by Barry Rubin
Golan ceasefire line crossing, 2012.
Why might Syria or Iran attack Israel? Obviously that is impossible to predict, but here is an indication.
The
traditional pattern has been that Israel is attacked when the
perpetrator wants to mobilize international Arab support. The idea is
that Arabs, no matter what their citizenship, would cheer the assault.
Indeed, even Persians, Turks, and others would do so. And hence lies
international political profit. This was originally illustrated by Gamal
Abdel Nasser’s Egypt in the 1950s and has been shown many times since.
But not always. It has failed many times, increasingly in recent years, for example, with Syria in the 1982
Lebanon war or in Iraq in the 1991 Kuwait war. Then again, it has also yielded no real material help.
The Israel card has just not worked any more in Middle Eastern policies.
This
is, of course, mainly true for strategic direct attacks, not those
shadowy terrorist groups, but that limits attacks as well. And now
Hizballah, an open ally of Syria, has come out as a strategic factor, a
semi-state actor no longer covered by its historic
designation. Hizballah d0es not want to set off a Hizballah-Israel war
when it is already under intensive criticism and military pressure
because of fighting in an anti-Sunni war killing that community’s people
in Syria.
Some
reasons are that while aggressive Arab states or Iran–as well as
radical Islamism–have increasingly threatened Arab states and
populations, this set up a cross-cutting factor. It was far from the
only issue. Admit it or not, there were far more considerations at play.
Now
what would the Syrian side gain for targeting Israel? No Sunni Muslim
will leap to the defense of the Bashar al-Assad or the Iranian region as
a result! The Israel card is useless, and everyone in the region knows
this.
So
why do these threats endure? Simple. To scare the West or Israel so as
to intimidate them into doing what the aggressors want them to do, a
bogey-man.
The
Iranians won’t attack Israel because it would be so difficult for them
to do, and it would unleash a full-scale confrontation with the Unites
States that will gain them nothing. The same is true for Syria,which
would guarantee to make the United States seek regime change in Damascus
and make it far harder to win the civil war. The most likely attack
would be by Hizballah with rockets.
And
thus, it may contribute to a state or regime’s defensive strategy so it
can go on, so to speak, committing aggression in peace.
Of
course if the bluff is called and if the aggressor added onto the
attack, it would achieve far more damage to the attacker with no real
benefit. Will such an operation contribute to Assad winning the civil
war or surviving? Of course not.
So
these threats should be laughed at–no matter that the threats must be
prepared for carefully–and the response would be: You and what army?
But
one can also ask this: In the face of such bumbling American behavior,
what possible credibility can be put on Obama Administration guarantees
to Israel? Remember that the side Obama supports includes al-Qaida which
is firing rockets into Israel even as America ponders an
attack on the Syrian regime! For the first time, America is objectively
a co-belligerent with a force actively attacking Israel!
Barry Rubin
Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/09/the-real-issue-of-threats-to-attack-israel/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment