"For three transgressions of Damascus,..."

"Israel has been forced to rethink its regional strategies." claimed   New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren this week interpreting the latest developments in Syria. She was referring mainly to the growing concern that Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.  Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak clearly intimated that if the chemical weapons are moved to another entity it would be a “game changer.” “Israel will not sit idle,” said Danny Yatom, a former Mossad director. “If we obtain information that chemical agents or biological agents are about to fall into the hands of the Hezbollah, we will not spare any effort to stop this happening.”  Jordan’s King Abdullah also commented on this worst case scenario. Obviously Jordan can’t threaten Syria. The best Abdullah could do was to call for international action. He said, ” If such weapons were to fall into the hands of rebel forces – some of which are unknown entities – then even reluctant UN members like Russia might support some kind of international action.”

The badly battered Assad government seized the opportunity to prove to all its would be eulogists that it was still in control. A Syrian government spokesman issued a statement, which in effect was the Syrian regime’s first admission that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Reading from a prepared text the spokesman reassured "All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."

Bearing in mind that Assad has often called the uprising a terrorist revolt and a "foreign conspiracy," it's not inconceivable  that  he would  use  his chemical weapons. So far the EU nations and the US have been content to condemn Syria and impose incomplete sanctions on the Assad regime..

Till now Israel has been a spectator, albeit a concerned observer carefully monitoring the uprising in Syria.  In her report to the New York Times Jodi Rudoren quoted Eyal Zisser, chairman of the Middle East and African history department at Tel Aviv University. “Most Israelis do not care about the grievances and the aspirations of their neighbours, democracy, justice, prosperity. They care about their own security. That’s the way of the average Israeli, and as a result, his government.”  I think Professor Zisser based his claim  more on  gut-feeling than academic study, but he is probably right.                                                                                                                                                    It's common knowledge that Syria has been stockpiling chemical weapons for the past forty years. Furthermore, a number of observers claim that stocks of Iraqi chemical weapons were transferred to Syria at the time of the  2003 US invasion of Iraq.  So why are we so concerned now?  So far Damascus has regarded these chemical weapons as its "Doomsday Option." However,  Israel's qualitative technological edge and its own other  "Doomsday Option" have deterred Syria from  using its chemical weapons option.

Everyone from President Obama to Israel's leaders regard a Syrian chemical weapons "change of ownership" sufficient reason to intervene.                                                  Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said that while the prospect of chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist groups is frightening, the threat may not be as dire as it seems. In order for the weapons to be used, two substances must be combined in a certain way, and they need to be delivered to the target by an aircraft. or a missile.

A terrorist group acquiring chemical weapons will probably find them more of a bane than a boon. However, if in the wake of the expected collapse of the Assad regime no responsible government, even an interim governing body comprised of the opposition rebel groups, takes control of the country, the problem of Syria’s chemical weapons will require a reassessment. In that case Israel and/or the US  would probably take preemptive steps to secure Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.                                                                             “It’s not only an Israeli issue: if Qaeda or radical members take control of nonconventional weapons, they might appear anywhere in the world,” said Ilan Mizrahi, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, and deputy chief of  the  Mossad.                                                                                                                           Speaking to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on Tuesday IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz appeared confident but cautious. He warned that if Syria's chemical weapons were to get into the wrong hands, such as those of Hezbollah, IDF military action could turn into an unintentionally broad campaign.

Syria’s acquisition and manufacture of chemical weapons preceded its decision to develop missile capabilities. Thirty years ago a clash between Israeli and Syrian forces developed into a “watershed event” causing Hafez al-Assad to radically change his military strategy.

In June 1982, Israeli ground forces pushed into Lebanon in an effort to put an end to cross-border terror attacks. The incursion coined   “Operation Peace for Galilee”, led to a prolonged conflict with Lebanon and produced mixed overall results. However, the initial phase of that operation included a spectacular moment when the Israeli Air Force destroyed 19 surface-to-air missile batteries, with no losses, and downed a huge number of enemy aircraft. With real-time intelligence and careful exploitation of adversary weaknesses, the IAF dealt modern air defences their first major defeat. The operation was the first time in history that a Western air force successfully destroyed a Soviet-built surface-to-air missile (SAM) network. It also became one of the biggest air battles since World War II, and the biggest since the Korean War. The result was a decisive Israeli victory, leading to the colloquial name of the clash, “The Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot.”.

Five years ago, David Eshel wrote in Defence Update “Syrian chemical weapons development has been largely spurred by its disastrous conventional military defeats by Israel in 1967, 1973, and 1982. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad was Minister of Defence during the 1967 Six-Day War, during which the Golan Heights were captured by Israeli forces. After seizing power and assuming the presidency in 1971, Assad sought to bolster Syria’s strategic capabilities by pursuing the development of chemical weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.”

The prophet Amos who insisted he wasn’t a prophet or the son of prophet, spent most of his time bringing  bad news to the ancient nations of our region. “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof.”  Amos 1:3.  I doubt if he meant Assad’s Damascus, just the same the prediction fits.

Our community of Middle East analysts  worries  about what will happen “the day after Assad.”                                                                                                                     David Eshel wrote in Defence Update “Indeed the contours of the Syrian conflict already bear the hallmarks of sectarian cantonization, coupled with literally irrefutable precursors of sectarian cleansing in places such as Houla, Qubeir and other mixed areas in Syria, clearly signaling that the battle in Syria now is over consolidating sectarian cantonisation.                                                                                                                       There is nothing new in such a trend: During the post-WWI French Mandate over the Levant, the region was subdivided into six, virtually independent and mostly ethnic populated states under general French mandatory rule. They were Damascus and Aleppo, inhabited by the Sunni majority, the coastal Alawite state, Jebel Druze (Souaida), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1939 became Turkish Hatay) and greater Lebanon.                                                                                                                          The French cantons remained virtually independent, although far from quiet, until 1936 when the French decided to unite all Syria, but keep Lebanon separate. All Syrian regimes never accepted this state of affairs and regarded Lebanon as their clear sphere of national interest.                                                                                                                                         A danger of a future return to separate ethnic cantonisation marks a tremendous challenge to all Syria’s neighboring states, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and foremost, Israel. There are already widespread fears that a Gaddafi-style collapse of Syria into uncontrolled chaos, could mean that dangerous weapons of mass destruction would fall into terrorist hands and spread around the world.”.

While some Middle East affairs analysts are loath to predict how long it will be before  Bashar al Assad leaves or is ousted and others surmise  that he might just weather out this prolonged uprising, Financial  Times  International Affairs editor David Gardner states adamantly, “Syria’s regime is finished – do not mourn its passing.”

“When a dictatorship cannot regain control over a country in revolt for 18 months despite repeated offensives, when it cannot police the countryside away from the main roads, cannot secure the capital or its main trading hub, cannot even protect its innermost citadels and has to pull troops from its borders to protect its palaces, it is finished. This is the case with the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, who is still trying to kill his way out of the crisis, even as poorly armed rebels swarm through Syria’s cities and his supporters melt away. He is finished.”

He defines the endgame as follows,”This is now a straight fight between the Alawites and the Sunnis – and their foreign backers.

Iran and Russia have stood with the regime, but they cannot fight its battles. In the Sunni camp, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have stepped up aid, with the US in the background. Rebel forces have gained momentum since late spring and have crystallised into provincial commands. How much fighting there is to come depends on the cohesion of a shrinking regime. Loyalist forces have over-run two districts of the capital after 10 days of fighting but meanwhile Aleppo, the commercial capital, has erupted. The Assads cannot be everywhere at once.”

Financial Times Middle East editor Roula Khalaf reported from  Beirut,

“Iran would be the big loser if Mr Assad lost power – an upheaval that would shift the balance of power in the region in favour of its adversaries in the Sunni states of the Gulf (the main supporters of the Syrian opposition). Tehran’s Lebanese ally Hizbollah, now the most powerful military and political force in Lebanon, would also be weakened.

The country most vulnerable to contagion from the crisis in Syria is Lebanon, a fragile state that has long been under the influence of Damascus. Lebanon’s political class is divided along pro and anti-Syrian regime lines and it is already suffering from the bloodshed next door.”                                                                                                                           Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) Director Maj. Gen. (ret) Amos Yadlin interviewed by Foreign Policy this week, said, "Watch for these five indicators signaling Assad is about to fall: Defections of Syrian generals along with their divisions, the Free Syrian Army winning over neighborhoods in Damascus and Aleppo, Druze and Christian minorities moving into opposition to Assad, Russia abandoning its protection of Assad in the U.N. Security Council, and a collapse of the economy."

Have a good weekend

Beni                            26^th of July, 2012.