Middle East: Washington Caught in a Lebanon-Syria-Israel-Iran Rectangle (Yenidunya)

After the Syrian Foreign Ministry blamed Israel for preparing a military strike by accusing Damascus of supplying Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon with long-range Scud missiles, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday, "There is no truth to the suggestion that Israel is planning a military move against Syria."

Is Syria Arming Lebanon’s Hezbollah?

The following day, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates returned to the allegations: "Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with so many rockets that they are at a point where they have more missiles than most governments in the world."


Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi then said, during a visit to Damascus on Thursday, that "Iran and Syria are united against the internationally-backed enemies of Palestine." Syria's reaction was slightly different: Presidential advisor Buthaina Shaaban said that Israeli allegations that Damascus is supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles are aimed at undermining the country's improving relations with the United States.

Washington offered another quick response. The Obama administration warned Iran and Syria that America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and that they should understand the consequences of threats to the Jewish state. Spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters, ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's address to the American Jewish Committee, "We are concerned about the broader issue of the nature of Syrian support to Hizbullah involving a range of missiles, including that one [the possibility of Hezbollah's having Scuds]."

Despite accusations from Lebanon's Foreign Ministry and Hezbollah that a visit by a US security team to the Lebanese-Syrian border on Wednesday was a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the US Embassy said the trip was planned months ago and took place in coordination with the Lebanese Government.

Speaking to a Kuwait-based news channel, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday that Israel would be taking a great risk if it decided to open war on Lebanon. He also added that "that kind of war would change every parameter in the Middle East."

Iran: Hyping the Threat from Tehran (Walt)

Stephen Walt writes for Foreign Policy:

Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored.

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition ofThe Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:



GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion  (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran--   525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action.  The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and SecDef Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.

Middle East Analysis: Cairo's Nuclear Move, Syria's Reaction

At last week's Obama-led summit on nuclear security, amidst speculation that many Arab and Muslim states would launch an ambush upon Israel's nuclear weapons, the deputy prime minister Dan Meridor summed up the conference: "Thus far, there has been no ambush."

On the same day, President Obama called on Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty as he called on other states, such as India, North Korea, and Pakistan, to join:

Israel Document: Strategic Affairs Minister on “Existential Struggle” and No Concessions

Whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important. And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government, even prior to my administration.

Haaretz subsequently quoted Western envoys reporting that Israel may come under new pressure next month at a UN meeting on atomic weapons, with the US, Britain and France considering support for Egypt's call for a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear arms. In a working paper that reportedly Egypt submitted to fellow treaty members, Cairo said the conference should formally express regret that "no progress has taken place on the implementation of the (1995) resolution" that backed the idea of "a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction" and should call for an international treaty conference by 2011.

Although Israel's UN mission had no official comment on the Egyptian proposal, an Israeli diplomat told Reuters the Jewish state will be ready to discuss issues such as a nuclear-weapon-free zone once there is peace in the Middle East. One Western official said:

They [the Israelis] have an interest here. If the Arabs get something they want on Israel, they'll be more supportive on Iran's nuclear program and further sanctions. Israel would benefit from that.

So for Egypt, the nuclear move is a "win-win" situation. It can increase its stock through giving the image of "driving Israel to the corner" and by leading an international gathering through which new and stronger pressure can be put on Tehran.

However, to establish this leading role in the Arab world, Cairo needs the support of a very significant country:  Syria, which is the "closest" ally of Iran and the greatest conventionally-armed "threat" to Israel. With Saudi Arabia breaking the ice with Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad was due Tuesday night to land in Egypt.

What is Syria seeking from this "alliance"? Damascus would gain from Egyptian support to counter Israel's allegations that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Lebanon's Hezbollah. Secondly, Cairo, in its "big brother" role mediating Palestinian affairs, could increase Syria's influence in the Gaza Strip.

Is Syria Arming Lebanon's Hezbollah?

Last week, there was chatter of the "existence of reports" that Damascus transferred Scud missiles to Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Israeli President Shimon Peres warned, “We will not allow Syria to play this double game. The transfer of weapons reveals Syria's true face.”

Washington was also suspicious. "We have relayed our concerns at the highest levels about weapons that could destabilize the region," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Middle East Inside Line: End of Saudi Peace Initiative?, Hamas-Israel-Egypt Triangle, Israel’s Fear Industry

However, Syria rejected all allegations. Syria's embassy in Washington dismissed the charge as an Israeli attempt "to divert global attention" from settlement construction, its occupation of Arab land, its assumed nuclear arsenal and its "continuous arming" with US weaponry.


A minister from Hezbollah, Hussein Haj Hassan, said that whether or not they have acquired Scud missiles is none of Israel's business.

In response, a US official said, "We think the [Syrian] intent is there. We believe a transfer of some kind occurred but it is unclear if the rockets themselves have changed hands,” a senior U.S. official said.

Another official said doubts were growing that Syria had delivered the Scuds in full and allowed them to transit to Lebanese territory: "We don't believe it happened."

Middle East Inside Line: End of Saudi Peace Initiative?, Hamas-Israel-Egypt Triangle, Israel's Fear Industry

Jordan's King on Middle East: Talking to the Chicago Tribune on Thursday, Jordan's King Abdullah warned of violence if no progress is made in restarting Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. Abdullah said:

If we hit the summer and there's no active [peace] process, there's a very good chance for conflict, and nobody wins when it comes to that.

Referring to the Saudi peace initiative, in which moderate Arab and Muslim states would normalize relations with Israel in return for West Jerusalem's complete withdrawal from occupied territory, Abdullah said:

We managed to get an extension of the Arab peace proposal, which terminates in July. There will be a committee meeting of Arab countries in July, and for us as moderate countries, we're going to be challenged by everybody else.

Nothing has happened; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not interested in peace, so why keep the Arab peace proposal on the table?

As US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Israel must do more to pursue peace with the Palestinians and to strengthen their institutions or risk empowering militant groups such as Hamas, Abdullah suggested the message to Washington that "Arabs have not played their last card":

I think it's up to us to do a lot of the heavy lifting at this stage.

Why should the burden be solely on Obama and Americans to stick their necks out if both parties are not willing to do enough of the groundwork?

Hamas-Israel-Egypt Triangle: As Hamas ordered the temporary closure of hundreds of smuggling tunnels around the town of Rafah, following Israel’s warning that Hamas was planning to seize tourists in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula), Israel Radio reported on Saturday that Egyptian forces had blown up a smuggling tunnel beneath the border with the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the armed wing of Hamas (the Izz-as-Din al-Qassam brigades), Abu Obeidah, said a prisoner swap was not Hamas' only hope for detainees and that the group had a "strong strategy" for securing their release. He continued:

Useless, absurd peace talks failed to free the prisoners, but our fighters will release them by all means, including armed resistance.

The tension between Israel and Gaza is increasing, especially after Israel Defense Forces shot dead a Palestinian man on Friday. The Israeli army said he was attempting to plant a bomb along the border fence.

Israel's Fear Industry Goes Flat Out: Following an Iranian-hosted international disarmament conference which concluded that “a nuclear weapons-free Middle East requires the Zionist regime to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu underlined the “importance of the threat”:

Over the years, we have learned that the olive branch of peace will be achieved only if we remain strong, only if we are prepared to defend ourselves in the same way our fallen soldiers did at this site. They attacked from this site and other hills not out of lust for war, but out of belief in the righteousness of the goal of defending the Jewish people's one and only country.

President Shimon Peres filled in details:

We are a nation that yearns for peace, but knows, and will always know, how to defend itself.

Israel's strength springs from the strength of its faith, and its greatness emanates from the heroism of its sons. Today we grieve for their loss and are blessed by their legacy.

There are still those who wish to annihilate us. At their head is the autocratic Iranian regime that seeks to impose its rule on the Middle East, silence it with lethal weapons and launch an anti-Israel incitement campaign to deflect Arab fears.

On Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak tactically said that “there is no immediate existential threat from Iran” yet defined the challenge subtly as a “< href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164024.html ">the number one potential existential threat to be stopped”:

I prefer to refrain from speculation about the future. Right now, Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. If Iran becomes nuclear, it will spark an arms race in the Middle East. This region is very sensitive because of the oil flow. The region is important to the entire world. The fact that Iran is not an immediate threat, but could evolve into one, means that we can't let ourselves fall asleep.

Barak’s summary last week also deserves consideration:

We have the pilots, the ground crews and the best planes in the world. Our air force is the supporting pillar of our operational capabilities against threats from both near and far.