29 Mar 2024
Wednesday 15 May 2013 - 17:42
Story Code : 28659

Game-changers in Syria will lead to Israel-Iran confrontation

TheIsraeliattacks on Syriaproduced mild, ambiguous reactions from most Western capitals. Theattacks were considered part of the Iran-Israel confrontation in the newly opened strategic playgroundcalled Syria, rather than aggression againsta sovereign country.
It was aggression,regardless of thenature of relationsof these capitals withthe Syrian government, the domestic policies of the latter and the internal situation of increasing and expanding rebellion against the regime.

The somehow embarrassed Arab reaction was also a function of the current relations with Syria and of the ongoing escalatedconfrontation with Iran over Syria. This sets a very dangerous precedent in condoning an attack on a sovereign country, the effect of which will spread beyond the Middle East.

In this newly emerging strategicconfrontation,in order to block the possibility of introducing game-changers in a yet evolving situation, messages are flying inbothdirections.

The Israeli message to Syria wasthe following: It was notan attack to influence the internal balance of power between the regimeand theopposition. Nor was it a war against Syria in the framework of a bilateral state of war that exits between the two countries. Indeed, the situation on the quietest Israeli-Arab borders, in the Golan Heights, has been witness to that sincethe disengagement agreement of 1974.

Fromthe Israeliperspective, these attacks are considered both pre-emptive and preventive. The aim wasto destroy as much as possible of the sophisticated military support base for Hezbollahin Syria, and to indicate that Israel will continue to continue with more of the same actions if more arms come into Syria for that purpose.

The message was also about preventing the entry into Lebanon, the only area of direct military confrontation, conventional weapons that could change or affect the rules of engagement between Hezbollah and Israelin this operational theater.

The Iranian message was very clear, too, in the commander of the naval forces stating the obvious:The eastern Mediterranean is part of our security borders.

Later, another message of active diplomatic engagement was sent via the leaked goals ofthe visitof the Iranian foreign ministerto Jordan. These included discussing the dangers of a potential power vacuum in Syria amid the expanding role of theJordan frontas a new launchingpad for the Syrian opposition, which has strong Western and regional support.

The sameactors are also strongly pushing Jordan to become more involved in terms of its support for the opposition. A visit preceding the foreign minister's visit to Iran's Syrian ally reiterated Iransstrongcommitment to support the Syrian regime. Hezbollahs leader formally and publicly broke with the official Lebanese policy of self-distancing from the Syrian crisis.

He warnedin the clearest possible language that the party isgoing to help the popular resistance in Syria to liberate the Golan Heights after almost four decades in which the latter formed the dormant and mostpeaceful front with Israel. This reflects a thinly veiled threat from the Syrian government, expressedby its key ally Hezbollah to change the rules of the game entirely.

The message is to indirectly openthe quiet frontwith Israel and reshuffle the cards in the Arab-Israeli conflict by turning the Golan Heights into an operational and strategic extension of the confrontation in the southern Lebanese theater.

From the Iranian perspective, losing Syria will amount to more than losing its key ally in theregion. Sucha losswill greatlyweaken Irans strategicposturing in Lebanonvia Hezbollah, both on the borders with Israel and at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Adding to thisloss is also the end of privileged relations with Hamas because of the Syrian conflict. The area of confrontation by proxy that was Lebanon between Syria and Iran and Syria and Israel is extendingeast. Syria, a keyplayerand a stabilitybroker, has been transformed after more than two years of conflict into another battleground, a new and important strategic area on the Middle Eastern chessboard.

It remains to be seen if the escalation of tension could lead to another war on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean between Israel and Hezbollah, a war over the changing regional theater or whether restraint based on successful mutual deterrence will prevail. Or perhaps the brinkmanship situation and the fear ofthe worstforboth might act as inducement for a grand Western-Iranian bargain. What we are witnessing is the evolving of a much more complex, explosive and dangerous situation for the whole region, a situation that is open to all these scenarios.

By Al-Monitor

 

The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
https://theiranproject.com/vdcb90b5.rhbwspe4ur.html
Your Name
Your Email Address