THE SPINE FEBRUARY 22, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Continuing my last Spine…
The A.P. reports in Sunday’s New York Times that the Obama administration has lifted the travel advisory that warns American not to visit Syria. It’s not too much of a sanction on Damascus, and there is no punishment for American tourists and businessmen who want to see the glories of Damascus, such as they are. There’s almost nothing notable to experience in Hama, the fifth largest city in the country, except the ghosts of anywhere from 7,000 to 40,000 Sunnis who, in 1982, were massacred by the then-president Hafiz Assad’s brother, Rifaat (who happens also to be, not by coincidence, current President Bashar Assad’s uncle). The president and Hillary Clinton must be pleased to have cordial relations--if that’s what they’ll be, which I very much doubt--with this gruesome and unrepentant family.
One would have thought that, at least as a bona fide for Washington’s normalization, the Assad clan would have been expected to cease intervening across the Iraqi border. Why would pro-Iran Syria want to make trouble for a Shi’a Iraq? Well, that is not the calculation. What is is that the Syrian regime, itself a remnant of the brutal Ba’athist worldview, has seen another Ba’athist regime overthrown in Iraq. Yes, the Assads hated the Husseins, both Ba’ath despotisms. Both were hated minorities in their own countries. It is the model of illegitimate rule that Bashar craves to rescue. And he uses Sunni terrorists to weaken Iraq and make contagious trouble in that country’s west.
What’s especially odd is that the Obami have chosen to make friends with the Syrian government just as it has, more or less, reconquered Lebanon and put Beirut once again to its purposes. Christians are being driven out of Lebanon, and this will soon bring to an end to what was left of European Mt. Liban. Actually, this means the very opposite of comity in the country. The Shi’a hate the Sunni, who hate the Druze, and all of them despise the Palestinians. Hatreds there are fought out in hand-to-hand combat, from generation to generation, or by car bombs. But the sovereign, however feeble, will send its orders from Damascus. And, henceforth, they will win. Win what?
It bears repeating that, as late as two-and-a-half years ago, Syria was a nascent nuclear power. A nascent nuclear power with atomic weapons (from North Korea) on its short-term agenda. Damascus no longer has a nuclear capacity. The Israeli air force and elite ground troops took it out. It was not a small operation, and included several dozen aircraft plus operations on the ground. The Syrians saw nothing and did nothing. But, ten days later, the Sunday Times of London reported that the vice president threatened that “the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” This was typical Arab hash.
In the meantime, Washington has made its ever-so-gentle embrace of Damascus. I am sure it comes without assurances about nukes. Why, after all, would the U.S. put an obstacle in front of an embrace? Even an embrace with a piss-ant country?
While the Obama administration dithers with sanctions that will not be compelling to Iran (because China and Russia won’t agree to such injunctions), Israel has launched a pilotless drone that can stay in the air without refueling for 20 hours at an altitude of more that 40,000 feet. It certainly can reach Iran. This is not an abstraction. Maybe Bibi Netanyahu will save Obama from himself.
9 comments
Three OpEd pieces worth reading from different perspectives on Obama, Iran, & Israel but broadly similar (but not identical) observations and analyses: The WaPo's Roger Cohen, here. The WaPo's Anne Applebaum (who is married to the Polish defense minister and who has good relations with the Israeli defense establishment), here. The Australian's foreign editor, Greg Sheridan (who over the years has written a few of the more intelligent OpEd's relating to Israel and the Middle East), here. One major difference I have with Anne Applebaum -- that she says with certainty that the location of at least most of the nuclear installations is not known. Clearly more is known beneath the surface than is let on (even to the spouse of the Polish defense minister). The Qom facility is a case in point. When the US finally went public on it, reports indicated that many spy agencies including the Mossad & CIA had known about its construction for at least 2-3 years. Those who really do know about the location & characteristics of the various scattered underground facilities are in all likelihood a very select few who have a genuine need to know (as measured militarily, not politically) and they ain't talking to nobody (after the post-Yom Kippur war intelligence debacle, Israel has enforced a very strict compartmentalization and "need to know" only policy in its intelligence services. In short anyone who claims to know what the Mossad, CIA, M.I., etc. know and don't know about the location and nature of Iran's non-public nuclear facilities is fooling himself and others. I also don't think that any putative Israeli attack plans would rest simply on 8 planes. But Israel's reluctance to attack is real and is there. But as all three noted, few if any Israelis (from across the political spectrum I must note) are willing to assume that the Iranian leadership, be they Mad Mahmoud and the Ayatollahs be they the RevGuard & the Basiij are necessarily rational actors just because the Russians were. To the best of my knowledge, rationality is not inherently contagious. A side note: The new drone that MP mentions indeed is designed with Iran in mind. Although the 20 hours air-time was more commonly reported, other reports claim that the craft can stay airborne for 36 hours or longer. It is roughly the size of a 737 (including the wingspan) and can carry a significant payload be it in the form of spy equipment, and / or in the form of some limited armament. However it's weight carrying capacity is less that of an F-15 or F-16 and hence is not suited for the heavy bombs that would be needed to bust underground facilities. It might be useful to find and then attack S-300 anti-aircraft missile installations should Russia actually start delivering them to Iran. At the risk of qualifying myself for the Talmud's definition of who is eligible for prophecy in this day and age, what I suspect will happen is that Obama will continue to dither and pretend or delude himself that "engagement" is still a viable option (he does that best). There might be a stab at sanctions, but Obama will insist at dong so, at least for those harsh sanctions that might actually have a chance of focusing Iran's attention, only with UN blessing & the Chinese & probably the Russians will block them. "Symbolic" sanctions will follow. At some point (perhaps when the S300 deliveries are imminent, perhaps when intelligence indicates that the Iranians have reached small quantities of 90% enrichment, perhaps when intelligence indicates that weaponization is proceeding apace), Israel (and note that this has nothing to do with one political party or another) will feel that we cannot take a chance and wait any longer, despite the likelihood that an Israel-alone attack probably won't be as effective as an American or (better yet) joint American-Israeli one. The Israeli attack will be launched, Obama will not cooperate by supplying Israel with better munitions or by permitting flying over Iraq. Saudi Arabia may well permit the flyovers (more likely than Obama). And then all hell will break loose. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata
- ginzy
February 23, 2010 at 7:24am
Mr. Hershel Ginzburg: "The Israeli attack will be launched, Obama will not cooperate by supplying Israel with better munitions or by permitting flying over Iraq. Saudi Arabia may well permit the flyovers (more likely than Obama). And then all hell will break loose.: The US, under Obama, continues to honor military aid commitments to the State of Israel. With the exception of Iraq, the US provides more military aid dollars/yr to Israel than any other country. Why would you criticize the Obama administration with respect to "supplying Israel with better munitions" when Israel is already the receipient of unparralled military largess from the US. It seems that Israel could provide the US with some of its new military technology, such as the new drone. What specifically is on Israel's military shopping list that the Obama Administration will not provide?
- LawrenceGulotta
February 23, 2010 at 10:04am
Israel does supply its drones to the US, although my understanding is that the US Predator drone still has greater capabilities than the new improved version of the Heron / Eitan drone unveiled by Israel (the US is one of the users of the older Heron drone, as are the (among others) the Australian armed forces). Israel also provides the USA with other military technology (e.g., the FLIR aiming system on Apache combat copters), intelligence, and training of certain US forces in urban anti-terrorist warfare. It's not simply a matter of money, but rather technology. The USA has developed improved bunker buster bombs that can be carried by an F15 or F16 (I forget which), but to the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong) Obama won't provide them to Israel. However more critical is providing us with the "Friend or Foe" transponder codes that would Israeli jets to overfly Iraq on their way to Iran. Indeed the Obamnoids' policy vis a vis Iran & Israel seems to be centered on trying mightily to persuade us that we could "learn to live with" a nuclear armed Iran. Joe Biden is famous for some statements to that effect and indeed he is scheduled to visit here shortly. Obama lost the trust of most Israelis long ago, in particular with his Cairo speech and his reneging on the Bush letter to Sharon. BTW, both Hilary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel voted to endorse the Bush letter when they were members of the Senate and House of Representatives respectively. hg P.S. Ginsburg, not Ginzburg
- ginzy
February 23, 2010 at 10:29am
Well, Marty, I guess the Ummayad mosque of Damascus and the Damascus souk (reputedly the largest in the world), the old souk of Aleppo, the ruins of Palmyra and the Krak des Chevaliers don't really count as tourist of cultural attractions -- just some misbegotten detritus of a pathetic, piss-ant Arab country. Seems that it's so important to uphold the enlightenment virtues of neoconservative foreign policy that the enlightenment virtues of honoring the cultural patrimony of mankind go right out the window.
- wildboy
February 23, 2010 at 10:48am
Ginzy, I just checked, and according to Ha'aretz, Bush wouldn't give you guys what you wanted either.
- MOLLYSIMON
February 23, 2010 at 3:02pm
Molly, You're right. So what? The elections are over and in all events Obama ran against McCaine, not Bush. But it's irrelevant. I should hope that we are long past the election talking points. The problem is more acute now and we (in Israel) were disappointed that Bush dropped the ball on Iran. I have said this many times. Just because Bush made mistakes on Iran it doesn't mean that Obama gets the same amount of time to do the same. It's cumulative and Obama has to play the cards he was dealt; his job is to learn from Bush's mistakes on Iran and it's clear he learned the wrong lesson. He wasted a precious year dithering, making nice and being a narcissist, while Iran has used the time to spin the centrifuges and enrich uranium to 20% U235. What would Bush have done at this point I honestly don't know or care. Obama is president and repeatedly blaming your predecessor is not policy or governance. hg
- ginzy
February 23, 2010 at 3:54pm
Oh, so it's this precious year dithering that's making all the difference? You mean just by coincidence the minute that Obama stepped into office things became more accute? Please, Ginzy, don't insult my intelligence. If Bush, the most pro-Israel president ever, wouldn't give them the bunker busters or air space over Iraq, it was definitely not in our best interests. I'm not discounting the danger Israel faces--I have three cousins living there--but we're in no state to start a war with Iran. Or to let a proxy do the dirty work. There are just less bad ones. Also, I love your employment of the right wing meme, "dithering." Unlike those decisive assholes from the Bush administration who got into this God-forsaken war. I voted for Obama, and I'm not disappointed. I think the thought of opening up another theater is terrifying.
- MOLLYSIMON
February 23, 2010 at 7:21pm
Is everybody on vacation this week? Is Lydia dePillis related to someone? Just asking.
- mlottman
February 24, 2010 at 12:09pm
No, Obama wasn't "wasting a year." The administration spent some time resetting the framework for dealing with Iran, and in particular the potentially negative framing that suggested that the evil U.S. was the one who didn't really want any negotiations and those nice Iranians did. I think they have been reasonably successful in that process, but the strategic value of that bit of recalibrating has yet to be tested. You may not agree with the strategy but, as I argued with malahat, the administration wasn't doing stuff because they were short of leisure activities and had time to burn -- they had and have the purpose of blocking or neutralizing or restricting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
- ironyroad
February 24, 2010 at 2:47pm