, Israel's attack Sunday on Syria represents a sharp change in policy by Tel Aviv. Failing to pacify its Palestinian population, the Sharon government is running out of options in how to respond to Palestinian violence. No matter how many targeted assassinations Israel carries out, or how many Palestinians it inflicts punishment upon, the level of resistance to the Israeli occupation has not weakened. With Saturday's deadly suicide attack in Haifa, the Sharon government found itself without an original response. Also, due to the international outcry that has developed out of Israel's threats at eliminating Yasser Arafat, the Sharon government also could not take that course. Therefore, Israel retaliated in a new way, by bringing its internal conflict into the affairs of a surrounding Arab state. By attacking Syria, Israel is warning Damascus to cease its protection of Palestinian militants in addition to demonstrating to the Middle East Israel's power and leverage in dealing with other sovereign states.
By attacking Syria, the Sharon government is taking advantage of the cloudy precedent set by the Bush administration's “war on terrorism.” Tel Aviv has long desired to take military action against surrounding states that have been supportive of the Palestinian cause. Lebanon, Syria and Iran all fit this mold. Yet the international pressure that develops from such attacks has restrained Israel in the past. Furthermore, when Israel has executed a full-scale military invasion, as it did in Lebanon in 1982, it quickly found itself the subject of guerrilla style warfare that eventually forced its military to withdrawal.
But now Israel has shown a willingness to increase its power in the Middle East by utilizing the Bush administration's precedent of “fighting terror.” By arguing that Syria is supporting Palestinian militants, Israel is able to threaten, weaken and possibly manipulate Syria while carefully doing so in the bounds of the Bush administration's “war on terrorism.”
Just how in line with the Bush administration's policy the Israelis are can be best displayed through a comment made by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is an opposition candidate in the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. Lieberman told Fox News Sunday, “What the Israelis appear to have done in attacking Syria is not unlike what we did after September 11 in attacking training camps of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.” This statement expresses how easily Israel — and all states seeking to gain power over their rivals — can use the Bush administration's precedent set through the “war on terrorism” to take military action against other states.
Unfortunately for Syria, however, it does not have the power to respond effectively to Israel's recent attack. Furthermore, despite the fact that Israel's latest action would normally be considered a gross violation of international law, it is unclear whether Syria will even be able to succeed in passing a U.N. resolution condemning Israel for the attack; following the air assault, the United States, which frequently vetoes proposed U.N. resolutions that rebuke Israel, denounced Syria more harshly than it did Israel.
Indeed, while fourteen members of the U.N. Security Council were near unanimous in condemning the Israeli airstrike, along with the Palestinian suicide attack in Haifa, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, was the lone individual arguing that the United States “believes Syria is on the wrong side of the war on terrorism” and that Syria needs to “cease harboring terrorist groups.” And on Monday, President Bush said during a White House news conference, “I made it very clear to the prime minister [Sharon] that … Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of the homeland.”
Therefore, both military and political factors are currently working in Israel's favor and allowing the country to pursue heavy-handed foreign policy objectives. On the one hand, Israel has a massive, modern air force — in addition to having a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East — and on the other hand Israel has the support of the United States — a permanent U.N. Security Council member with the power to veto proposed resolutions condemning Israeli policy in addition to having the necessary economic and military resources to provide Israel with the modern weapons and economic assistance it needs to survive as a Middle Eastern power.
Yet despite what looks to be the U.S. giving Israel a free hand in the Middle East, it is not exactly clear whether this is current U.S. policy. While there are many members of the Bush administration that have called for “regime change” in Syria, and are unequivocally supportive of Israel's aims in the Middle East, other members of the administration, such as Colin Powell and officials in the State Department, must be worried over Israel's recent foray into Syria. They are worried because Israel's actions threaten to cause further instability in an already unstable region. President Bush highlighted this in the same White House news conference in which he publicly supported Israel's decision to launch an attack into Syria; Bush cautioned that, “all [Israeli] action should avoid escalation creating higher tensions.”
Overall, the Israeli attack on Syria will serve as a warning to other Middle Eastern states that the Israeli government is willing to violate international law and use its power to pursue its national interests. Iran, in particular, will look at Israel's current meddling as another reason, in an already long list, of why it should become a nuclear-armed state. By becoming a nuclear-armed state, Tehran will have acquired a nuclear deterrent that should work to limit direct Israeli involvement in Iranian affairs.
Recognizing Iran's strategy, Israel's attack on Syria is also meant to serve the following warning to Tehran: Israel has the power, and the political will, to launch such strikes not only against Syria, but also against Iran. For instance, Ranaan Gissin, an Israeli government spokesman, said that while “Iran is not a target,” it is a “critical part” in an “axis of terror” comprising of Iran, Syria and Palestinian militants. Therefore, if Israel felt that Iran was coming too close to developing nuclear weapons, it may launch an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities mimicking the attack it launched against Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981.
Taking into account these issues, Israel's decision to attack Syria will work to speed up the current geopolitical transformations that have taken place in the Middle East since the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Middle Eastern states now have to fear not only the United States, but also the United States' main proxy country in the region, Israel. This will serve to heighten the need for Middle Eastern states to increase their military power and possibly acquire a nuclear deterrent in order to protect against the foreign policies of both Washington and Tel Aviv.
The one factor that could work to slow down military escalation and possible instability in the region would be if the United States were to harshly rebuke Israel for its latest action in Syria. If the Bush administration demonstrates to the Middle East that it does not approve of Israel's violation of Syria's sovereignty, it will cause Middle Eastern states to feel less threatened by the United States and Israel, albeit marginally. Yet if the administration remains acquiescent to Israel's attack, or continues to express approval for it, then it risks causing fear-created instability in the entire region.
Instability in the Middle East should not be an objective of Washington, as the U.S. military is already overtaxed in Iraq and is facing rising insurgency in Afghanistan. Washington should be concentrating on keeping the Middle East stable while it works to rebuild Iraq. Once this latter objective is completed, then Washington can determine whether it would like to continue its policy of “reshaping” the Middle East by applying pressure to the governments it considers problematic to U.S. interests in the region.
Source: The Power and Interest News Report
