|
The Levant could be the starting point of a major
international conflict with global ramifications and which
could quickly spin out of control. Such a conflict could
even involve the use of Israeli or American nuclear weapons
against Iran and Syria. Syria has additionally declared that
it is preparing for an inevitable war with Israel despite the
fact that it believes that the chances of a war in 2008 are
slim.
In the scenario of a war against Iran, the reaction of Syria
will be pivotal. Damascus plays a central role and how it acts
and reacts will have a definitive impact on Israeli military
strategy in regards to Iran. It is in this context that
Israel, the U.S. and the E.U., with the help of Saudi Arabia,
Jordan and Egypt, have been attempting to undermine and
ultimately destroy the alliance between Syria and Iran. This
is part of a geo-strategic stride to foreclose the possibility
of a Mediterranean battle-front that might emerge in the
Levant as a result of an attack on Iran.
The casus belli
for an Israeli attack or a joint Israeli-U.S. attack,
possibly involving NATO, against Syria or against both Syria
and Iran could use the pretext of any form of retaliation by
Hezbollah against Israel for the assassination in Damascus of
one of its leaders, Imad Fayez Mughniyeh.
Hezbollah has joined Iranian officials in saying that the U.S.
military is incapable of starting another war in the Middle
East by launching attacks on Iran and Syria. [1] Israeli
officials have also renewed calls for peace by openly
mentioning that Tel Aviv is willing to return the Golan
Heights back to the Syrians, while there have been strong
political noises against the move in Israel. [2]
Tel Aviv is simultaneously part of a U.S. endeavour that
claims Syria has a secret nuclear program aided by North
Korea. [3] Strategic efforts, with strong links to war
preparations, have also started with the aim of bringing
temporary calm to the Palestinian Territories as part of the
same track of events in the Levant.
Redrawing the
Arab-Israeli Conflict as an Iranian-Israeli Conflict to
justify War
Momentum is being built up against Iran in a list of growing,
and more frequent, accusations against Tehran.
Iran is portrayed as the main threat against Israel. It is
also accused of intervening in occupied Iraq and
Afghanistan. In this sense, the Israeli-U.S. war plans in the
Levant have been tied to Iran, as well as Syria. The
investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize
winner, reported in 2006 that the Israeli war against Lebanon
was part of this Israeli-U.S. military roadmap to ultimately
target Iran.
The accusations against Tehran and Damascus are part of a
calculated effort to justify attacks against Iran and Syria as
the only means to achieve peace in the Levant between Israel
and the Arabs. They are also upheld as justification to ensure
the security and success of occupation forces, for
Anglo-American and NATO forces respectively in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
In this regard, the Gaza Strip, alongside Lebanon, is now
being described by Tel Aviv as an “Iranian base” against
Israel. Israel is pointing the finger more and more towards
Tehran as the source of its problems.
This argument is fabricated. It is in blatant contradiction
with the history of the Palestinian struggle. The inner causes
and history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict are now being brushed
aside and ignored. The Arab-Israeli Conflict is now being
redefined as a mere existential conflict between Israel and a
few irrational and violent Arab organizations controlled by
Tehran.
All players, state or non-state, have rational interests and
motives. All actions are also based on these interests and
motives. Any analysis without the mention of these interests
seeks to sidestep specific issues. By portraying the Arabs as
inherently violent, the truth is being sidestepped without
explaining the full rationale for their attacks against
Israel.
This brushing aside of motives is part of a disinformation
campaign, which is used to camouflage the truth.
The historical facts of the Arab-Israeli Conflict are
being redrawn with a view to presenting Tehran as having
always been in the picture as a spoiler and a source of the
Arab-Israeli Conflict. The motives for this agenda are to
justify the outbreak of a conflict with Iran.
The Arab-Israeli Conflict is being redrawn as an
Iranian-Israeli Conflict, where the Arabs are portrayed
as Iran’s foot soldiers against Tel Aviv.
Turning the Tide of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Iranian Arms
Shipments to the Levant
Although there have been reports of Iranian arm shipments to
the Palestinians and Lebanon since the downfall of the Iranian
monarchy, these reports had new value given to them after
2001.
The first such report to note came on January 3, 2002 when
the Karine-A was intercepted en route in the Red Sea by
Israeli naval commandos. Sceptics questioned how an undeclared
arms shipment could pass through the heavily U.S. and NATO
patrolled waters of the Red Sea. The Israeli capture made
international headlines in 2002 as the Israelis revealed that
the ship was carrying a major weapons cache headed for the
Gaza Strip. A whole set of indicting links were made between
the ship and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),
the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Iran. The Israelis
maintained that the ships cargo came from an Iranian sea port
in the Persian Gulf. The event was used not only to draw
attention to Tehran as a problem in the Levant, but also by
Tel Aviv as a part of the effort underway to portray Yasser
Arafat as not being a genuine partner for peace.
Hezbollah and Syria have also been armed and supplied by Iran
for years. Although neither the Lebanese nor Syria would
attack Israel unless attacked, invaded, or occupied.
Aside from what it already possesses, Israel can no longer
annex Arab territory any more than it has. Nor can Israel
project itself as it once did. This is a major problem for
establishing a new regional order. Iranian arms shipments and
military aid have upset both strategic Anglo-American and
Israeli interests in the Middle East. Arguably this has
necessitated even more active involvement by America and
Britain militarily in the Middle East.
After 2005 the Israeli claims about Iranian arms supplies to
the Palestinians increased even more with the establishment of
a Hamas-led government in the Palestinian Territories. After
2006, the reports concerning Iranian arms shipments to
Hezbollah started carrying a sense of urgency that they never
had before. The upgrades being made to the Syrian military
were also looked upon at as provocative and inappropriate,
even though the Israeli military had further upgraded and
modernized its military arsenal.
In 2007 and 2008, the Israelis reported that Iran has
increased its weapons shipments to the Palestinians. The
Jerusalem Post made one such claim on April 17,
2008: “In recent months, the IDF has noticed an increase in
Iranian-made weaponry in the Gaza Strip, including rockets and
mortars. Terror groups [meaning the Palestinian Resistance] in
Gaza recently were equipped by [Tehran] with two different
types of mortar shells made in Iran — one 120 mm with a range
of 10 kilometers like a Kassam rocket and another with a range
of six kilometers.” [4] The same report also continued to
state that thousands of Iranian mortars were also imported by
the Gaza Strip, which Israel has defined as a “Hostile
Entity.” [5]
The National
Emergency Authority of Israel and its War Preparations
The National Emergency Authority (NEA) of Israel was created
to administer and manage Israel, the “Home Front,” under a
“mass-casualty” scenario resulting from a major war. Israel’s
NEA was established in 2007 in the aftermath of the 2006
Israeli attack on Lebanon and the rocket counter-attacks
on Israel from Lebanon. The creation of the National Emergency
Authority is an integral part of Israeli war preparations.
The new organization planned five-day emergency exercises
(April 6-11, 2008) that were linked to both Israeli military
preparations and the preparation of Israeli civilians. These
emergency exercises were the largest in the history of Israel.
Strategically and as part of the bigger picture, the primary
purpose of the emergency exercises were to prepare Israel for
— using Condoleezza Rice’s often mentioned words — “the birth
pangs of a new Middle East” or a new regional order. This
process, according to Tel Aviv, will be “painful for
Israel.” A regional war against Syria, Iran, and their allies
has been presented to Israeli public opinion as a prerequisite
to bringing about this new regional order and even for the
very survival of Israel.
The Israeli exercises simulated mass evacuations from “hit
zones” and large patient build-ups in crowded Israeli
hospitals. [6] In the event of the conflict exercised for the
Knesset, government offices, power stations, bridges, military
facilities, and state buildings are also expected to be
attacked, damaged, and destroyed. This is why respective
entities in Israel such as the Knesset and Israeli government
offices all participated in the drills.
Drills involving preparations for chemical and biological
weapons were also executed. Israel has also maintained that
Syria with the help of Iran has been upgrading its chemical
weaponry. Reports of an incident involving Syrian and Iranian
military specialists and engineers were also used as
justification by Israel in regards to preparations against
Syrian chemical and biological weapons during the exercises.
[7]
Segments of the emergency exercises took place beforehand.
Starting on March 18, 2008 the Barzilai Hospital held
full-scale emergency exercises that simulated direct rocket
and missile hits on the hospital in the city of Ashkelon. [8]
The city of Ashkelon, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, is an
important Israeli maritime and commercial port and is the
entrance point for energy supplies from Egyptian natural gas
fields in the Mediterranean Sea.
Tel Aviv keeps the Public in the Dark: Omitting Iran from a
War Scenario
In 2007, a media propaganda campaign was launched to
influence international public opinion in the event of an
Israeli war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Israeli sources
have claimed Iran is also preparing its journalists for an
Israeli war against Lebanon and Syria. [9] 2008 has seen an
even higher stage of Israeli war preparations.
In 2007, Aharon Ze’evi-Farkash, the former commander of
Israeli military intelligence, communicated his fear that a
war with Iran, launched by Israel’s American ally, could start
before the “Home Front” in Israel was prepared.
In this context the aims of the Israeli emergency exercises
were to condition Israelis for such a war. Under the war
scenario played out by Israeli officials, the whole of Israel
was part of a simulated battle-front in which missiles and
rockets would be launched from the Palestinian Territories,
Lebanon, and Syria. Under the scenario, some 400 to 500
projectiles were expected to hit Israel on a daily basis.
A key and very notable aspect of the emergency drills was that
Iranian involvement was excluded from the scenario. In the
event of a war with Iran, Tehran has credibly maintained that
it can launch over 11, 000 missiles and rockets in a minute.
[10]
In this regard, a two-sided approach was taken by Israeli
officials in regards to their emergency preparations. War
preparations and scenario layouts had two dimensions, one for
the Israeli public and an accurate one kept for the scrutiny
of Israeli officials that was withheld from the Israeli
public.
The rationale for the two-set approach by officials in Tel
Aviv was to hide the real scope and magnitude of a regional
war on Israel and to reduce fear, panic, and any anti-war
sentiment amongst Israelis that would develop if they realized
the immense harms they would face if their government launched
a regional war involving Syria and Iran.
Additionally, days after the nationwide Israeli emergency
exercises were completed the Israeli military tested an
imitation of an Iranian ballistic missile in isolation, away
from the public. [11] If not central, Iran is clearly a real
and major part of Tel Aviv’s war preparations.
The Emergency War Scenario: An Israeli Omission of War Plans?
The first day of the emergency exercises were characterised by
the formation of an Israeli war cabinet scenario in response
to a major “enemy attack.” [12] This war cabinet would respond
to the “enemy.” Although, it should be noted that all Israeli
responses have been calculated and predetermined and include
the use of a nuclear strike option against Iran and Syria.
[13] Such an act would have apocalyptic ramifications in the
Middle East and worldwide.
The war scenario envisioned and simulated by Israeli planners
during the national emergency exercise in Israel foresaw
massive damage and casualties through missile and rocket
attacks by “Arab enemies.” The scenario excluded the
significantly larger Iranian arsenal. This accounts for the
lower number of missile and rocket hits; 400 to 500 per day.
The Israeli scenario, however, also projects a smaller amount
of strikes by the rockets and missiles of the “Arab enemies”
on the initial day of the war. In other words, strikes in
realistic numbers against Israel were missing on the initial
day of the war scenario and this makes very little sense in
regard to a hypothetical Arab offensive against Israel.
Hezbollah alone has over 13, 000 rockets according to Israel
itself. In addition, Hezbollah’s arsenal is nothing compared
to the capabilities and size of the Syrian one. Under the
Israeli scenario the hypothetical war only lasted for about a
week; the math does not tally up unless the scenario is not
what Israeli officials maintain.
The Israeli simulation is an omission in regards to who plans
on starting the war and who will attack in retaliation. Under
these circumstance, Helmi Musa a columnist for As-Safir,
a major Lebanese newspaper, pointed out that “this Israeli
exercise has signalled, for the first time, to ‘whom starts
and to whom retaliates.’ If the Arabs are to start this
battle, it would see an intensive rocket strike on the first
day with thousands of rockets launched [and not the few
hundred that Israeli strategists predict].” Unknown to the
Israeli public the scenario being simulated was one where the
“Arab enemies” were reacting to an Israeli attack and probably
fighting Israeli incursions too. This would account for the
low number of strikes. If they, the Arab players outlined by
the drills, were to have attacked Israel first it is fair to
assume that the number of strikes on Israel would have been
their largest on the initial day of the scenario.
Syrian National Emergency Exercises: A counter-measure to
Israeli War Drills
Syria has repeatedly maintained since 2007 that it has made a
strategic decision to pursue peace with Israel, but is also
prepared to protect itself if attacked. [14] At the start of
April 2008, the Syrian Deputy-Foreign Minister, Fisal
Al-Mekdad, in an interview with Al-Thawra, a
government-owned newspaper in Syria, acknowledged that
Damascus was ready for a clash with Tel Aviv. He told
Al-Thawra that
Israeli war preparations were forcing Syrian strategists to
draw their own contingency plans for a conflict in advance.
“If Syria is the target of all of this [meaning the Israeli
emergency drills], know that we are following the drill and
are also developing our capabilities and our plans to face the
Israeli [manoeuvres],” the Syrian Deputy-Foreign Minister told
Al-Thawra.
[15]
True enough, in response to Israeli war preparations, the
Syrians also announced two days after the start of the Israeli
exercises that Damascus planned to hold national emergency
exercises too. Al-Thawra reported that the nationwide
exercises in Syria were announced during a cabinet meeting of
Syrian ministers. The military, the police, security forces,
and civil institutes were all said to have roles in what was
termed as a part of “general preparations for natural
disasters and crises” by the Syrian government.
In reality the emergency preparations were part of Syria’s
preparation to repel any Israeli attack that could occur
directly or as a result of an Israeli war with Lebanon that
would by extension include Syria.
What is crucial in understanding the evolving Middle Eastern
war theater is that the movements taking place in both Syria
and Israel are unprecedented. Along with the growing
Israeli-U.S. threats directed against Iran, including
statements of support for military action from the E.U. and
NATO, there is justifiable reason for apprehension and
concern.
2008: The Year of an Israeli Invasion of Syria?
The Syrian border with Israel has been peaceful for decades
and is one of Israel’s most peaceful frontiers. Yet, tensions
have been rising. In 2006 Israel created a new series of
military units specifically for a war with Syria, amongst them
was the Kfir infantry brigade, the largest military unit in
Israel. In addition, the Israeli military predicted in 2007
that a war would breakout between Syria and Israel in 2008 if
no settlement were reached between Tel Aviv and Damascus. [16]
Since the 2006 Israeli failure in Lebanon, the Israeli
military has been routinely performing simulations of an
Israeli invasion of Syria. A great deal of Israeli manpower
has been dedicated to an invasion force that would attack
Syria. Major-General Eyal Ben-Reuven, a reservist general,
declared in 2007 that Israel is “preparing itself for an
all-out war.” [17] Major-General Eyal Ben-Reuven also stated
that Israel must invade Syria to Israeli troops. He first
stated that “the IDF’s mission will be very focused and will
have to be quick, in order to neutralize as quickly as
possible the strategic areas threatening Israel’s soft
underbelly, thus preventing Syria [from] reaching its coveted
goals.” Eyal Ben-Reuven also gave some depiction about the
shape of a war against Syria. Ben-Reuven stated “that in order
to carry out such missions successfully, an extensive ground
operation will be needed,” meaning a land invasion of Syria,
which would most probably swiftly target Damascus and the
Syrian southern governorates.
This strategic aim also explains the well reported Israeli
invasion exercises of model Syrian villages and Israeli
military exercises in the Golan Heights. [18] Israel and the
U.S. have also held strategy meetings to formulate a course of
military actions to be taken in Lebanon and against both Syria
and Iran. According to a report from Qatar by Al-Watan
a senior Syrian officials indicated that the Israeli emergency
exercises were surveyed by an American general and also
involved military operations on the borders of Syria. [19]
Syrian mobilization on the Lebanese border in preparation for
Israeli Attacks
Ehud Barak, in the capacity of an Israeli defence minister, on
April 2, 2008 renewed Israeli threats of war against
Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syria. According to Israeli sources
the Syrians believe that Israel will launch another military
invasion of Lebanon on the pretext of addressing Hezbollah in
a pre-emptive war. In this context since 2006 Tel Aviv has
been calling Hezbollah “the growing threat in Lebanon” or “the
growing threat in the ‘Northern Front.’” In light of this,
Israeli and other Middle Eastern sources have reported that
Syria started reinforcing its military presence on the
Lebanese-Syrian border before the start of April, 2008 and had
placed all its forces on high alert.
The Syrians were also reported to believe that the
Beirut-Damascus Highway would be targeted with greater
ferociousness by Tel Aviv than in the summer of 2006 to
prevent logistical support from reaching Hezbollah and
Lebanon. Israeli sources also maintain that the Syrians also
started mobilizing their reserve forces on the Lebanese-Syrian
boarder. In addition, the Syrians were reported to have
deployed three armoured divisions, nine divisions of
mechanized infantry, and special forces units opposite the
Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. [20] In line with this Israeli
sources additionally insisted that Palestinian fighters were
also amassing in the Bekaa Valley in coordination with Syria
and Hezbollah.
Hours after the original report about the mobilization of the
Syrian military was released by Al-Quds Al-Arabi, a
London-based Arabic newspaper, the top brass of Israel came
out to respond. Major-General Dan Harel indirectly gave a
message to Damascus. The Deputy Chief of Staff for the Israeli
military told reporters gathered for a press briefing that
“anyone who tries to harm Israel must remember that it is the
strongest country in the region, and retaliation will be
powerful and painful.” [21] Syria was being told to look out.
In the days following this statement emanating from the
Israeli military, Syrian officials gave mixed responses about
Syrian war preparations. Damascus denied reports that Syrian
troops were amassing on the Lebanese-Syrian border. Syrian
officials responded that despite the fact that the Israelis
were making war preparations against Syria, Damascus was not
increasing the troop presence on the Lebanese-Syrian border.
During an interview with Al-Arabiya, Mohammed Habash, an
important Syrian parliamentarian, refuted the reports about
the mobilization of Syrian reserves on the border with Lebanon
in preparation for an Israeli attack. The Syrian
parliamentarian, who is the chairman of the Syrian
Parliament’s strategically important Syrian-Iranian Committee,
also pointed the finger at Tel Aviv for escalating tensions in
the Levant: “Syria is ready to defend itself but is not
striving for war — it is the Israeli side that is taking steps
to bring about an escalation.” [22]
In the same timeframe as the reports of Syrian mobilization on
the unfortified Lebanese-Syrian border, there was also an
increase of Israeli military air traffic near the Syrian and
Lebanese borders. The Israeli military also acknowledged that
additional Israeli warplanes were displaced to Israel’s
northern borders and in a state of high alert.
Internationalizing “Hezbollah” as a Menace: Pretext for
NATO intrusions in Lebanon?
On April 8, 2008 Bernard Kouchner, France’s top diplomat and
head of the French Foreign Ministry, revealed that Mohammed
Zuhair Siddiq the individual who was a star witness in the
Hariri Assassination and a source for claims of Syrian
involvement in the event had disappeared while he was under
French protection. Even more significant, Bernard Kouchner
also proclaimed that “Hezbollah” was no longer “a domestic
issue for Lebanon.” The implications of this statement carry
significant indications.
Monsieur Kouchner additionally announced that the weapons that
Hezbollah carried were also a serious international concern.
The ground was being paved for NATO’s active involvement in
Lebanon. Hezbollah was being targeted through the
internationalization of concerns over its arms. What was being
implied in Paris was that international action should be taken
against Hezbollah.
The statements of U.S. and Coalition representatives in Iraq,
such as General Petraeus, about the involvement of Hezbollah
in attacks against U.S. and Coalition troops and claims that
Hezbollah is training Iraqi militias inside Iran also serve
this purpose. [23]
Just a few days after the statements by Bernard Kouchner the
head of the disputed Lebanese government, Fouad Siniora,
asserted in close proximity to Israeli and Syrian war
preparations and the renewed American pressure on Iran that
the time for internal dialogue was over in Lebanon. Foud
Siniora made the announcement while the Parliamentary Speaker
of Lebanon, Nabih Berri, was in Damascus meeting with Syrian
officials as part of a diplomatic tour of Arab capitals to get
Arab League support for new intra-Lebanese political dialogue.
The Third Expanded Ministerial Conference of the Neighbouring
Countries of Iraq, which was held in Kuwait, was also related
to Lebanon. The international conference hosted by the
Kuwaitis on April 22, 2008 involved much more international
players than just the neighbours of Iraq and its scope
included the whole Middle East.
The U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, and several other
Arab states all pushed ahead with an agenda to
internationalize the political deadlock in Lebanon and to
present Hezbollah as an international concern too. In league
with these efforts to internationalize Hezbollah as a global
problem the U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, also released
a report claiming that Hezbollah was an international problem.
All these events were part of the brinkmanship for
internationalizing Hezbollah as a threat and eventually
justifying U.S. and NATO intervention in Lebanon.
The efforts to internationalize Hezbollah as a menace also
entered a new phase in Lebanon too. The Hariri-led March
14 Alliance, which effectively forms the Lebanese
government, declared that it would take legal action in May,
2008 against Hezbollah because of a camera network monitoring
Lebanon’s main airport and a vital parallel security
telecommunications network setup by the group. These internal
efforts against Hezbollah were executed through the
coordination of the
March 14 Alliance with U.S. and Saudi
Arabian diplomats in Beirut.
Lebanon prepares for Israeli Attacks
The Syrian border with Israel is heavily fortified, unlike the
Lebanese-Syrian border. This is why the Israeli military was
desperately pushing to get to the banks of the Litani River
before the Syrians could fully prepare in 2006. A quick
Israeli land assault against Damascus, which is seated close
to the Lebanese-Syrian border, would have to go through
Lebanon and not through the Golan Heights or the Israeli
frontier with Syria. Any invasion of Syria through the
Israeli-Syrian border would be secondary in nature. For this
reason amongst several others, Lebanon is tied to Israeli war
plans against Syria. To invade Lebanon a pretext is needed and
Hezbollah is that pretext.
After the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, the U.S. Navy
deployed a contingent of warships to the Eastern Mediterranean
and the Lebanese coast on February 28, 2008. The White House
claimed that the rationale for the deployment was to
establish stability in Lebanon and to help democracy in
Lebanon.
In a case of bitter irony the naval deployment had a reverse
effect. It contributed to elevating tensions in Beirut and the
entire country. The U.S. move was made without the permission
of Lebanon and the Lebanese government was forced to denounce
it. The majority of Lebanese citizens also felt threatened and
were outraged about the U.S. deployment in their waters.
Because of public opinion in Lebanon the Lebanese government
and the March 14
Alliance denied any ties or advanced knowledge
about the U.S. naval deployment off the coast of Lebanon.
In connection to the U.S. naval build-up, news broke out of an
alleged U.S. conspiracy against the Free Patriotic Movement,
Lebanon’s largest Christian political party and a member of
the Lebanese National Opposition.
Michel Aoun, the former commander of the Lebanese military and
the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, and other Christian
Lebanese leaders opposed to the interests of the U.S., Israel,
and France in Lebanon have been systematically targeted. On
August 2, 2007 the White House even passed an executive order
to freeze the financial assets of any individual or group
deemed to oppose Fouad Siniora and the
March 14 Alliance.
The mass protests by Lebanese citizens against the
March 14 Alliance,
which were peaceful acts of political and democratic
expression, were even called “undemocratic” and
“destabilizing” acts by President George Bush Jr. and the
White House.
What this signifies, aside from U.S. meddling in the domestic
affairs and politics of Lebanon, is that the political
opposition to the Lebanese government was being targeted in
the name of democracy and governance.
Since 2006, the Free Patriotic Movement and several other
Christian political parties have been staunch political
allies of Hezbollah. They are consequently at odds with the
U.S. and France and have refused to bend to foreign pressure.
They firmly oppose Israel and have protested U.S. and
French meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs. Hezbollah, the
Free Patriotic Movement, and these Christian political
parties are also allied to several other political parties
that represent Lebanon’s Druze, ethnic Armenian (which are
Christian), and Sunni Muslim communities.
Several key political figures in the
March 14 Alliance,
such as Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea, have been working
hand in glove with the White House and Tel Aviv against the
political alliance between the Free Patriotic Movement and
Hezbollah. These individuals have had regular meetings
with U.S., Saudi, French, and Israeli officials. This includes
meetings with Ehud Barak where attacks and tactics against
Hezbollah, the Free Patriotic Movement, Syria, and Iran were
discussed.
Along with the Hariri family, these Lebanese figures are being
used to open an internal front against Hezbollah and its
political allies in Lebanon. After the 2006 defeat of Israel,
these Lebanese figures and their parties also slowly started
being armed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and others.
Pentagon weapons shipments that were intended for use
in Anglo-American occupied Iraq were also covertly making
their way into the hands of these Lebanese factions. The U.S.
has also been cooperating with them in preparations being made
on the Lebanese-Syrian border and in efforts to make parallel
chains of command in the Lebanese military that could be used
against Hezbollah and the Lebanese National Opposition.
Moving forward, days before the Israeli emergency exercise,
the Siniora government ordered the Lebanese military to be on
full alert for “Israeli violations.” In Lebanon the
March 14 Alliance
and the Lebanese National Opposition in concurrence
comprehended the possibility of conflict. Both the Lebanese
government and Hezbollah made it clear that they were watching
Israeli forces and that both were prepared for the serious
possibility of another conflict between Lebanon and Israel.
[24] In addition, the U.S. State Department official
responsible for American relations with Lebanon, C. David
Welch, also promised a “hot summer” in Lebanon if the Lebanese
National Opposition did not capitulate.
According to Israeli sources citing Fars News Agency
(FNA) and the Syrian newspaper Al-Hakikah, Hezbollah
warned Israel that if it launched another war against Lebanon
that Hezbollah would carry the war into Israel. In Israel this
information was claimed to mean by xenophobic and
ultra-Zionist elements that Israeli Arabs (Palestinians with
Israeli citizenships who did not leave their homeland) would
act as fifth columnists for Iran and Lebanon. An unnamed
senior Hezbollah official was quoted as saying, “In the next
war, we will run the battle for the first time since 1948
inside Palestine. They will be more surprised than ever
before, as they will see our fighters fighting them not only
in Lebanon, as they did till now, but also inside their homes
and settlements.” [25] The same Hezbollah official is quoted
as also saying “The next war, if it breaks out, will be an
offensive war on our part. This doesn’t mean we will initiate
the war, but that every war they launch in the future will
become what the organized armies in the world refer to as a
counteroffensive on our part. They will see our fighters
behind their lines, not just in front of them.” [26]
The Independent,
one of Britain’s most respected newspapers, has reported that
Hezbollah has also been sending trainees to Iran: “Yet it is
an open secret south of the Litani [River] that thousands of
young men have been leaving their villages for military
training in Iran. Up to 300 men are taken to Beirut en route
to Tehran each month and the operation has been running since
November of 2006; in all, as many as 4,500 [Hezbollah] members
have been sent for three-month sessions of live-fire
ammunition and rocket exercises to create a nucleus of
Iranian-trained guerrillas for the ‘next’ [Israeli attack
against Lebanon].” [27]
Another British source,
The Observer, has also reported about war
preparations in Lebanon: “But an
Observer
investigation [by Mitchell Prothero] has discovered
that [Hezbollah] is quietly but steadily replacing its dead
and redoubling its recruitment efforts in anticipation of a
new, and even more brutal, conflict. [Hezbollah] has embarked
on a major expansion of its fighting capability and is now
sending hundreds, if not thousands, of young men into
intensive training camps in Lebanon, Syria and Iran to ready
itself for war with Israel. ‘It’s not a matter of if,’ says
one [member of Hezbollah]. ‘It’s a matter of when Sayed
[Hassan] Nasrallah [{Hezbollah’s political} chief] commands
us.’” [28]
It light of the preparations in Lebanon for an Israeli attack,
the number of Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace also
increased starting in March, 2008. The Israelis openly
violated Lebanese airspace and conducted military flights over
Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon in April and May, 2008. In
April, 2008 the Lebanese military even acknowledged
that Israeli warplanes had been performing military
reconnaissance missions over Lebanon and that these missions
were linked to Israeli war preparations. [29]
The Independent
has also gone on to pronounce, with the context of aerial war
in mind, that in the next war against Lebanon that Israeli
supremacy in the air would be challenged by the Lebanese
because of Iranian military technology and hardware: “For
months, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the [Hezbollah] leader, has
been warning Israel that his organisation has a ‘surprise’ new
weapon in its armoury and there are few in Lebanon who do not
suspect that this is a new Iranian-developed ground-to-air
missile — rockets which may at last challenge Israel’s air
supremacy over Lebanon.” [30]
The Brzezinski and Carter visits to Damascus
Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. have not given up their efforts
to prevent the emergence of a Mediterranean battle-front in a
war against Iran. With the rise of regional tensions in the
Middle East it was announced that former U.S. President James
E. Carter Jr. had flown to Egypt and the Levant for a
fact-finding mission with a view to promoting peace. To some,
the announcement sounded like a breath of fresh air. The
former U.S. president, met with leaders and officials in
Egypt, Israel, the West Bank, and Syria.
It should be noted that Jimmy Carter met with President Basher
Al-Assad in Syria just months after Zbigniew Brzezinski headed
a RAND Corporation delegation to Damascus on February 12,
2008. [31] The sequence of these meetings is not coincidental.
Brzezinski was a U.S. national security advisor under the
Carter Administration. Both men could also have been involved
in talks with Iranian diplomats and officials in Damascus.
What really highlighted Carter’s trip to the Middle East were
his meetings in Damascus with the leader-in-exile of Hamas,
Khaled Meshaal, on April 18 and 19, 2008. [32] The controversy
behind the meetings with Hamas was that they had been
portrayed as diplomatic taboo in an effort to isolate the
Palestinian organization in the Middle East and global arena.
Before the meetings in Damascus, Carter had prior meetings
with representatives of Hamas in Cairo. [33] From the start of
the talks between the political leadership of Hamas and Jimmy
Carter, the media reported that Israel and the U.S. were
fiercely opposed to these meetings. [34] In reality, the Bush
Jr. Administration and Israel were supportive of these
meetings.
Engaging Hamas: An
Attempt to Deactivate the Opening of a Palestinian Front?
Despite the claims of Condoleezza Rice, the Carter Center even
released a statement from its headquarters in Atlanta saying
that the U.S. State Department made no objections about
Carter’s meetings with Hamas officials and the Syrians. In the
past, the White House secretly supported Nancy Pelosi’s 2007
visit to Damascus with a bipartisan U.S. delegation. It was in
the same timeframe as Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria that a
Bush Jr. Administration official arrived in Damascus to talk
about “Iraqi refugees” and that Condoleezza Rice went on to
hold talks with the Syrian Foreign Minister in Egypt. In this
case Jimmy Carter was part of concerted efforts by the U.S.
and Israeli governments to disengage the fighting between the
Palestinians and Israel in the Gaza Strip through a truce.
While public opinion was led to believe that Israel was
opposed to the Hamas-Carter talks, the former U.S. president
was in fact negotiating directly with Hamas on behalf of
Israeli officials.
While the Israeli government reaffirmed that Hamas could not
be a “partner for peace”, Jimmy Carter was passing on messages
from the Israeli government to both Hamas and Syria. According
to Carter’s own words, he was acting in the Middle East as a
communicator and intermediary between the parties.
A closer examination of what transpired between Hamas and
Carter reveals the true nature and purpose of the Carter
mission.
The deputy prime minister of Israel is Eli Yishai, who is also
responsible for the Israeli Ministry of Industry. Eli Yishai’s
office acknowledged on April 18, 2008 that the second highest
ranking official in the Israeli government had asked Jimmy
Carter to arrange meetings between Hamas and Eli Yishai. The
pretext and justification was to discuss a possible prisoner
exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli corporal captured by
Hamas and two other Palestinian groups. [35] Officially, it
was claimed that Eli Yishai, the leader of the Shas Party, had
defied government policy with his request.
In actuality, Israel has been negotiating a ceasefire with
Hamas. Ehud Olmert’s comments to
Yedioth Ahronoth,
an Israeli newspaper, spell out the real reasons why Carter
was reported not to have met with Israeli leaders prior to his
visit to Syria: “Were Jimmy Carter to have met with me, and
two days later with Khaled Meshaal, it could have created a
facade of negotiations between us and Hamas.” [36] Ehud
Olmert’s public rebuff of Jimmy Carter was also announced as
not being personal by Yohanan Plesner, a member of Ehud
Olmert’s Kadima Party, during meetings with Carter in
Jerusalem. [37] Undoubtedly, the meeting between Carter and
Plesner would not have happened without Olmert’s okay. Ehud
Olmert’s messages were being passed to Carter through his
Kadima subordinate.
Adding context to the mission by Carter is crucial. His visit
came at a junction in time when war was being openly talked
about not just against Lebanon and Syria, but against Iran.
On April 20, 2008, the Syrian President announced that
messages had been exchanged between Israel and Syria through
an unnamed third party, to explore the possibility of
resuming Israeli-Syrian peace talks. [38] This was merely days
after Carter’s visit to Damascus.
Two days later, on April 23, 2008, it was reported worldwide
that the Israeli government had notified Damascus on April 22,
2008 through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the
third party, that Israel was ready to return the Golan Heights
to Syria. [39] The Turkish government had served as a go
between since 2006, exchanging messages between Israel and
Syria. The Israelis also insisted, again, that Syria knew what
the conditions for peace were: the
dissociation of Damascus from Iran and the Resistance Bloc.
[40]
The American role in these overtures to Hamas and Syria is
also a major factor. Syria was even reported to have requested
U.S. involvement in peace talks with Israeli officials. In
fact, a few days after the end of the Carter mission and the
Israeli messages sent via Turkey, the Syrian Foreign
Minister travelled to Tehran to discuss the Israeli and U.S.
proposals with Iranian officials. It is clear that Syria will
not end its alliance with Iran. While in Tehran, the Syrian
Foreign Minister stated that Israel should withdraw to the
international boundary of 1967 and not just withdraw from the
Golan Heights alone. [41]
The
Palestinian-Syrian-Iranian United Front
Ten different Palestinian organizations opposing Israel are
hosted by Syria, and thus called the “Palestinian Damascus
Ten,” whereas many other capitals in the Arab World have
rejected hosting them. While some of these Palestinian
organizations are Syrian surrogates, they are considered as
“rejectionists,” because they adamantly oppose the one-sided
Palestinian-Israeli agreements dictated by the White House and
accepted by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
Amongst the rejectionists are Hamas, the Democratic Front for
the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command (PFLP-GC), and the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
(PPSF or PSF).
Hamas along with the Damascus-based Palestinian groups are
aligned to both Tehran and Damascus. It is on this basis
that ties linking the Palestinians, Syria, and Iran have
developed.
The Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, while visiting
Tehran in 2006 referred to Iran as the “strategic depth” of
the Palestinian people in their struggle against Israel.
[42] Syrian, Libyan, Lebanese, Algerian, and Iraqi officals,
amongst many others in the Arab World, have also called Iran
the “strategic depth” of the Arabs against Israel. In
relationship to these ties, Khaleed Meshaal announced in 2005
during high-level meetings in Tehran that Hamas and the
Palestinians would support their important ally Iran in a
regional war. [43] This factor is of immense importance in the
case of an Israeli-U.S. war directed against Syria and Iran.
Alongside Hamas, most of these Palestinian organizations and
their supporters, including those in Egypt and Jordon, have
also made it clear, through announcements in 2005, 2006, and
2007 that they would lead the Palestinians in battle as part
of a united front in the case of an all encompassing conflict
in the Middle East. This is another dimension of the
Mediterranean battle-front that would emerge in a war against
Iran.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon could be sucked into any
regional war involving the Palestinians as allies of Syria and
Iran. There are more Palestinians and Iraqis in Jordon than
there are Jordanian Arabs. Jordon could also face simultaneous
civil war and regime change in Amman, where a new republican
government could take over and ally itself with Syria and
Iran. This would have major ramifications against the U.S. and
Israel. Other Arab regimes are also vulnerable too.
In this regard, the leaders in Cairo have been pushing for a
truce between Israel and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Omar Sueiman, an Egyptian cabinet minister working in the
capacity of the chief of Egyptian intelligence, was also sent
to Tel Aviv several times by his government, to assist Israel
in neutralizing a potential Palestinian front from emerging in
the context of a regional war scenario.
Furthermore, if a regional war were to break out, Palestinian
fighters would confront Israeli forces, with the help of Syria
and Iran. At this particular juncture, the dialogue with Hamas
is part of an effort to silence or disengage the “Palestinian
Front” by establishing a truce between Hamas and Israel, prior
to the commencement of a war with Iran.
The March to War in the Levant and its relationship to a
Broader War involving Iran
Despite the Israeli-Syrian peace talks, the two sides are
involved in war preparations.
Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli diplomat and politician
describes this evolving situation as follows: “The message I
received in Washington about two weeks ago [in the start of
April, 2008] was clear and included a trace of displeasure:
Why do you have people [in Israel], and ministers in
particular, who continue to amuse themselves with the baseless
notion that conditions for peace between Israel and Syria have
been created?” [44]
In the eyes of both those controlling the U.S. and Israeli
governments, the terms of a so-called peace must be dictated
by the victors, those with the upper hand. According to the
Fox News Network the Bush Jr. Administration also signed a
secretive, unprecedented, and broad directive in March,
2008 to target Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and those in
Lebanon that are opposed to America’s agenda for establishing
a new regional order.
The Levant is on a serious war footing.
All major players in the Levant have been continuously talking
about war.
Tel Aviv’s leaders have insisted that they are not seeking war
with Syria. Tel Aviv has maintained that it wants peace with
Syria, even on the eve of the largest emergency exercise in
the history of Israel, which included open war preparations by
the Israeli military on the Syrian border. These exercises
included simulations of an Israeli invasion of Syria.
The Israeli government insisted that Israel was not making war
preparations against Syria despite the fact that the scenarios
played out in Israel for over a year,
identified Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories as
the enemies. [45]
Moreover, Israeli officials have continuously threatened to
retaliate with a heavy hand against any attempts against
Israel.
Al-Watan has also revealed that defensive preparations
are being made by Syria against Israeli attacks expected to be
launched in the summer months of 2008 in close coordination
with U.S. military planners, just as they were against Lebanon
in 2006. [46] May and June, 2008, are expected to be possible
windows of time for an Israeli offensive against Syria.
On the other hand, Al-Watan reported (April 3, 2008)
that the Israeli government would in 2009 distribute gas masks
to its citizens, in anticipation of attacks using chemical and
biological weapons. This report could be an indication that
there will be no war in 2008.
Several reports from the Middle East maintain that all the
players involved in the Levant are preparing for a scenario
where Israel is awaiting retaliation by Hezbollah for the
Mughniyeh Assassination. This scenario of expected retaliation
could be used by Israel to draw Syria into the conflict. The
situation would then escalate as Iran intervenes militarily
against Israel to protect its allies. In turn, the United
States and NATO would intervene to protect Israel.
Other analysts suggest, on the other hand, that Israeli-U.S.
strikes against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran would be implemented
almost simultaneously. Still others believe that Iran will be
attacked first and then a front in the Levant will be opened.
Other plausible reports suggest that secret negotiations have
been ongoing between all parties and that war will be avoided
either because of a weakened U.S. military, which has forced
America to negotiate with Iran or because of emerging common
interests between Iran and America.
Another outlook is that Tel Aviv has no intention of striking
Iran, which has advanced military capabilities of retaliation
against Israel. But Israel still intends to attack Lebanon.
Whatever the scenario, the United States and Israel are making
joint preparations and intend to confront the same players
including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, the top U.S.
civilian official in Iraq, have told the U.S. Senate that
Syria and Iran are using a “Lebanization strategy” in Iraq. A
“Lebanization strategy” according to Ambassador Crocker is a
political strategy where local forces are committed to
alignments with Syria and Iran. This is being painted as the
reason behind Anglo-American failure in Iraq. As mentioned
earlier Hezbollah and Iran, along with Syria, are also being
blamed for U.S. and Coalition deaths in Iraq.
Since 2003, Israel and the U.S. have been looking for ways to
force Syria into surrendering or for waging an isolated war
against Damascus without involving Tehran.
The window of time for an isolated war against Syria, apart
from one with Iran, appears to have vanished and a war against
Syria seems to be planned alongside the conflict with Iran.
Moreover, Russia has also initiated a naval presence in the
Eastern Mediterranean and off the Syrian coast to protect
Syria and to challenge the U.S. and its NATO allies. [47] Both
Russia and Iran have also been arming Syria and cooperating
together.
The march to war in the Levant is linked to the stride towards
conflict with Iran.
Syria has long been a target of Israel and America. At this
point it is fitting to refer back to an incisive British
report from 2006 by The Sunday Times: “‘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.” [48]
This account from The Sunday Times indicates that the
war against Lebanon in 2006 was part of a broader war agenda
in the Middle East. Moreover, an Israeli command post against
Iran was established prior to the 2006 war. The article also
illustrates the intricate link between a war against Iran and
war plans against Lebanon and Syria. Further details are also
given in regards to Israeli preparations for Syria in 2006:
“‘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 [and responsible for an invasion of Syria]. ‘It
is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando
brigades, which are considered better [trained and equipped]
than Hezbollah’s [militia],’ a military source said.” [49]
Eric S. Margolis, one of Canada’s most respected columnists
has also linked war preparations against Lebanon and Syria as
part of a broader war scenario directed against Iran: “Israel,
backed by the [White House], certainly has been using the
carrot of a return of [the] Golan to entice Syria away from
Iran. But there is also a big stick: Ever-stronger threats of
a U.S.-Israeli attack on Syria. Israel’s September
[2007] attack on Syria was a clear warning. Cheney and fellow
militarists are pushing hard for attacks on Syria, Lebanon and
Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office. Neocons
have flocked to [Senator] John McCain’s banner — in spite of
Hillary Clinton’s vow to ‘obliterate’ Iran if it attacked
Israel with nuclear weapons. They believe U.S. attacks on Arab
states and/or Iran would prove decisive in winning the
presidency for McCain this November. A U.S. attack on Syria
could well be the first step of a broader air war against
Lebanon and Iran.” [50]
In a regional war scenario, Israel will deal mainly with
Lebanon and Syria while the U.S. and Britain will deal mainly
with Iran. [51] The help of Turkey and NATO will definitely be
needed by Israel, America, and Britain in such a war. Ankara
and NATO will also be involved in both fronts. [52]
NATO has already built a presence on the western borders of
Syria and Lebanon and inside Afghanistan on the eastern
borders of Iran with forward positions. Israeli officials such
as Shaul Mofaz have also stated, in no uncertain terms, that
if they launch an attack on Iran, the U.S. and NATO will come
to the aid of Tel Aviv.
Only time will tell what happens. In the words of Robert Fisk,
“Whether this frightening conflict takes place will depend on
President Bush’s behaviour. If America — or its proxy, Israel
— bombs Iran, the response is likely to be swift…” [53]
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
is a writer and geopolitical analyst based in Ottawa who
specializes on the Middle East. He is currently Research
Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Also see:
The March to
War: Israel Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria
The March to
War: Syria Preparing for US-Israeli Attacks
NATO and
Israel: Instruments of America’ s Wars in the Middle East
NOTES
[1] US Incapable of Attacking Iran, Syria,
Fars News Agency
(FNA),
April 24,
2008.
[2] Israel pullout risks Iran foothold on Golan: minister,
Agence France-Presse
(AFP), April 29, 2008; Mu Xuequan, Opposition leader: Golan
Heights must remain in Israel’s hands,
Xinhua News Agency,
April 28,
2008; Amnon Meranda, Peace with Syria suicidal,
MKs say, Yedioth
Ahronoth,
April 23,
2008; Herb Keinon, ‘Syria must cut ties with
terror,’ The
Jerusalem Post,
April 23,
2008; Zalman Shoval, Don’t rush to Damascus,
Yedioth Ahronoth,
April 22,
2008.
[3] Damien McElroy, CIA: North Korea ‘helped Syria build
nuclear reactor,’
The Telegraph (U.K.),
April 24,
2008; N Korea ‘linked to Syria reactor,’
British Broadcasting
Corporation News (BBC News),
April 24,
2008.
[4] Yakkov Katz and Herb Keion, ‘Iran smuggling arms into
Gaza by sea,’ The
Jerusalem Post,
April 18,
2008.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Yaakov Katz and Judy Siegel, Israel to hold massive
emergency drill, The Jerusalem Post,
March 17,
2008.
[7] Syria blast ‘linked to chemical weapons’: report,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), September 19, 2007.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Iran training media for Israel-Syria war, The
Media Line News Agency,
April 17,
2008.
[10] Iran to fire ‘11,000 rockets in minute’ if attacked,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), October 20, 2007.
[11] Israeli military tests imitation Iranian missile -
radio, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA
Novosti)
April 15,
2008.
[12] Katz and Siegel, Israel to hold, Op. cit.
[13] Norman Podhoretz, Stopping Iran: Why the Case for
Military Action Still Stands, Commentary Magazine, vol.
125, no. 2, (February, 2008): pp.11-19.
[14] Roee Nahmias, Syrian foreign minister: We’re ready to
defend ourselves, Yedioth Ahronoth,
April 4, 2008.
[15] Syrian official: We’re prepared for war, The
Jerusalem Post,
April 8, 2008.
[16] Yakkov Katz, War with Syria, Op. cit.
[17] Haman Greenberg, ‘IDF preparing for all-out war,’
Yedioth Ahronoth,
July 16, 2007.
[18] Sheera Claire Frenkel Yaakov Katz, IDF holds
simulation of war with Syria, The Jerusalem Post,
June 6, 2007.
[19] Roee Nahmias, Report: Syria bracing for Israeli attack,
Yedioth Ahronoth,
April 14,
2008.
[20] Roee Nahmias, Report: Syrian reservists called up for
fear of Israeli strike, Yedioth Ahronoth,
April 2, 2008.
[21] Yoav Stern, IDF Deputy Chief vows ‘painful’ response
to any attack on Israel, Haaretz,
April 2, 2008.
[22] Syrian MP denies escalation with Israel, The
Jerusalem Post,
April 3, 2008.
[23] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Israel
Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria,
Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG),
April 19,
2008, n.48; Peter Cooney and Dean Yates,
Hezbollah training Iraqis in Iran: U.S. military, ed.
Richard Meares, Reuters,
May 5, 2008.
[24] Israel seeks to reassure neighbours over missile drill,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), April 6, 2008.
[25] Roee Nahmias, Hizbullah says kidnapped Mugniyah’s body,
Yedioth Ahronoth,
April 14,
2008.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Robert Fisk, Hizbollah turns to Iran for new weapons
to wage war on Israel, The Independent (U.K.),
April 8, 2008.
[28] Mitchell Prothero, Hizbollah builds up covert army for
a new assault against Israel,
The Observer
(U.K.),
April 27,
2008.
[29] Lebanon: 12 IAF jets fly over Beirut,
Associated Press
(AP),
April 28,
2008.
[30] Robert Fisk, Hizbullah turns to Iran, Op. cit.
[31] Eli Lake, Obama Adviser Leads Delegation to Damascus,
The New York Sun,
February 12,
2008; The RAND Corp. (Research and Development
Corporation) is an American non-profit non-government
organization and think-tank on international relations and
foreign policy that was originally established to give advice
to the Pentagon in the global arena.
[32] Carter in Syria to see Hamas political leader,
Associated Press
(AP), April 18, 2008; Carter meets Hamas chief despite US
objections, Agence
France-Presse (AFP), April 18, 2008; Bassem Mroue,
Carter meets Hamas chief over Israeli, US objections,
Associated Press
(AP), April 18, 2008; Carter holds second meeting with
Hamas chief, Agence
France-Presse (AFP), April 19, 2008; Jim Muir,
Carter wraps up visit to Damascus,
British Broadcasting
Corporation News (BBC News),
April 19,
2008.
[33] Hamas says Carter will meet 2 of its leaders,
Reuters,
April 16,
2008.
[34] Ibid.;
Gil Hoffman, Gov’t against Carter, Mashaal meeting,
The Jerusalem Post,
April 10,
2008; Ian Black and Rory McCarthy, Fury as
Carter meets leader of Hamas,
The Guardian
(U.K.),
April 19,
2008.
[35] Akiva Eldar, Yishai to Carter: Tell Meshal that I want
to discuss prisoner swap,
Haaretz,
April 18,
2008; Griff Witt, Carter Meets With Hamas Chief
In Exile, Defying Israel and U.S.,
The Washington Post,
April 19, 2008, p.A09.
[36] Ibid.;
Daniel Williams, Israeli minister tells Carter he would
meet Hamas, ed. Mattew Jones,
Reuters,
April 18,
2008.
[37] Tovah Lazaroff, Kadima MK: Olmert’s rebuff of Carter
wasn’t personal,
The Jerusalem Post,
April 16,
2008.
[38] Albert Aji, Report: Syria, Israel trade messages on
possible peace talks,
Associated Press
(AP), April 20, 2008.
[39] Israel ‘ready to return Golan,’
British Broadcasting
Corporation News (BBC News),
April 23,
2008; Israel says ready to swap Golan Heights
for peace with Syria,
Russian News and
Information Agency (RIA Novosti),
April 23,
2008.
[40] Israel to Syria: Stab Iran to Get Golan,
Fars News Agency
(FNA),
April 27,
2008; Whbee: Syria must detach itself from the
axis of evil, The
Jerusalem Post,
April 24,
2008; Barak Ravid, Official: PM wrote to Assad
to test desire for peace,
Haaretz,
March 30,
2008; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War:
Israel, Op. cit.
[41] Shahar Ilan and Yoav Stern, Officials: U.S. vital to
relaunching Syria talks,
Haaretz,
April 24,
2008.
[42] Avi Issacharoff, Haniyeh in Tehran: Iran gives us
‘strategic depth,’
Haartz,
December 10,
2006; Strategic Depth is a strategic and military
term used to identify an area where the hub of strength for a
combatant lies, away from the battle-front.
[43] Hamas springs to Iran’s defence,
Agence France-Presse
(AFP), December 17, 2005.
[44] Shoval, Don’t rush to Damascus,
Op. cit.
[45] Israel stages 5-day civil defence exercise,
Reuters,
|
