Israel's bombing of locations on the outskirts of Damascus last Thursday marked a turning point in its approach to the escalating conflict between the armed forces of the Bashar Al-Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army and its supporters. Although this is not the first time Israel has launched an aerial strike in Syria (it bombed a site close to Thursday's strike in January), the timing of this latest strike appears linked to external developments that have brought the entire region, and not just Syria, to a dangerous threshold. As an Egyptian military observer put it, “That operation was a trial balloon preparatory to a comprehensive war that could engulf the region on several fronts.” Israeli reports say the attack targeted a truck conveying Iranian-made Fateh 110 missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Damascus denies this, saying the target was a military control centre and that dozens of civilians lost their lives in the explosion. A Syrian diplomatic source told Al-Ahram Weekly that his country wants to retaliate but fears the grave consequences this would entail, both on the domestic and regional levels. “If we are fated for war, then war it will be,” he said. Syria would be justified to respond to the Israeli aggression, but regional and international dimensions need to be taken into account. “Syria is aware that the Israeli message is not directed solely at Syria,” the source said. Jacques Khouri, an Israeli political analyst of Palestinian origin, explained that Israeli forces have stepped up preparations to respond to Syrian retaliations after engaging directly in the Syrian battlefield. In addition to deploying missile batteries and aerial defence systems in the framework of the Iron Dome system, military manoeuvres are scheduled for 26-30 May. Called Turning Point 7, these manoeuvres are being billed as “routine”, however, they will focus on responses to possible missile threats from three fronts: Syria, Iran and Hizbullah, “as well as the possible chemical weapons threat from Syria”. The second change, Khouri said, relates to international preparations in progress in anticipation of the possibility of Iran and Hizbullah entering as parties in a regional conflict. According to the Egyptian military expert General Safwat Al-Zayat, such preparations include military exercises that brought together army contingents from 40 countries in the Gulf. The manoeuvres, which began Tuesday and will last until the end of the month, are focussing on anti-mining operations in the Strait of Hormuz, in which the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had been conducting naval military exercises in recent months. The US-led manoeuvres, the largest of their sort in the Gulf, are simultaneously focussing on protecting ships and sea-lanes in this strategic waterway through which a major portion of the world's petroleum supplies pass. Washington is clearly aware that the terrain in that area is complex and not in its favour. Iran is a vast and mountainous country, which gives it considerable logistic manoeuvrability and other advantages. The rugged area overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, in particular, is filled with thousands of vantage points that are perfect locations for missile platforms. A third significant development has signalled a shift in Washington and Israel's tactical/operational understandings. This is the recent Arab offer to modify the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in Beirut in 2002, so as to give Israel “inducements” to return to the negotiating table in exchange for entering as a party in the resolution of the Syrian conflict. Hassan Asfour, former Palestinian cabinet minister and a member of the Palestinian delegation in the Oslo negotiations, told the Weekly: “There are indications of a clear link between this initiative and the political and security developments in the region, which are propelling towards the creation of a new political axis aimed at eliminating the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah axis.” Qatar is playing midwife for the deal, Asfour says. “Egypt, so far, is the only regional power that is striving to restrain the thrust in that direction. President Mohamed Morsi is trying to resist the Muslim Brotherhood's burning desire to overthrow the Al-Assad regime in Syria in order to clear the way for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to come to power there, because the military establishment in Egypt has driven home to him that the repercussions of this plan for Egypt would be negative, not positive.” “These developments should cause Egypt to worry,” said an Egyptian military source on condition of anonymity. “The collapse of the Syrian army, regardless of how one might agree or differ with the Syrian regime, would send tremors throughout the entire region at a time when Egypt needs to strengthen its domestic front against all threats. The Egyptian army realises that the current moment is critical in the life of the region.” Speaking to the Weekly from Haifa, Antoine Shalhat, head of the Israeli Studies Unit in the Madar Research Centre, cautioned: “There has been a lot of winking and nodding with regard to some Arab-Israeli deal, but Israel does not find it very tempting. Tel Aviv still draws a line between issues of Syria and Iran, and the negotiating process with the Arabs. With regard to the latter, it wants to secure Arab recognition of the ‘Jewishness' of the state of Israel first, and a partnership in security arrangements in the post-Assad phase second. Not all Arabs approve of this. Cairo has expressed reservations on what it regards as Qatar's impetuousness in courting regional conflicts and war.” General Alaa Ezzeddin, director of the Centre for Military Studies, told the Weekly: “The purpose of the visit by Minister of Defence Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi to Turkey this week, at the invitation of the Turkish defence minister, was to explore in detail developments taking place around us. The visit was a follow-up on previous talks related to Turkey's desire to forge an Egyptian-Turkish alliance that would take priority over a Turkish-Israeli alliance. While Egypt has not accorded this considerable attention before, General Al-Sisi now believes it is time to forge stronger military ties with Turkey, especially with Israel and Turkey becoming chummy again.” Ezzeddin noted that in the past Ankara had asked Egypt to intercede to help resolve its dispute in Cyprus. Egypt declined. Qatar stepped forward, but both Turkey and Cyprus rejected its mediation. “That was a sign of anxieties sparked by Qatar's attempts to promote itself in the international diplomatic arena, and even more when Doha attempted to hijack the role of the Arab League in order to offer concessions to Israel. It presented a project that it tried to cast as Arab in origin, whereas in fact it was purely Israeli manufacture at the expense of all Arab parties.” Ezzeddin added that in delivering its latest strike against Syria, Israel wanted to send a message to its allies first. “It wanted to tell them — the US and NATO in particular — to stop wavering over intervening in Syria.” Again, Shalhat voices caution: “We should not get ahead of ourselves. Despite what is happening, we need to realise that Israel is not in a rush to court a comprehensive war. It previously shelved plans for such a war in 2010, amid preparations at the time. It realises that Syria still holds some keys.” With Damascus backed by Russia, the meeting between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, “will have an impact on this matter,” Shalhat added. Whatever scenario unfolds, Arab analysts agree that Egypt must gird itself against the fallout of the post-Assad phase. With Washington already making calculations, it is crucial that Egypt engage in its own contingency planning.
