Israel Needs War With Syria, Iran for Regional Stability
By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency
Jerusalem----July 31, 2006 .... The current Mid-East crisis offers a unique opportunity to achieve what the invasion of Iraq failed to accomplish, the defeat of fanatical Islamism, and the accompanying creation of a new regional strategic status quo.
The current war between Israel and Hezbullah, which has been raging for the past 15 days, is, in reality an Israel - Iran war, the first war between Israel and a non Arab state. It is also the first war in which Israel is not fighting a national entity. Israel’s previous wars, were either against one or several Arab states, the Palestinians or a combination of both, all national entities.
This time the motivation for the conflict is not a conflict between national entities over control of territory, but a religious outlook and ideology, radical fundamentalist Islamism. This is an ideology that, by its very nature cannot accept the existence of any non–Islamic sovereignty in any territory which used to be under Islamic rule, what is called Dar al Islam.
Since the rise of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries, Islam has only permanently lost one territory which it controlled for any major length of time, Spain. The creation of Israel marked only the second time in history that Islam has lost part of Dar al Islam. Unlike Spain, which was at the extreme edge of Dar al Islam, Israel is at its heart. This is a development which no Islamist entity can accept. In effect history has made a full circle.
The initial Palestinian hostility to Zionism and significant Jewish resettlement of Palestine was not based on nationalism, for the simple reason that apart from Egypt, Arab nationalism did not exist. It was based on religion, the fear that a non Islamic entity was attempting to establish a sovereign state in the heart of Islam.
The prime instigator of the three Arab revolts against Jewish settlement in Palestine was the Mufti, the main religious leader representing the interests and ideas of traditional Islam, not a Palestinian nationalism or Nasserist pan Arabism, neither of which existed at that time. The bottom line of this is that this is the first time since 1936-39 that we are witnessing a war between Israel and an enemy motivated by Islamist ideology.
The last time it was against the Mufti, this time it is against Hezbullah, a proxy of Iran and the Shiite terrorist movement of global Jihad, (its Sunni counterpart, and sometime ally is Al Qaeda). This means that this war is another theater of the current world war raging between the USA, the vanguard of a political system and ideology called Western Democracy, and the forces of an opposing political ideology, that of Islamic Jihad.
It is also the first war between Israel and Iran, in that for the first time the belligerent party that initiated war against Israel is an Iranian proxy, and did so at the specific behest of Iran, in order to assist the Iranian agenda of replacing its clandestine rogue nuclear program as the focus of international diplomacy.
The outcome of this war will therefore determine what goes on far beyond our borders.
Since 1979, when the US, under the inept stewardship of President Carter allowed Khomeini to depose the Shah, momentum has been with the forces of Islamic Jihad. For over two decades things went their way. Islamic regimes took total control of Iran and Afghanistan, and achieved major penetrations into the power structures of other countries. In Pakistan, currently the world’s sole Moslem nuclear power, it succeeded in gaining control of the country’s main intelligence agency, the ISI, and some control over the country’s atomic agency.
Islamic Jihad also had successes in Africa. Islamic regimes rule Sudan and what’s left of the failed country of Somalia, using these countries as bases to export terrorism, spread instability and ignite sedition in neighboring pro western countries such as Kenya and Uganda. The climax was 9/11, when Islamic Jihad succeeded in carrying out a major assault on the US, in which over three thousand Americans lost their lives.
Although the Sunni wing of Jihad has experienced setbacks, primarily the defeat of the Taliban regime, its forces are still coherent and powerful enough to remain a not insignificant presence in several Afghan and Pakistani provinces, drawing on tribal loyalties among the Pashto (Pushtun) tribes that inhabit the border provinces. Iran, the Shiite wing of Jihad, has, continued to have things go its way, both at home and abroad. Abroad it succeeded in thwarting American plans to build a democratic Iraq. Iran, which knows it would face utter defeat in a showdown with either Israel or the US, has, like any good godfather, succeeded in getting others to do its dirty work.
Its junior ally Syria has been given the task of aiding and abetting the insurgents in Iraq. Hezbullah Iran’s Lebanese proxy was armed and funded to the point where it was able to hijack Beirut’s foreign policy, turning that country Iran’s forward outpost against Israel. At the same time it succeeded, until very recently, in hoodwinking the world into benignly ignoring its rogue nuclear program. The trigger for ordering Hezbullah to create a crisis was to divert world attention from this issue, once it had become clear to the ayatollahs that they could no longer fool all the people all the time.
At home the hard liners have gained total control of the state, having politically outmaneuvered the reformists, and brutally suppressing a popular uprising initiated by students and labor unions. This war could mark the turning point. Its proxy, Hezbullah is taking a shellacking, and unless the situation takes and unforeseen turn, will be effectively defanged within a few weeks.
This however, although a desirable outcome, would not constitute a strategic victory, unless it was accompanied by the total disarming of Hezbullah as mandated in UN resolution 1559. There is currently much talk of having an international force come in to assist the Lebanese military in carrying out this mission. However it is doubtful whether such a development would solve the Hezbullah problem.
Given the nature of Lebanese politics, and ample past experience, it would not take too long before the Iranian-Syrian axis would be able to begin manipulating the fragile and fractured Lebanese political landscape, in which mothers, political principles and allies are sold as easily and quickly as vegetables in the souk, to begin rebuilding Hezbullah.
Israel and the US, the only two countries with both the acumen to comprehend the Islamist threat to humanity and the willpower to openly confront the Islamist axis, are actively fighting a war against it at the same time. So far however, these two allies have refrained from creating a coordinated and synchronized alliance.
It’s time to change that. The first step is to recognize the current war for what it is, the latest theatre in an ongoing religious war between two inherently incompatible visions. On the one side, what can be best described as a Judeo-Christian alliance that promotes the core western values of democracy, freedom and individual rights. Lined up against it is an Islamist-fascist axis whose prime values are Jihad, dictatorial theocracy and the utter subservience of the individual to the state and its religion.
The next step is to coordinate tactics and strategy. The most logical move would be an Israel offensive against Syria, which has already created a casus belli by continuing to supply Iranian arms to Hezbullah while the war rages. Israel risks relatively little in such a move.
Militarily Syria is no match for Israel. The IDF would probably have an easier time fighting a regular army with state of the art 1990s equipment, than an irregular guerrilla force like Hezbullah. All Syria could do is launch missiles at Tel Aviv. It is precisely against such long range missiles that the Patriot and Arrow systems are most effective. Under the kind of constant aerial offensive the IAF could carry out, Syria may be able to launch 100 missiles.
From previous experience, they will either be intercepted by the new ABM systems, or fall in open spaces. Bottom line, maybe 10-20 will hit something, if the Syrians get really lucky they may succeed in inflicting 100 casualties. Not pleasant, but considering the potential strategic gains, a far from excessive price.
As soon as Israel started dealing with Syria, Damascus would run to Iran to come to its defense, as it committed to doing under the mutual defense pact the two countries have signed. Iran’s military capabilities are no match for Israel’s. Its air, ground and sea forces are all technologically inferior to Israel’s, and its access to Syria is blocked by the US forces in Iraq, which could eliminate the Iranian military, including the 175,000 Pasderan (Revolutionary Guards), the regime’s SS, loyal not to the country but solely to the Islamic regime.
Bottom line, all Iran could do is to launch missiles at Israel’s cities, and try and carry out terror attacks. If there is one thing history has shown, it is that such methods do not win wars. The ayatollahs of Teheran would then be between a rock and a hard place. If they choose to renege on their pledge to Syria, they risk losing their sole ally, and making a conspicuous show of weakness.
Fascist regimes cannot easily afford to show that kind of weakness. If they choose to come to Syria’s aid by launching missiles at Israel, the US and Israel would have the justification they need to attack Iran, and destroy its military capabilities, economy and nuclear program until either the regime surrenders, or an angry populace fed up with the Islamo- fascist regime that has misruled the country for so long, oppressing and impoverishing the population, rises up in anger.
While Israel would undoubtedly suffer both civilian casualties and economic damage, these would not be that much more than what we are already experiencing. We have already irreversibly lost an entire tourist season. Any Iran and Syria missile offensives would be relatively short, as they are further from Israel, and therefore would have to be carried out by longer range missiles. These, by their very nature are much bigger and more complex weapons than Katyushas. They cannot be hidden underground, and require longer launch preparations, increasing their vulnerability to air operations. In addition it is precisely for such kinds of missiles that the Arrow system was developed.
The end result would be moderate economic damage, and perhaps 100 civilian casualties. It may sound cold blooded, but we can afford such casualties, which would be less than what we sustained in any of our wars (for the record, in 1948 we lost 6,000, 1% of the entire population, and in 1967 and 1973 we lost respectively 1,000 and 3,000 casualties).
The gains, however, would be enormous. First and foremost, the elimination of the Iran nuclear threat, which is the most dangerous existential threat Israel has faced since 1948. It would mark the first major reverse suffered by the ayatollahs, changing the momentum and probably the course of history, which until now has been in their favor.
With the specter of radical Islam gone, the Israel - Palestine conflict would reverse to its natural proportions, a territorial conflict between two nations, solvable, or at least manageable by the implementation of a “two states for the two nations” solution.
At best it would be solved, at worst it would be the geo-political equivalent of a chronic disease, a nuisance, unpleasant, but something one can live with.
