by Prof. Eyal Zisser
Nasrallah's belligerent statements do not indicate a desire for confrontation with Israel, but rather the direct opposite
In a recent series of
speeches and media interviews, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah
has reaffirmed his vow to attack the ammonia plant in the Haifa Bay and
the nuclear reactor in Dimona should a confrontation with Israel erupt.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun, the Christian general who once welcomed
then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to Beirut, now serves as Nasrallah's
pet in the city's presidential palace. Aoun, in contrast to the line
Lebanese governments and presidents had taken up until now, said
Hezbollah's weapons arsenal was essential to Lebanon's defense, which he
said was too great a task for an army the size of Lebanon's.
In Israel, reactions to
Nasrallah's belligerent statements were decidedly calm -- an indication
above all of concerns that the situation could deteriorate to a new
round of fighting that would break the silence that has prevailed along
the Israeli-Lebanese border since the end of the Second Lebanon War in
the summer of 2006.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.
Gen. Gadi Eizenkot even went so far as to tell the Knesset that
Hezbollah was facing a financial crisis, and more significantly, a
crisis of morale, as a result of its involvement in the fighting in
Syria and that as a result, Hezbollah was not interested in a
confrontation with Israel. Eizenkot is right when he points to the heavy
price Hezbollah has paid for its involvement in Syria. The fighting has
killed and wounded thousands of its fighters and burdened the Shiite
terrorist organization with expenses that its sponsor, Iran, is finding
it difficult to finance. But the balance of Hezbollah's involvement in
Syria is more complex. Alongside the losses, its people are gaining a
certain operational experience, although admittedly, they have not
excelled in their military performance in Syria. And more importantly,
the Iran-Hezbollah axis now enjoys Russian protection.
The Russians are
certainly not the ones behind the transfer of the most advanced missile
in the region, the Yakhont, to Hezbollah. But given the recent media
reports that Syria had transferred such weapons to Hezbollah, Moscow
seems to have chosen to keep its eyes partially shut. One way or
another, in the moment of truth, Israel will need to grapple with
Hezbollah's arsenal of missiles, and when it does, military morale will
not be an issue.
So the problem with
Eizenkot's remarks lies in the fact that he, of all people, should know
that wars between Israel and its opponents tend to break out when
neither side is interested in them or believes they will soon break out.
The Second Lebanon War, as well as the rounds of fighting between
Israel and Hamas, broke out in complete contrast to assessments, and
more importantly, in complete contrast to the desire on both sides to
maintain their shared border.
Nasrallah's belligerent
statements, then, do not indicate a desire for confrontation with
Israel, but rather the direct opposite: a fear of such a confrontation
and a desire to prevent it. The same is true of Israel's response, which
affirms restraint and a sense that Israel has the ability to deter the
organization. The problem is that too many things can go wrong along the
way. So, for example, Israel is continuing to attack Hezbollah targets
in Syrian territory, according to reports in the media. It is very
possible that at a certain point, someone on the other side -- whether
Russia or Damascus, Tehran or Nasrallah -- will decide they will no
longer abide such attacks.
The Syrian regime is also
prepared to take back the Syrian Golan Heights, and the significance of
such a move would be an Iranian presence, as well as a Hezbollah
presence, on Syria's border with Israel. Although no one is interested
in an all-out war, in recent years, both sides have shown they will not
hesitate to send each other messages of a violent nature. Israel attacks
Hezbollah targets in Syria, as the terrorist organization carries out
terrorist attacks on Shebaa Farms or even against Israeli tourists in
Bulgaria. These attacks indicate a willingness to take risks, in the
hopes that someone will stop at the last minute. But this is not what
ultimately happened in the past, and hence the concern.
Prof. Eyal Zisser
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=18479
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment