Syria

‘The arms will be pointed at Israel sooner or later’

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:29:30 +0100

When a window of opportunity presented itself last weekend to prevent Hizbollah and jihadist fighters in Syria from acquiring strategic and chemical weapons, Israel acted.

The destruction of a missile depot and chemical weapons sites came after intelligence reports indicated that rapid action was imperative.

Israel saw that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s grip on his stockpile of chemical weapons was beginning to loosen. The calculation was that a strike now would be highly unlikely to lead to retaliation.

At the same time, the recent arrival from Iran of strategic missiles at Damascus airport meant that Hizbollah was potentially just days away from receiving Fateh-110 solid-fuel missiles that cannot easily be detected by Israel’s defences.

One of the major targets was the Jamraya research centre in Damascus, a chemical weapons hub and already the target of an Israeli strike in January.

Over the past two years of the Syrian civil war, Israeli intelligence has believed that chemical weapons were well-guarded and that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Western governments had workable plans to take control of them quickly if the regime fell.

This assessment changed in recent months. The lecture three weeks ago by Brigadier-General Ittai Brun, commander of IDF military intelligence’s research directorate, who claimed that Syria had already used sarin nerve gas against rebels, underlined this new assessment.

The chances of an internationally-backed operation to secure the stockpiles also started to look slim as Western leaders ruled out armed intervention and the more secular FSA began to lose control of the rebellion to al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.

Although all attempts to predict Assad’s demise have so far proved wrong, one thing is certain: Israel will do everything in its power to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.

Israel has emphasised the fact that last weekend’s strikes, and the previous one in January, were not directed against the Syrian regime.

For a start, despite no one being in any doubt as to who was behind the air strikes, Israel has taken no responsibility for them.

This is the same tactic used in 2007 when Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear reactor at Deir a-Zour. Then, Assad was allowed “an honourable out” with Israel not acknowledging that it had carried out the attack or even publicly accusing him of building the reactor. The tactic appears to have worked again.

Indeed the government was so certain there would be no retaliation that Mr Netanyahu stuck to his original schedule and left for a five-day visit to China on Sunday night.

In addition, Israeli sources spread the suggestion that its planes did not actually fly over Syrian territory but rather launched stand-off missiles from planes flying over Lebanon.

IDF exercises that had been scheduled months ago to take place this week near the northern border with Syria were scaled back to prevent reports of a mobilisation of ground forces. The only overt military precaution was the positioning of two Iron Dome missile-defence batteries near Haifa and Safed.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry claimed that Israel’s attacks were “coordinated with terrorists” — as it calls the rebels — but behind the scenes Israel is working against the rebels’ interests.

In high-level discussions with Western governments, including the meeting between David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu in London three weeks ago, senior Israeli representatives have been urging their counterparts not to arm the rebel groups.

“When they talk about supplying the Syrian opposition with arms,” said one high-ranking Israeli official, “we ask them: which Syrian opposition? There are so many of them and any arms reaching Syria will almost certainly be pointed later on against Israeli and Western targets.”

‘Rebel’ fight against Assad is jihad to set up Islamist state

John R Bradley — Thu, 09 May 2013 09:38:21 +0100

As the Syrian civil war spirals into mindless violence, the Western powers’ response to the turmoil is increasingly confused and contradictory.

It all looked so simple at the outset. Following the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, a people-led revolution would topple President Bashar Al-Assad; a Nato-friendly interim government would, as in Libya, be installed; and Iran would thus lose its key conduit for supplying arms to Hizbollah and its only Arab ally.

Meanwhile, Israel or the US — or both — would prepare to bomb the Islamic theocracy’s nuclear facilities.

The plan was based on two premises, both fatally flawed from the outset to all but the policy wonks busy drawing it up.

The popular uprising against Assad still has not happened. In fact, it is a more remote possibility than ever.

Contrary to the constant barrage of “good verses evil” propaganda from the Western media, this is not, and never has been, a people’s uprising against a hated dictator.

It’s a jihad, led by tens of thousands of Islamic extremists, armed and funded by the Wahhabi dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in co-ordination with Western intelligence agencies.

The jihadis’ stated intention is to establish a hardline Islamist state. Coupled with their repeated, and well-documented, human rights abuses, they have alienated Syria’s myriad religious minorities and the moderate Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of the population. More than ever, Syrians are determined to stick with the devil they know.

Which brings us to the second false premise.

The New York Times reported last week what has also been obvious for more than a year to all but the wilfully misinformed: that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of”.

All the front-line fighting and suicide bombings are being carried out, in fact, by the Al-Nasra Front.

Bizarrely, this is a group that Washington has listed as a terrorist outfit and recently formed an alliance with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Worse, spokesmen for the Al-Nasra Front have been openly bragging about how, once the Assad regime falls, they will turn their jihadi fury — and arms — on Israel and the West.

Small wonder that last week Mr Obama ruled out sending ground troops to aid the “rebels”. His statement came on the back of a Reuters/Ipsos poll, which found only one in 10 Americans think the US should now intervene — rising to only 27 per cent if chemical weapons are used by the Syrian government. A Pew poll similarly found that in every Mid East country, an overwhelming majority is against US military intervention.

In the midst of all this, Israel’s airstrike last week targeting Syrian weapons sites allowed Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, to join Mr Assad in presenting the whole debacle as part of a world Zionist conspiracy.

With the claims that the Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against civilians being met by deep scepticism, and even by counter-claims at the UN that the jihadis have been committing the same war crime, Nato has boxed itself into a corner — with only two viable options left.

The first is the assassination of Mr Assad, which, because illegal under international law, would have to be carried out by the jihadis. But Mr Assad, presumably, is not sleeping in the same bed every night; and he rarely appears in public. The second is to simply let the grisly chaos reign.

There will be no escalation with Syria, says Israel

Zoe Winograd — Tue, 07 May 2013 09:58:10 +0100

Israel has downplayed the possibility of escalation following its air strikes on Syrian targets over the weekend.

Yair Golan, head of the IDF northern command, told Israeli reporters: "It is always right to prepare and train, but there are no winds of war.”

On Sunday, Israel carried out an air strike on a military research centre in Jamraya near Damascus. This followed a hit on Friday on a shipment of strategic missiles.

Although Israel has not officially admitted to carrying out the operation, anonymous intelligence sources told journalists that both strikes targeted Fateh-100 missile shipments sent from Iran for Hizbollah in Lebanon.

Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon said: "The state of Israel is protecting its interests and will continue doing so. I am not confirming or denying the reports."

There will be no escalation with Syria, says Israel

Zoe Winograd — Tue, 07 May 2013 09:58:10 +0100

Israel has downplayed the possibility of escalation following its air strikes on Syrian targets over the weekend.

Yair Golan, head of the IDF northern command, told Israeli reporters: "It is always right to prepare and train, but there are no winds of war.”

On Sunday, Israel carried out an air strike on a military research centre in Jamraya near Damascus. This followed a hit on Friday on a shipment of strategic missiles.

Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon said: "The state of Israel is protecting its interests and will continue doing so. I am not confirming or denying the reports."

US considering arming rebels in Syria — despite Israeli warnings

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:00:44 +0100

for the first time, the US is considering arming rebel groups in Syria.

America’s toughening stance on the issue follows the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

In a press briefing on Tuesday, President Barack Obama warned against “rushing to judgment without hard effective evidence”. However, administration officials acknowledged that the information received so far was sufficient for the Pentagon to prepare options including supplying the rebels with arms.

The Obama administration has been blamed for being slow to react to the rapidly developing situation in Syria and even for downplaying evidence of chemical-weapons use, but a spokesperson for the US National Security Council said this week: “Assistance to the Syrian opposition has been on an upward trajectory.”

Israel has warned that arms supplied to the rebel groups could ultimately be used against Israeli and Western targets.

In another development, Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made a speech in which he admitted for the first time that members of his movement were fighting alongside Assad’s forces in Syria.

While there have been widespread reports of large numbers of Hizbollah fighters in many areas of Syria, Nasrallah had insisted that they had only entered the country to protect Lebanese citizens living in border towns. But Nasrallah warned of a more robust involvement when he said that “Syria has real friends in the region, and the world, who will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or Takfiri [extreme jihadist] groups. They will not let this happen.”

Meanwhile, senior Israeli officials have admitted that a lecture by Brigadier-General Itai Brun, commander of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Research Division, in which he announced that Israel believed that Syria had used sarin gas against the rebels, was not cleared first with any civilian official outside the IDF.

“We certainly are not looking to create a dispute here with the US,” said one defence source. “Brun should not have made it look as if Israel is challenging Obama to do something in Syria.”

Israel’s main concern over Syria remains the potential transfer of advanced weapons, including chemical ones, to Hizbollah in Lebanon.

In January, Israel attacked a convoy of advanced anti-aircraft missiles bound for Lebanon, although reports early this week of an Israeli attack on a Syrian chemical weapons base appear to be unfounded.

A large-scale exercise carried out by thousands of reserve soldiers by the IDF in the north of Israel this week fuelled rumours of an operation in Lebanon or Syria, but the exercise had been planned many months in advance.

Israeli officials stressed that, while the IDF would have to act immediately if chemical weapons were being transferred to Hizbollah, the policy is to try to contain the situation in Syria. The chances of succeeding, however, are diminishing by the day.

Israel's warning over Syria chemical weapons

Zoe Winograd — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:06:28 +0100

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister , Zeev Elkin , has asked world leaders to “take control " of Syria's stocks of chemical weapons.

Mr Elkin told Israeli Army Radio on Friday that if the international community failed to act over Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons , it would send a signal to Iran that it could continue to develop its own nuclear weapons with impunity.

He pointed out that US President Barack Obama had defined use of chemical weapons as a "red line" that must not be crossed.

"There is a question here, when a red line is set can we stick by it?" he added. "If the Iranians will see that the red lines laid by the international community are flexible, then they will continue to progress [with their nuclear program me]."

Mr Elkin also raised concerns that Syria's chemical weapons could fall into the hands of the rebels fighting the goverment, or other forces potentially hostile to western interests. "The ease with which Mr Assad used chemical weapons shows that apparently it could easily pass it the hands of the other side."

Mr Elkin’s comments followed a briefing made by the Israeli Military Intelligence on Tuesday warning the Institute for National Security Studies about Syria’s use of sarin gas.

Israeli 'red lines' being crossed in Syria and Iran

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:34:37 +0100

Israeli intelligence officials say the moment is fast approaching when the country’s so-called “red line” triggers for military action in both Syria and Iran will have been crossed.

President Bashar al-Assad is already believed to have crossed the line in Syria by using chemical weapons.

And there is now a widely shared view within Israeli intelligence that Iran will have the option of a nuclear capability by the end of the year.

Analysts made clear at this week’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference at Tel Aviv University that Israel potentially faces two large-scale wars within months.

Amos Yadlin, the former commander of Israeli Military Intelligence, said of Iran: “We are headed toward a collision course by the end of this year.”

Mr Yadlin explained that by the summer it may be almost impossible for Israel to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons: “We have about two months to sleep soundly, until the Iranian elections. After that, I believe the Iranians will have to make a difficult decision.”

Meanwhile, Brigadier-General Itai Brun, commander of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Research Directorate, was unequivocal that “the Syrian regime has made use of chemical weapons”.

This has always been seen as a “red line” issue which would prompt Israeli military action.

According to Brig Gen Brun, photographic evidence indicates that Assad has “used deadly chemical substances in a number of cases against the rebels, most likely sarin gas.”

Israeli intelligence estimates that Syria has around 1,000 tons of chemical weapons. The main concern is that these and other advanced weapons could fall into the hands of Hizbollah and other jihadist movements.

US President Barack Obama warned the Syrians last August that using chemical weapons would be crossing “a red line”. Any verifiable use could force the Americans to abandon their policy of not intervening on the ground in Syria.

The US has been reticent in confirming the reports and Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that he had “talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. I think it is fair for me to say that he was not in a position to confirm that... I don’t know yet whatthe facts are.”

Despite his public scepticism, Mr Kerry has asked Nato to prepare a plan to counter the Syrian chemical weapons network.

Israel has been warning its allies in recent weeks to exercise extreme caution in helping arm the Syrian rebels as many have been infiltrated by elements with ties to Al Qaeda and the weapons could be used against Israel.

Mr Netanyahu emphasised this in his meeting in London last week with David Cameron.

An Israeli official involved in the talks said: “Syria is rapidly becoming a black-hole that can suck us in and keep us busy for years to come”

The warnings came while US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, was ending his 3-day visit to Israel. Secretary Hagel announced an agreement to supply new weapons systems to Israel as part of a move to bolster the armed forces of Middle East nations facing Iran.

Mr Hagel’s visit was in a large part intended to allay any concerns Israel has over his personal commitment to its security. His appointment two months ago took place after an intense Senate battle in which pro-Israeli senators tried to block the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s who had in the past criticised Israel and its lobby in Washington and had also voiced opposition to an American strike on Iran’s nuclear programme.

In an attempt to win Israel’s trust, his office announced a major arms deal with Israel in advance of his visit and his statements throughout the stay in Israel were carefully tailored to reassure Israeli concerns.

“This is a difficult and dangerous time,” he said to the press before his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This is a time when friends and allies must remain close, closer than ever.”

Mr Hagel’s meetings with Israel’s political and military leaders focused mainly on the Iranian threat and the situation in civil war-torn Syria.

Mr Netanyahu said that Israel and the United States were facing together the “arming of terrorist groups by Iran with sophisticated weapons, and equally, Iran’s attempt to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”

In a previous statement, Mr Hagel had said that “Israel is a sovereign nation; every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself” and that the decision whether to attack Iran “has to be made by Israel.” But while the tone in public was conciliatory, in his meeting, Mr Hagel, as had other senior American officials on previous visits to Israel, sought to assure that Israel would not attack Iran without coordinating its moves with the administration.

While a great deal of attention was focused during the Hagel visit on the proposed arms deal - its main components, do not dramatically change the strategic balance between Israel and Iran. The promised supply of aerial tankers will not take place for at least two years and though the tankers will expand Israel’s capability to launch wide-scale long-range airborne operations, this capability already exists due to the tankers Israel already has. In addition, the Americans will supply the V-22 vertical take-off and landing transport aircraft which will improve the Israeli Air Force’s special operations and search and rescue capabilities. But so far, the Obama administration is not supplying Israel with new bunker-busting bombs which would be useful in attacking Iran’s underground nuclear installations.

Israeli officials acknowledged that while they were grateful for the new arms deal, it was not aimed at helping Israel carry out a future strike on Iran, rather reinsuring Israel that American continues to support it and will deal with the Iranian threat itself if all other diplomatic channels and sanctions fail. In addition, the U.S. is also planning major arms deals with its Persian Gulf allies Saudi Arabia (further stops on Hagel’s itinerary) and the deal with Israel was in part designed to minimize any possible opposition to those deals from Israel’s supporters in Washington.

Assad ‘has used chemical weapons’

Zoe Winograd — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:32:24 +0100

According to Israeli military intelligence, Syrian President Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons against civilians.

Head of the research division, Brigade General Itai Brun, announced his team’s findings at today’s conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

According to sources, he said: “To the best of our professional understanding, the regime has used lethal chemical weapons on a number of occasions.”

Brig Gen Brun showed photographs of Syrian victims who had “foam coming out of their mouths” as proof that Mr Assad has used nerve gas sarin to harm civilians.

He added: "In Syria there is a large arsenal of chemical weapons, more than a thousand tons of chemicals, thousands of aerial bombs and quite a lot of warheads and surface-to-surface missiles that can be armed with chemical weapons."

When asked about greater concerns in regards to chemical weapons being used by terrorists, Brig Gen Brun said: “We should be very worried about them falling into the hands of those who do not conduct gain-loss considerations.”

Brig Gen Brun also criticised the global community's response to events in Syria. He said: "The response of the world on this issue reflects the same trend of limited influence and a predisposition not to intervene."

As jihadis flood in, Golan becomes a brand new kind of danger zone

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:00:22 +0100

Conflicting reports on the status of the Syrian army on the Golan Heights has increased concern over instability on what was for nearly four decades Israel’s quietest frontier.

Large Israeli and Syrian forces have eyeballed each other across the border since the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and, despite tension that almost escalated into fighting on a number of occasions, a ceasefire reigned.

According to a number of reports emanating from Syria in recent weeks, the Syrian Army forces in the Golan, which numbered over 20,000, have greatly dwindled due to a combination of desertions and redeployments of some units to areas where the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad is trying to suppress the ongoing rebellion.

Some sources say that the two divisions, one close to the border and another on the foothills of the Golan ridge closer to Damascus, can no longer be regarded as viable fighting forces.

There have been some redeployments, but the two divisions remain largely intact, according to other sources.

And while Assad is not currently interested in an outbreak of fighting on the Golan, there has been a sharp upturn in the number of incidents in which Israeli patrols on the border have come under fire. In one such incident last week, the IDF took out a Syrian Army post with a guided missile after the Israeli side came under fire.

It was unclear whether the shooting from Syria was intentional or the result of ongoing skirmishes between troops loyal to the regime and mainly jihadist rebel groups.

Jihadists last month kidnapped 21 Filipino troops belonging to the United Nations Undof unit and, although they were released within three days, the peacekeepers have now dramatically scaled back their operations along the border.

“The Syrian army is large but for years it has been ill-prepared for war in Israel,” said a Syrian source with close connections to the Free Syrian Army. “The regime talked for all these years about the Israeli threat and the need to recapture the Golan Heights, but this was merely a justification for continuing conscription and for diverting a huge part of the country’s budget to the army. What they were actually doing was maintaining a main tool of internal repression.”

While some units, especially those made up of Allawite officers and soldiers, remain largely intact and loyal to Assad, the wider framework of the Syrian armed forces is in disarray.

The balance of power between the regime and the rebels is increasingly being determined by Assad’s foreign backers. The commander of Israel’s military intelligence, Major General Aviv Kochavi, estimated last month that as many as 50,000 Hizbollah soldiers are currently fighting for Assad, with the active assistance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

While some rebel sources believe the actual number of Shia Lebanese in Syria is not that high, they agree that the foreigners have become a main reason for Assad’s survival.

In addition to the Lebanese and Iranians, there are growing reports of Shia fighters coming to Assad’s aid
from Iraq.

How burning Syria drove Israel and Turkey together

Anshel Pfeffer — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:45:00 +0000

Four weeks ago, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan equated Zionism with fascism and called it a crime against humanity at a conference in Vienna, it seemed that relations between Israel and Turkey had reached their lowest ebb.

But without meaning to, Mr Erdogan had created an opening for a new American initiative to bring the two nations back together.

On a scheduled visit to Ankara earlier this month, State Secretary John Kerry criticised his host’s remark in stern terms, and his aides made it clear that the estrangement of America’s two main allies in the region had gone on long enough.

Behind the scenes, there were already signs of a quiet rapprochement. The Israeli government had agreed to supply electronic warfare systems for US-built Awacs aircraft being purchased by the Turkish Air Force, a project which had been held up for over two years. Talks had resumed over extending the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline — the source of most of Israel’s crucial Azerbaijani oil imports — from Turkey’s shores to Ashdod Port. And all the while, the Syrian Civil War has continued to burn, forcing the Turkish administration to recalibrate its previous policy of closer ties with the Syria-Iran axis and distance from Israel.

In his telephone call to Mr Erdogan, brokered by President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologised for the killing of nine Turkish activists on the Mavi Marmara ferry during the takeover of the Gaza flotilla in 2010, and agreed on a gradual resumption of full diplomatic ties. This was, above all, an affirmation of the fact that in the current regional balance, Israel and Turkey have no choice but to co-operate. Both countries need each other — there are too many strategic, economic and political assets at risk for them to be at constant loggerheads. Turkey’s aspirations to be a regional power still requires American backing and the support of the less radical and more stable governments in the region.

So why did it take so long? Both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Erdogan are cautious and suspicious, bordering on paranoid. Both wanted or needed the support of partners and allies — in Mr Netanyahu’s case he was constrained by the presence of former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman in his cabinet. Mr Lieberman, still powerful but for now forced out of the government, attacked the Israeli apology but he is focused on his court case and will not spark a political showdown over this.

Mr Erdogan has portrayed himself over the past four years as the patron of the Palestinians in Gaza. He is now promising to visit the Strip next month, but it will be merely a symbolic gesture because the deal with Israel does not include an easing of the partial blockade.

Friday’s agreement has been on the table for at least a year, but it took a presidential visit, elections in Israel and Mr Erdogan’s intemperate remarks to finally bring the two protagonists to the phone.

A return to the heady days of the Israeli-Turkish strategic alliance, if it happens, will be slow. There is still a great deal of suspicion between the two governments and Israel has intensified its military ties with Turkey’s rival, Greece. In addition, many of the security chiefs in Ankara are now viewed as being too close to Tehran to be involved in any meaningful co-operation. But the main obstacle has finally been removed and, for the first time since 2008, there is a prospect of the relationship warming up.