by Eyal Zisser
The foreign media,
which has devoted extensive coverage to the alleged Israeli attack on
multiple Syrian installations over the weekend, has focused on
Jerusalem's determination to prevent the transfer of game-changing
weapon systems from Syria to Hezbollah.
But the truth is that
this has nothing to do with game-changers and everything to do with
rewriting the rules of the game that have governed Israel's interaction
with Syria and Hezbollah over the past two decades. Those rules have
effectively rendered Israel's two northern adversaries immune to attacks
over their massive efforts to transfer advanced weaponry to the Shiite
terrorist organization. Until recently, Israel has opted to avoid
preemptive attacks on weapons convoys lest such a move trigger a painful
Syrian retaliation. All it could do was watch with resignation as the
weapons were delivered before its very eyes.
The new approach Israel
has subscribed to is not just a consequence of impending deliveries of
advanced weapon systems; it was motivated by the new window of
opportunity presented by the Arab Spring, or in its latest
manifestation, the Syrian revolution.
Much has been said
about Israel's strategic losses as a result of the Arab Spring, which
toppled friendly regimes and unleashed destabilizing chaos along
Israel's borders. Terrorists, some of them inspired by al-Qaida, thrive
in such fragile and turbulent conditions. And so, the calm that has
characterized the Syrian front in the wake of the Yom Kippur War has
been supplanted by skirmishes between the Syrian rebels and the Assad
regime, which have repeatedly spilled over into Israeli territory.
But the Arab Spring,
which has left the Syrian regime mired in a bloody civil war the past
two years, has also increased Israel's freedom of operation to levels
not seen in years. After all, the Syrian military is in decline and has
lost some of its firepower. What's more, it is now singularly focused on
the survival of the Assad regime as it counters the rebels. Thus, its
ability to retaliate in the face of an Israeli strike has been severely
compromised.
* * *
And so, Assad needs
every soldier, tank or missile he has in this life-or-death match-up
with the rebels. Israel, for its part, has signaled through its alleged
actions that so long as he is combating his own people (even if that
involves the use of chemical weapons), it will not target his regime
directly and will only hurt him if he tries to facilitate arm shipments
to Hezbollah.
Assad knows full well
that a country that can hit targets with such precision in the Damascus
area can also inflict substantial damage on the military infrastructure
he so desperately needs as he fights the rebels. In fact, Assad has made
enormous strides in the fighting in recent weeks, to the point that he
has regained control over several areas. The scenario in which he comes
out on top and stays in power can no longer be ruled out.
It appears it is
actually Hezbollah that faces a dilemma. By introducing new rules,
Israel hopes to disconnect it from the Syrian oxygen tank that Hassan
Nasrallah has relied on for so many years.
Hezbollah is gradually
becoming entangled in the Syrian quagmire; this is clearly evident by
the almost daily funerals it holds for some of its best fighters. The
organization certainly does not want to open another front with Israel.
By the same token, it won't hold its fire forever in the face of
Israel's efforts to impose tougher rules on its arm shipments.
The Arab Spring has thus provided Israel with an opportunity to change the rules of the game in Syria and Lebanon.
Israel exploited this
new reality rather belatedly, after Hezbollah had already acquired tens
of thousands of advanced missiles. But better late than never.
In any event, even after things
quiet down on the Syrian front, this calm will only last until the next
Hezbollah-bound shipment of advanced weaponry or until the organization
and its Iranian patron decide they can no longer abide by Israel's new
rules.
Eyal Zisser
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4229
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment