebanon
April 23, 2010
Now Lebanon/Those who know Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs
Jeffrey Feltman know that this skilled diplomat has a personal bias toward
Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence and freedom. Being supportive of Lebanon is
one thing, but defending whatever the administration decides is another. At a
hearing before the Congressional Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
yesterday, the former US ambassador to Lebanon faced some tough questioning and
was for once on the back foot.
Naturally, Congress focused its attack on Washington’s decision to send Robert
Ford as ambassador to Damascus. Feltman argued that since February 26, the State
Department has summoned Syrian diplomats – including Ambassador Imad Mustafa –
on four occasions to voice its displeasure over Syria’s alleged policy of arming
Hezbollah. Mustafa denies he was ever summoned, which made Feltman conclude that
Mustafa was either not listening, or did not communicate the details of the
meeting to Damascus. Feltman added that in the Arab world, officials tend to
keep bad news from their bosses. As such, he argued, sending a US ambassador
back to Syria was imperative. The US needs to have the ear of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, who until now has been making grave errors because he has been
listening, Feltman argued, to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Those who have been following the Middle East long enough might remember that
during one of his trials, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein asked the judge whether
he thought of him as being a beast. “No, but those around you made you one,” the
judge told Saddam.
The assumption is therefore that Assad is all sweet and full of good intentions,
rendering the three-decade confrontation between Damascus and Washington a mere
misunderstanding in communication. But contrary to what Feltman implied, Mustafa
is not dumb. Mustafa the listener in private is different from Mustafa the
troublemaker in real life. The real Mustafa, like his boss Assad, is not
interested in what America has to tell him.
After receiving Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah in early spring, Assad mocked US
demands that he distance himself from them. In response, the State Department’s
number two, Jim Steinberg, dismissed Assad’s remarks, saying they were
“theatrical” and that what counts was Assad’s behavior. But if Assad can be
“theatrical”, what makes Feltman believe that Mustafa cannot be as “theatrical”?
In short, as intelligent as he is, Feltman could not defend the US strategy on
Syria, assuming Washington actually has one.
During a recent panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
America’s top columnists, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and David
Ignatius of the Washington Post, debated foreign policy. While Friedman argued
that he was not sure any American was in charge of a Middle East policy,
Ignatius said there was someone. “His name is Barack Obama.”
If Ignatius is right, it means that Feltman was reiterating talking points on
Syria that he had received from above, perhaps from Obama himself. But what is
Barack Obama’s strategy on Syria and the Middle East? He does not have one. The
memo by Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that America has no strategy on
Iran affirms this view. Obama has no policy on Iran, Syria, Israel or the rest
of the world.
Unlike American presidents since World War II, Obama does not believe the US
should run the world. Focused on domestic issues, this president thinks foreign
policy is a mere tool to serve domestic interests. As such, the world only
matters to Obama as long as there are no more suicide bombers heading for
American cities.
This means that American foreign policy today has only two czars: CENTCOM
Commander David Petraeus, who is in charge of chasing al-Qaeda in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, and Daniel Benjamin, Director of the unit for
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) at the State Department. Benjamin has visited
Damascus. Petraeus might be on his way.
Since Obama’s sole interest in Syria is its cooperation over CVE, a term that
has replaced “Islamist radicalism”, America is not interested in elaborating a
full strategy on Damascus or its behavior.
In the absence of such a strategy, Washington’s parties compete to impose their
different agendas. In the case of Syria, hardcore pro-Assad senators John Kerry
and Arlen Specter both have Obama’s ear, and, ergo, Damascus gets its way in
Washington.
Scuds to Hezbollah or no Scuds. It makes no difference. America has no vision
for the Middle East. Until a policy on Syria is drafted, Washington will be
improvising on how to deal with Damascus, and Jeff Feltman will sound shaky on
the Hill.
**Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a visiting fellow at Chatham House and a
correspondent for Al-Rai newspaper.
Syria Responds to 'Stone Age' Warning with 'Prehistoric' Threat
by Gil Ronen/Arutz Sheva
Syria has threatened it will “send Israel back to prehistoric times” if the
Jewish state attacks it with unconventional weapons. Kuwaiti paper Al-Rai quoted
on Saturday a source described as being close to the decision-making hub in
Syria's leadership as saying that in case of an unconventional Israeli attack,
“we will respond in kind.”
According to the Kuwaiti report, which was quoted by Ynetnews, the anonymous
source said that Syria's strategy is based, among other things, upon the
possibility of opening a wide front against Israel, from Rosh HaNikra in the
west to the southern Golan Heights. This threat seems to imply that a ground
offensive could be launched simultaneously from the Lebanese and Syrian borders
with Israel.
The unnamed Syrian also boasted that his country could deliver 60 ballistic
missiles and 600 tactical missiles per day into Israel. He threatened further
that Syria could use sea-to-surface missiles against Israel civilian and
military targets, including sea ports.
Sending Syria to 'stone age'?
Last week, an unidentified Israeli minister was quoted in London's Sunday Times
as saying: “We’ll return Syria to the Stone Age by crippling its power stations,
ports, fuel storage and every bit of strategic infrastructure if [Hizbullah]
dares to launch ballistic missiles against us."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said earlier this year that “If a war breaks
out, the Assad dynasty will lose its power and will cease to reign in Syria.”
The concern in Israel is that Syria and Hizbullah might attack it if it attacks
the Iranian nuclear program. Iran sponsors Hizbullah and has close ties with
Syria. Israel would rather see the United States and its allies take care of the
Iranian nuclear threat, but US President Barack Obama has been dragging his feet
on the matter, and has repeatedly failed to respect deadlines he himself set for
taking solid action against Iran.
Kara sends warning too
Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara warned Saturday that any Israeli action to remove the
Iranian threat will not just involve hitting Iran – but also any element that
might respond to the strike against Iran. “Israel's security is above all other
considerations,” he said. “If Israel is attacked by an element supported by the
Syrians there will be no avoiding a retaliatory attack on Syria, and I hope it
elects to avoid such a provocation.”
Kara said Saturday that along with Syria's tough words, it is also showing
“flexibility” on humanitarian and economic matters. In the coming weeks, he
revealed, “a Druze delegation from the Golan Heights will be leaving [Israel]
for negotiations with the Syrians on the supply of 200 million cubic meters of
water from Syria to the Golan Heights. Israel will not be participating in this
negotiation and it will be conducted between Syria and the Golan
agriculturalists, regarding water reserves that are in the Syrian reservoirs and
which are dumped back into the ground because Syria lacks the technology and
means to transfer them to areas that suffer from a shortage.”
Iranian Nuclear Scientist Seeks Asylum in Israel
by Gil Ronen/Arutz Sheva
An Iranian nuclear scientist has asked for asylum in Israel, Deputy Minister
Ayoub Kara, of the Druze community, said Saturday.
"My office has received a request from an Iranian scientist who is currently
staying in a friendly country, by means of an Israeli Jewish woman of Iranian
birth,” Kara revealed in a interview panel appearance in Ramat Gan. “I am making
an effort to assist in this matter because I believe in helping anyone to remove
the strategic and nuclear threat upon the enlightened and democratic world.”
He said he had received permission from Israeli intelligence officials to reveal
the matter publicly, without going into details that could compromise the
scientist. The woman who is mediating between the scientist and Israel was in
Kara's office on Wednesday, he said.
Kara added that Arab countries are also “not indifferent” to the Iranian nuclear
threat. “They are aware of the Iranian ambitions to go back to being the Persian
superpower, and they are aware that they are on the Iranian crosshairs no less
than Israel.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, “is lulling them
to apathy by focusing his threats upon Israel, but no one has any doubt that the
Arab countries will be part of the [targets of] Iranian nuclear attack, if the
world continues to sleep and allows this option to materialize, G-d forbid.”
Second defector in a month?
If the information is true, this would apparaet to be the second case involving
an Iranian defector-scientist to be revealed in less than a month. On March 31,
an award-winning Iranian nuclear physicist was reported to have defected to the
CIA and been resettled in the United States.
ABC news quoted officials who termed the defection of the scientist, Shahram
Amiri, "an intelligence coup" in the CIA effort to undermine Iran's nuclear
program. Amiri went missing in June 2009 while in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage,
according to the Iranian government. He had worked at a Tehran university that
is closely connected to Revolutionary Guard, according to the Associated Press.
Schumer Blasts White House on Israel Policy
by Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
U.S. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and a leading Demcoratic Congressman
have strongly criticized Obama administration policies against Israel. New York
Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who once worked for Sen. Schumer and is the
fiancé of a Muslim aide to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also came
out swinging.
“The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum," Rep.
Weiner said. “Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag.
Enough already.”
Sen. Schumer told listeners on the Nachum Segal Show in New York that the White
House stance on Israel has been “counterproductive”. The senator, who faces
elections in the fall, said he had told White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
weeks ago that he would take a public stand if the State Department did not back
down from its “terrible” treatment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
“This has to stop,” Schumer said he told the White House.
Schumer said there was an internal “battle” going on in the White House between
members of the president's staff. “One side agrees with us, one side doesn't,
and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins – and if not, we'll have
to take it to the next step,” he said.
“Palestinians don't really believe in a State of Israel,” Schumer noted. “They,
unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can
live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of
Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.
“If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say,
'Why should we negotiate?' [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley said
something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and
the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations,” Schumer added.
This was apparently the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for the
senior senator, who until now has been one of Obama's closest allies among the
Jewish Democrats. Schumer was referring to a briefing in which the State
Department spokesman said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “made clear that
the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but through
specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace
process.”
Up to this point, Schumer had been largely silent about the growing hostility of
the Obama administration towards the State of Israel, despite numerous calls by
grassroots groups for legislators to stand up and support the Jewish State.
The contention of the State Department that the so-called “unbreakable bond”
between Israel and the U.S. could now depend on the pace of talks with the PA,
however, was the red line for Schumer.
He explained, “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than
the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans – Democrat, Republican,
Jew, non-Jew – would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the
White House and I said, 'If you don't retract that statement you are going to
hear me publicly blast you on this.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded Friday, “We have an unwavering
commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people. You heard General
[James] Jones speak about that earlier in the week. We have said that from the
beginning of the administration. I don't think it is a stretch to say we don't
agree with what Senator Schumer said.”
Iran Trades Oil for Enriched Uranium from Zimbabwe
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
Iran last month sealed a secret deal to trade oil for enriched uranium from
Zimbabwe, which hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week,
according to the London Telegraph. The deal was signed last month “away from the
media glare” when an Iranian minister visited Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe,
a source from the African country told the newspaper.
The oil-for uranium agreement gives Zimbabwe badly needed oil and allows Iran
free and unsupervised access to material that can be used to produce a nuclear
weapon. Israel, the United States and several Western countries have assumed
that Iran is lying in claiming it has no intentions of building a nuclear
weapon, which it presumably would try to use to carry out its repeated threat to
“wipe Israel off the map.”
The reported deal with Zimbabwe would violate United Nations sanctions on Iran,
which suddenly stated last week that it is willing to let U.N. nuclear watchdogs
inspect its nuclear facilities.
Ahmadinejad last week visited Zimbabwe, whose Muslim population accounts for
only one percent of its citizens. He showed support for Mugabe against
“expansionist countries’ satanic pressures on the people of Zimbabwe” by
allegedly trying to manage the country’s natural resources.
Mugabe responded, "We remain resolute in defending Zimbabwe's right to exercise
its sovereignty over its natural resources. We have equally supported Iran's
right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as enshrined in the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty.”
Zimbabwe is estimated to have nearly half a million tons of uranium, five
percent of which can be extracted.
Ahmadinejad was the first leader outside of Africa to open the Zimbabwe
International Trade Fair, where Iran was the biggest foreign exhibitor.
Is Israel Facing War with Hizbullah and Syria?
by David Schenker
Published April 2010
Vol. 9, No. 22 6 April 2010
•Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on
recent pronouncements from Syria, if the situation degenerates, fighting could
take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973.
•On February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Damascus. Afterward,
Hizbullah's online magazine Al Intiqad suggested that war with Israel was on the
horizon.
•Raising tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the
advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which
could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict. The
transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a
"red line."
•In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to
a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public
assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted,
took credit for the "divine victory."
•Damascus' support for "resistance" was on full display at the Arab Summit in
Libya in late March 2010, where Assad urged Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to
abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and "take up arms against Israel."
•After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has finally broken the code to
Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration
as well. Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its
ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.
In February 2010, tensions spiked between Israel and its northern neighbors.
First, Syrian and Israeli officials engaged in a war of words, complete with
dueling threats of regime change and targeting civilian populations. Weeks
later, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah pledged to go toe-to-toe with Israel in
the next war.1 Then, toward the end of the month, Israel began military
maneuvers in the north. Finally, on February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad
hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah for an unprecedented
dinner meeting in Damascus.
Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on
recent pronouncements from Damascus, if the situation degenerates, fighting
could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973. In January and February,
Syrian officials indicated that, unlike during the 2006 fighting in Lebanon,
Damascus would not "sit idly by" in the next war.2 While these statements may be
bravado, it's not difficult to imagine Syria being drawn into the conflict.
The Israeli government has taken steps to alleviate tensions, including, most
prominently, Prime Minister Netanyahu issuing a gag order forbidding his
ministers to discuss Syria.3 Still, the situation in the north remains volatile.
Within a three-day span in mid-March: the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) fired at
Israeli jets violating Lebanese airspace;4 four Lebanese nationals were charged
with spying for Israel against Hizbullah;5 and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)
Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee that the Shiite militia was "building up its forces north of the
Litani (river)." Currently, according to Ashkenazi, the border was calm, "but
this can change."6
It's easy to see how the situation could deteriorate. Hizbullah retaliation
against Israel for the 2008 assassination of its military leader Imad Mugniyyeh
could spark a war. So could Hizbullah firing missiles in retribution for an
Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The transfer of sensitive
Syrian technology to the Shiite militia could also prompt an Israeli strike.
Regrettably, even if Israel continues to try and diffuse tensions in the north,
given the central role Tehran has in determining Hizbullah policy, a third
Lebanon war may be inevitable.
Martyrs Month Pronouncements
In mid-February, Hizbullah held the annual commemoration for its pantheon of
heroes, a week of celebrations marking the organization's top three martyrs -
founding father Ragheb Harb, Secretary General Abbas Mussawi, and military
leader Imad Mugniyyeh. On February 16 - Martyred Leaders Day - Nasrallah gave a
speech where he defined a new, more aggressive posture toward Israel, upping the
ante in the militia's longstanding "balance of terror" strategy. Promising
parity with Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Nasrallah threatened:
If you [Israel] bomb Rafik Hariri international airport in Beirut, we will bomb
Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you bomb our docks, we will bomb your docks.
If you bomb our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries. If you bomb
our factories, we will bomb your factories. And if you bomb our power plants, we
will bomb your power plants.7
With current estimates suggesting that Hizbullah now possesses in excess of
40,000 missiles and rockets, Nasrallah's threats have some resonance. Raising
tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the
advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which
could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict.8 The
transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a
"red line."9 It is unclear whether such a transgression remains a casus belli.
In addition to laying out Hizbullah's new targeting strategy, Nasrallah also
discussed his yet unfulfilled pledge to retaliate against Israel for the 2008
killing of Mugniyyeh. Two years ago, immediately after the assassination,
Nasrallah declared an "open war" against Israel, swearing vengeance for the
group's martyred leader. However, to date, the militia's attempts to strike
Israeli targets - in Azerbaijan and Turkey - have failed.10 During his speech,
Nasrallah reiterated Hizbullah's commitment to retaliate. "Our options are open
and we have all the time in the world," he said, adding, "What we want is a
revenge that rises to the level of Imad Mugniyyeh."11
The Damascus "Resistance" Summit
In recent years, meetings between Assad and Ahmadinejad have been routine
occurrences. It has also been customary for senior Syrian and Iranian officials
to visit their respective capitals - and to sign defense or economic agreements
- immediately following meetings between the Assad regime and U.S. officials. So
it came as little surprise that Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus just days after
Undersecretary of State William Burns departed the Syrian capital. The
surprising part about his visit was that Hassan Nasrallah joined the presidents
for dinner.
On the day before Nasrallah's visit, Assad and Ahmadinejad made great efforts to
demonstrate that Washington's transparent efforts to drive a wedge between the
thirty-year strategic allies had failed. In a press conference on February 25,
Assad famously mocked U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the
administration's gambit to split Syria from Iran, announced the end of visa
requirements for travel between the two states, and described "support for the
resistance [a]s a moral and national duty in every nation, and also a
[religious] legal duty."12 He also said that he discussed with his Iranian
counterpart "how to confront Israeli terrorism."
While the Syria-Iran bilateral meeting and subsequent press conference was
described in some detail by Assad regime insider Ibrahim Humaydi in the pan-Arab
daily Al Hayat, far less is known about what Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah
discussed during their dinner meeting the next day. According to the account in
Hizbullah's online magazine Al Intiqad, the meeting was about "the escalating
strategic response of the axis of the confrontationist, rejectionist, and
resistance states" to the U.S.-Israeli threat.13 Significantly, this article
also suggested that war with Israel was on the horizon.
Resorting to the most extreme decision - that is, launching and setting a war on
its path - will decide the final results. In any case, if reasonable
calculations prevail, they will lead to producing comprehensive and specific
[Israeli] compromises or it will lead to postponing the war which still waits
for its most appropriate time for everyone.14
Based on its analysis of the trilateral summit in Damascus, this Hizbullah organ
seems to be suggesting that a war, while not imminent, is inevitable.
The Weak Link
In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to
a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public
assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted,
took credit for the "divine victory."15 Since then, Syria has upgraded its
rhetorical and material support for the Shiite militia.16 Damascus has helped
Hizbullah to fully rearm, reportedly providing the militia with cutting-edge
Russian weaponry from its own stocks. In this context, Syrian officials have
been increasingly trumpeting their support for, and loyalty to, the resistance,
so much so that the official government-controlled Syrian press now proclaims
that "Syrian foreign policy depends on supporting the resistance."17
Damascus' support for "resistance" was on full display at the Arab Summit in
Libya in late March 2010. According to reports, at the meeting Assad urged
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and
"take up arms against Israel," imparting his own experience that "the price of
resistance is not higher than the price of peace."18 During his speech before
his fellow Arab leaders, Assad was equally hard-line in his prescriptions. At a
minimum, he said, Arab states should cut off their relations with Israel. The
"maximum" - and presumably preferable - policy option, he said, would be to
support the resistance.19
Despite the rhetoric, however, it's not clear that Syria is presently itching
for a fight with Israel. After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has
finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so
with the Obama administration, which recently announced the posting of a new
ambassador and indicated a willingness to revise sanctions and modify U.S.
economic pressures on Damascus.20 Currently, Syria appears to be in a position
where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support
for terrorism.
War would change this comfortable dynamic. In the event of an Israel-Hizbullah
conflagration, pressures on Syria to participate would be intense. Furthermore,
could Syria really watch an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without
responding? After so much crowing about its support for Hizbullah and its
regional ilk, could Syria sit out yet another fight?
Conclusion
While it's too early to predict the timing or the trigger, on Israel's northern
border there appears to be a growing sense that war is coming. Iran may have an
interest in maintaining Hizbullah's arsenal until an Israeli strike. Likewise,
for Hizbullah, which lately has been playing up its Lebanese identity in an
effort to improve its image at home, waging war on Israel on behalf of Iran
could be problematic. In any event, it is all but assured that a war on Israel's
northern front will be determined, at least in part, by Tehran.
In early February, Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak told the IDF: "In the
absence of an arrangement with Syria, we are liable to enter a belligerent clash
with it that could reach the point of an all-out, regional war."21 Regrettably,
regardless of what happens between Syria and Israel in the coming months, the
decision of war or peace with Hizbullah may be out of Israel's hands.
Notes
* The author would like to thank his research assistant Cole Bunzel for his
excellent assistance in the preparation of this article.
1. "Full Text of H.E. Sayyed Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders,"
http://english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=10225&cid=214.
2. "Syria Will Back Hizbullah Against IDF," Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2010.
Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem echoed this threat in February 2010; see "Al-Mouallem
at Press Conference with Moratinos," SANA, February 4, 2010. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/02/04/270781.htm.
3. Attila Somfalvi, "Bibi Tells Ministers to Keep Mum on Syria," Ynet, February
4, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3844619,00.html. Netanyahu
also reassured Syria that Israel remained interested in peace.
4. "Lebanese Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes," AFP, March 21, 2010, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100321-260030/Lebanese-army-fires-on-Israeli-warplanes.
5. "Lebanon Charges Four with Spying for Israel," Press TV, March 20, 2010,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121274§ionid=351020203.
6. Amnon Meranda, "Ashkenazi: Hamas Doesn't Want a Flareup," Ynet, March 23,
2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866883,00.html.
7. "Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders."
8. See, for example, Barak Ravid, "Israel Warns Hizbullah: We Won't Tolerate
Arms Smuggling," Ha'aretz, October 12, 2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009384.html.
9. "Report: Hizbullah Trains on Missiles," UPI, January 17, 2010, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/01/17/Report-Hezbollah-trains-on-missiles/UPI-51221263741141/.
10. See Yossi Melman, "Hizbullah, Iran Plotted Bombing of Israeli Embassy in
Azerbaijan," Ha'aretz, May 31, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089204.html.
Also Avi Isaacharoff, "Turkish Forces Foil Attack on Israeli Target," Ha'aretz,
December 9, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133747.html.
11. "Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders."
12. Ibrahim Humaydi, "Al Asad: Ta‘ziz al-‘alaqat bayna duwal al-mintaqa tariq
wahid li-l-qarar al mustaqill," Al Hayat, February 26, 2010, http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112984.
13. "Qimmat Nejad-Al-Asad-Nasrallah: Ayy hisabat ba‘daha?" http://www.alintiqad.com/essaydetails.php?eid=27878&cid=4.
14. Ibid.
15. "Speech of Bashar Asad at Journalist Union 4th Conference," August 15, 2006,
http://www.golan67.net/NEWS/president%20Assad%20Speech%2015-8-6.htm.
16. In addition to the Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, some unconfirmed reports
indicate that Syria may have transferred some of its Scud-D missiles - capable
of delivering chemical warheads - to Hizbullah.
17. "Junblatt wa-l-Tariq ila Dimashq," Al Watan, March 10, 2010, http://alwatan.sy/dindex.php?idn=75718.
That support for resistance is central to Syrian foreign policy comes as little
surprise: in 2009, Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem volunteered to join Hizbullah.
See "Muallem Says He's Ready to Join Hizbullah," Gulf News, May 3, 2009, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/muallem-says-ready-to-join-hezbollah-1.248887.
18. "Arab Leaders Support Peace Plan," AP, March 28, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/middleeast/article.aspx?id=171981.
19. Ziyad Haydar, "Qimmat sirte infaddat ‘ala ‘ajal...wa bila za‘al," As Safir,
March 29, 2010, http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3020&EditionId=1496&ChannelId=34736.
In an interview following the summit, Syrian advisor Buthaina Sha‘ban declared
victory for the Syrian position, saying that "an agreement took place among the
Arab leaders in a closed session to support the resistance and reject
normalization" with Israel.
20. Ibrahim Humaydi, "Washington tarfa‘ mu‘aradataha ‘udwiyat Suriya fi
munazzimat al-tijara al-‘alamiya," Al Hayat, February 24, 2010,. http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112646.
21. Amos Harel, "Barak: Without Peace We Could Be Headed for All-Out War,"
Ha'aretz, February 2, 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146731.html.