Israeli strike unrelated to Syria’s chemical attack
Growing Israeli unease
There is a growing unease in Israel with what high-level Israeli officials regard as an ambiguous, if not contradictory, U.S. policy in the region. On the symbolic and declaratory level, President Trump has been unstinting in his expression of support for Israel. He ordered the U.S. embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; the slashing of aid to the Palestinian Authority if the PA continued to use some of the money to pay the families of Palestinians who kill Israelis; and he vowed to renegotiate, or cancel, the Iran nuclear deal.
But Trump, against the advice of his military chiefs and national security team, has also announced his plan to withdraw all American troops from Syria within six months, a move which would allow Iran and Hezbollah even greater freedom to turn Syria into a forward base for operations against Israel.
Iranian military engineers have also been busy building missile production facilities in Syria – although their work is often disrupted by Israeli air attacks — which would allow Iran to threaten Israel with accurate missiles deployed next door, rather than from distant Iran. Iran would also be able to use the new production capacity to equip Hezbollah with bigger and more accurate missiles.
The administration, over strenuous Israeli objections, is also finalizing negotiations with Saudi Arabia to allow American companies to build nuclear power plants in the kingdom. Past U.S. administrations authorized such deals only if they included strict and verifiable measures to prevent the use of such peaceful nuclear infrastructure to build a military nuclear capability. The Saudis have insisted on having no restrictions attached to the nuclear deal, and despite repeated pleas by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House has so far sided with the Saudis on the issue.
Israel is worried that if Saudi Arabia begins to develop nuclear weapons with its no-restrictions-attached, U.S.-supplied reactors, then Egypt and Turkey, which have similar nuclear reactors deals with France and Russia, respectively, would insist on the removal of restrictions on their nuclear development.
Also, Netanyahu’s statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence have made no secret of the fact that they consider it in the national security interests of Israel to keep the nuclear deal with Iran rather than scuttle it. In interviews, and behind closed doors, these leaders say that any deal can be improved – especially the Iran’s deal’s sunset clauses — and that more attention should be paid to Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region through proxies such as the Assad regime, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shi’a militias in Iraq – but that the nuclear deal has considerably retarded Iran’s nuclear weapons effort and has made this effort much more transparent. These two aspects of the deal are a major contribution to Israel’s security.
Julian Borger and Kareem Shaheen write in this morning’s Guardian:
Israel was dismayed by Donald Trump’s announcement last week that he intended to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, regards U.S. involvement as the best guarantee that Iranian influence in Syria can be curbed.
Though remaining a strong ally, senior Israeli officials have come to view the Trump administration as chaotic and unreliable, incapable of articulating a policy in Syria. Military officials believe that torpor in the State Department and Pentagon – where bilateral relationships with Israel have long been strongest – and unchecked volatility in the White House, have forced Israel to act solely in its own interests in Syria. It insists that regime change is not a goal, and nor is weakening the regime, unless that is caught up in the primary goal of weakening Iran.
Ben Frankel is the editor of the Homeland Security News Wire
