Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria

[SWJED]

23 August Los Angeles Times commentary - Israel Should Hit Syria First (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot23aug23,0,5533737.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) by Max Boot.

"We are walking with open eyes into our next war."

The pessimism of a senior Israeli official who made that comment on Aug. 13 was striking because he had just finished telling a group of security analysts brought to Israel by the American Jewish Committee that the United Nations-brokered cease-fire had achieved many of Israel's goals. But he had no illusions that this would represent anything more than a temporary halt in the fight between Israel and the Quartet of Evil seeking to dominate the Middle East — Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

The war wasn't a total loss for Israel. But it was far from a victory. Hezbollah lost more than 500 fighters as well as most of its medium- and long-range missiles and its bunker network in southern Lebanon, while inflicting scant damage on Israel. Israeli intelligence analysts are convinced that Tehran isn't happy about this turn of events because it was holding Hezbollah's rockets in reserve for a possible retaliatory strike if Israel or the U.S. hit Iran's nuclear weapons complex.

But rockets are easily replaced, and Iran and Syria will now undertake a massive effort to make good Hezbollah's losses, and then some...

Israel had managed to defeat the terrorists' previous wonder-weapon, the suicide bomber, by walling off the Gaza Strip and West Bank. But a fence won't stop missiles. Israel will now be loath to retreat any further from the West Bank. Hamas, for its part, will have strong incentive to stockpile rockets in its Gaza redoubt and launch a "third intifada," as suggested by a columnist in the Hamas newspaper Al Risala.

Israel had hoped that this conflict would reestablish its deterrence, but, if anything, the unsatisfactory outcome will only embolden its enemies. The problem is that wars of attrition against fanatical jihadists who do not fear death and who hide among civilians negate to some extent the Israeli Defense Forces' superior firepower. Additionally, Iran, the ultimate source of terrorist money and arms, is too far away for effective Israeli retaliation.

Syria, however, is a weak link in the quartet.

Syria's importance as an advance base for Iran — the two countries concluded a formal alliance on June 16 — cannot be exaggerated. It is the go-between for most of the munitions flowing to Hezbollah. It is the sanctuary of Hamas honcho Khaled Meshaal. It is also, according to Israeli intelligence sources, the home of a new Iranian-Syrian intelligence center that tracks Israeli military movements and relays that information to terrorist proxies...

History suggests that only force, or the threat of force, can win substantial concessions from Syria. In 1998, Turkey threatened military action unless Syria stopped supporting Kurdish terrorists. Damascus promptly complied. Israel may have no choice but to follow the Turkish example...

[Jones_RE]

The current Assad regime has been consolidating its power base for some years now. Immediately after 9/11/01 Syria became an important partner in working against al Qaeda. Bashar Assad also briefly courted the idea of a more open Syrian society.

Now, Syria is the prime conduit for foreigners who wish to wage Jyhad in Iraq against US forces. Syria has also cemented an alliance of convenience with Iran (Syria is governed by a ruling clique that subscribes to a sect of Shiite Islam). Syria has also continued to commit espionage and murder in Lebannon as well as supporting Hezbollah directly in its war with Israel.

I think it's pretty clear that the Assad regime is basically weak - militarily, economically and politically. Thus, their choices are based on survival rather than desire. It's extremely disturbing to note that Syria's realignment indicates that in their judgment the West will not be successful in the Middle East.

Moreover, Israel would stand to gain only in a very limited set of circumstances in any conflict with Syria. If Israel uses too much force, the Assad government could fall. In the current climate, I can see no way in which a successor government would be more friendly to Israel. Too little force, however, and the Assad government will only be emboldened. Worse, Syrian public opinion is at issue: a weak reaction by the Assad government could leave them open to charges of cowardice and prompt internal rebellion. Worse, such a rebellion would likely be successful if the most effective (and loyal) elements of the Syrian military are destroyed. Finally, even in a situation of complete anarchy in Syria (akin to Iraq, say), arms could still be transshipped by Iranian agents. In fact, it seems fair to suggest that Iran would have an easier time supplying Hezbollah through such chaos. While there would be considerable "shrinkage" from banditry, bribes and Israeli interdiction, such shipments would still be impossible to track and stop.

For the moment, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are able to club Israel with impunity. Israel's strategic situation is unfavorable because it's ability to use force is constrained by international and domestic pressure - constrained to a level below that which is sufficient to deter, defeat or even significantly degrade any of its enemies apparently.

[SWJED]

I got much more out of your reply than from Boot's commentary - good analysis - thanks.

[Uboat509]

I agree with everything that Jones said except for the last line. "Israel's strategic situation is unfavorable because it's ability to use force is constrained by international and domestic pressure - constrained to a level below that which is sufficient to deter, defeat or even significantly degrade any of its enemies apparently."

I am not sure that international pressure played much of a role in their halting their advance into Lebanon. I'm not sure that international pressure plays a role in anything Israel does. Internal pressure seems to have been pushing them on not trying to halt them. Israel has always had a keen survival instinct and, to my mind at least, has never allowed foreign or even domestic opinion interfere with that instinct. I suspect that the constraints on Israel's military are more economics coupled with an acute awareness that part of Israel's defense is predicated on the appearance of invincibility. I'm not saying that Israel is weak, far from it but it has taken on mythological prowess. To hear some people tell it the only thing that is stopping the IDF from single handly taking over the ME and destroying Islamic terrorism once and for all is liberal public oppinion in Europe and New England. As you wander the blogesphere you will hear many people speaking in awed tones of just how invincible the IDF really is and people get really defensive about it. When I posited on another website that Israel's military may have some serious problems and posted the articles posted here as evidence I was attacked. I did not say or imply that Israel was in the wrong to attack Hizbullah or that Israel didn't have a right to defend itself, I simply suggested that Israel has some problems that it needed to adress in its military. You would have thought that I was the Jonbennet Ramsey killer. I suspect that if you replace the awe with hatred then you will have the Arab view of Israel. But this is not 1967. Israel's enemies aren't armed with the old saggers any more. The IDF is still better than any of it's enemies and Israeli air power is still unmatched but Lebenon served to illustrate that technology allows Israel's enemies to make up some of the distance between them. More than that it showed that however powerful the IDF is, it is not invincible. Am I saying that Syria or Iran could attack and destroy Israel? Of course not but any large scale fight is likely to be bloody and costly for Israel in men, material and treasure. It's not an option that they are going to seek out. They are constrained by the fact that they don't want the Arab world's hatred of Israel to overcome thir belief in Israel's invincibility. That's how I see it anyway.

SFC W

[Jones_RE]

If by domestic and international pressure you mean the public pronouncements of various diplomats from the UN, the EU and so forth, or public demonstrations of the usual anti-war variety, then absolutely these have no impact on Israeli policy.

However, I believe Israeli policy is subject to pressure from both within and without. I'll start with the domestic side. Firstly, the Israeli body politic is famously divided: "Israel has three opinions for every two Israelis." While folks showed remarkable unity early in the crisis, that unity has since faded. Moreover, it is not reflected in the Knesset where no single party holds a majority. Kadima, the "ruling" party, may well have lost its mandate the moment Hezbollah crossed the border (before any fighting even began). In a very real sense, this war was fought to regain Kadima's political power to withdraw from the West Bank. That's one reason for the air power emphasis, to show that threats to Israel could be controlled without controlling the land around it.

Another source of pressure is from an Israeli desire to avoid casualties. This is admirable, but can hamstring operations that call for daring - it makes you fight like a coward even if you aren't.

There is also a great public demand to "do something" to rescue any Israeli hostages. Wonderful, but fewer hostages might be taken if Tel Aviv was willing to stand fast in the face of such outrages. As it is, thousands (mostly innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebannon) have died in an ineffectual attempt to secure the release of three men who may already be dead.

There is very strong public pressure not to show weakness or negotiate with terrorists or Arabs in general.

There is also strong pressure to keep fighting short. This is both political and economic - the IDF relies on reservists to supply much manpower and those reservists can't work if they're fighting, also fighting cuts into Israel's significant tourism industry.

All of this strongly shaped the fighting, and will shape future wars involving Israel. Yes, Arab strategists are very well aware of the above.

On the international side, Israel is unconcerned by the pronouncements of Chirc, Kofi Annan, etc. However, the slightest whisper from George W. Bush and they'll sit up and take notice. The IDF gets 20% of its budget and a lot of big ticket weapons from the US, it would be a grave strategic loss to endanger that. Moreover, Israel did not seek to engage either Syria or Iran at this time. They could not afford to escalate the fighting to a level that would demand their direct involvement.

I think you can agree that Israel, the Kadima government and the IDF are in fact subject to outside opinion as well as domestic concerns - and a brief examination of those concerns illustrates a number of apparently erroneous tactical decisions in the fighting. The reliance on airpower and artillery, operating from buttoned up armored vehicles, the lack of long range planning and especially the weak diplomatic efforts by Israel to secure its soldiers are all at least partly the result of both domestic and international concerns. Israel had to fight, but the IDF had one hand tied behind its back from the beginning.

[Stu-6]

It seems to me there maybe a comparison here with the US and Iraq. By this I mean it is a frustrating problem and military forces may look like a quick solution due to past victories. The problem with this, as has been seen in Iraq, is just because you can take down a problem regime doesn’t mean you can create a more favorable situation, and can easily make things worse. Obviously this is not an ideal comparison since there are a lot of differences, just a lesson about unintended consequences.

I don’t think there is any kind of limited strike option here; since the Assad regime would likely be very threaten internally if they didn’t respond very aggressively to an Israeli strike. After seeing HAMAS and Hezbollah rise to power by attacking Israel while the PA and Lebanese government were pushed aside, only a foolish Arab government would not offer a massive response to an Israeli attack, make rapid escalation all but unavoidable.

[SWJED]

3 September London Times - Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340486,00.html) by Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter.

Threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say.

“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.”

A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. “It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hezbollah’s,” a military source said

There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria, which the Iranian defence minister described as a “mutual front against Israeli threats”. Israel has not had to fight against more than one army since 1973...

[Uboat509]

Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.

“If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” said one insider.


Which voices? The belief seems to be that if Sadaam did indeed have large stockpiles of WMD (And I believe he had some though perhaps not the massive amounts we origionally thought) the many of them were shipped to Syria before the war. Given that I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks that chaos in a country with a significant amount of WMD is a good thing. If memory serves, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused significant stress in as much as there were a lot of Soviet WMDs in the former Soviet satilite countries and there was (and still is, I think) a great deal of concern that it would be very easy to "lose" some of these WMDs. And those governements aren't openly hostile to us. Assad is most definitely our friend but at least he is an enemy we know. He is in a precarious position in his country and he knows it. He wants to destroy Israel but he also wants to stay in power which means, although he provides weapons and training to Hezbollah he has not provided any overt assistance (ie ground troops) or WMDs to Hezbollah. Anything more that that and Israel will probably have no choice but act. With Assad taken out, the ensuing chaos would probably see more advanced weaponry, perhaps ground troops and perhaps even WMDs finding their way into Hezbollah's hands. It is in effect MAD on a smaller scale.

SFC W

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 1 Nov 06: Israel/Hizbollah/Lebanon: Avoiding Renewed Conflict (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/59_israel_hizbollah_lebanon___avoiding_renewed_con flict.pdf)
UN Security Council Resolution 1701 halted the monthlong fighting between Israel and Hizbollah but did little to resolve the underlying conflict and, if poorly handled, could help reignite it. The resolution has held remarkably well, with only limited violations. However, the temptation by either party to overreach could trigger renewed fighting. The greatest threats would be attempts by Israel or UN forces (UNIFIL) to use 1701 as a blunt means of disarming Hizbollah in the south or by Hizbollah to test UNIFIL’s resolve. 1701 should be seen as a transitory instrument that can stabilise the border by containing both sides’ military impulses until bolder action is taken to address both domestic Lebanese matters (reforming and democratising the political and electoral systems; building a strong sovereign state and army; resolving the question of Hizbollah’s armaments) and, especially, regional issues (in particular re-launching the Syrian track and engaging Iran). In short the international community must be modest in implementing 1701 for as long as it is not prepared to be ambitious in its regional diplomatic efforts...

[aktarian]

I just wonder how Iran could be kept out of this war. they have good relations with Syria at least since 1980s and Iran is financing some of Syrian arms purchases (mostly air defences). And once Iran gets into it it's anybody guess what their reaction will be. Making troubles in Iraq? Making troubles in Persian gulf (as in threatening shipping)? Making troubles in gulf states? direct confrontation with Israel?

[Jedburgh]

U.S. accuses Syria, Iran, Hezbollah on Lebanon (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-01T212717Z_01_WBT006156_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-USA.xml&src=110106_1635_TOPSTORY_u.s._warns_syria%2C_iran_ and_hezbollah)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday accused Syria, Iran and Hezbollah militants of plotting to topple the Lebanese government and warned them to keep their "hands off."

The United States has held up Lebanon as an example of emerging democracy in the Middle East.

"We are therefore increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in a statement...