Photo:
Syrian television |
According
to foreign sources, Israel
attacked a convoy that was to transfer advanced weapons – apparently SA-17
ground-to-air missiles – from Syria to Lebanon . This attack raises some
important issues, both in principle, concerning Israel ’s national security concept, and in the
specific context of current events in Syria and Lebanon .
In
principle, there is a dilemma about whether and when to initiate preventive
action against a serious threat is formation that endangers important Israeli
security interests. Israel
has a history of acting against a wide range of emerging threats, from the
Egyptian military buildup in 1956 after the Czech arms deal; again against
Egypt , which in 1967 deployed
in a threatening manner on Israel ’s borders; against the Iraqi nuclear
program in 1981; and according to foreign sources, in Syria in 2007.
Arms ships and weapons convoys en route to Palestinians were attacked in
Sudan and the Red Sea , and leaders of terrorist organizations were
killed in targeted attacks.
Two
opposing approaches address the question whether Israel should
launch a preventive military strike against enemy force buildup and potential
threats:
a. The passive approach argues that it is not
possible to deal with all emerging threats, and furthermore, that dealing with
these threats is liable to lead to escalation into war and increase the enemy’s
motivation for further buildup. Israel ’s objective is to obtain long
periods of calm, but taking action against the buildup shortens these periods of
calm. Israel needs to build deterrent
power, and it should confront the enemy’s capabilities and neutralize them only
when the State of Israel is attacked. This was the approach taken by those who
opposed the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and those who rejected
actions against Hizbollah’s buildup after Israel ’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000
and after the Second Lebanon War in 2006.
b. The active approach argues that ignoring
force buildup and future threats may ultimately force Israel to pay a
heavy price or even face an existential threat, and therefore in relevant cases
it is necessary to take action to remove the potential threat, even at the risk
of response and escalation.
Over
the past decade, Israel
launched three large operations against terrorist organizations: in 2006,
against Hizbollah in Lebanon , and in 2009 and 2012,
against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In none of these conflicts did
Israel intend to achieve a crushing
victory (e.g., to topple Hamas); the operations, rather, aimed to achieve calm
in the north and the south and improve Israeli deterrence. Nevertheless, in all
three cases, it was clear that it would be necessary to deal with the future
buildup of the terrorist organizations after a ceasefire was obtained. The
mechanisms for handling the buildup were supposed to be part of the ceasefire
agreements – UN Security Council Resolution 1701 in the case of Hizbollah, and
regarding Operation Cast Lead, UN Security Council Resolution 1860 and an
Egyptian and American commitment. These mechanisms were complete failures, and
in 2012 there was no pretense of establishing mechanisms to deal with the
buildup. Thus, the issue remains a strategic and operational dilemma for Israeli
decision makers.
Four
main considerations shape any discussion of this type of preventive action:
a.
The
existence of intelligence and operational capability to stop the buildup.
Barring these, the other considerations are
irrelevant.
b.
An
assessment of the value of the preventive action. There is no point in risking
escalation and the enemy’s response if foiling the buildup is not valuable.
Nevertheless, buildup with strategic significance – unconventional capabilities,
advanced air defense systems, long range missiles – is a target that Israeli
must seriously consider attacking.
c.
Costs
and risks of the operation: Do the risks of the operation, especially the
anticipated response from the enemy, the potential for escalation, and potential
exposure of intelligence sources and operational capabilities justify the
achievement of a preventive strike? What is the balance between these costs and
risks, and the costs and risks of failure to take preventive action? It is clear
that in order to justify preventive action, the equation must demonstrate a
higher price for a passive policy.
d.
Considerations
beyond specifically foiling the buildup: the position of the major powers,
implications for other arenas, its contribution to deterrence, and other
relevant issues.
These
considerations can now be applied in context of the attack that according to
foreign sources was carried out by Israel against advanced weapons
intended for Hizbollah.
The
results of the attack show that whoever launched the attack had excellent
intelligence and impressive operational capability. Clearly, the attack
prevented the transfer of advanced operational capability that could have
challenged Israeli aerial supremacy in a future conflict in Lebanon or
ambushed reconnaissance flights essential for collecting intelligence on
Hizbollah’s force buildup.
The question of the adversary’s response is
essentially twofold.
As
for Syria ,
the
Assad regime had no interest in responding immediately and forcefully to the
attack. The regime, mired in a civil war, is fighting for survival. Assad’s army
is occupied primarily by this struggle, and its capabilities vis-à-vis
Israel have eroded. Assad is seeking
to avoid international intervention that would change the balance of power in
the battle in Syria , and
therefore, he has no interest in opening an external front against an actor with
very significant power, such as Israel . An additional consideration
is the possible harm to Assad’s relations with his Russian patron. The transfer
of Russian weapons to Hizbollah is not legitimate and violates Syrian assurances
to Russia, a vital Syrian ally defending it in the UN Security Council and
preventing international intervention in the slaughter underway there. For this
reason, Syria was quick to respond that the
attack was carried out on a military research institute and not on a weapons
convoy. Assad does not want to risk his important alliance with
Russia , and therefore, he will avoid
escalation.
As
for Hizbollah, there is very little legitimacy, if any, for a response.
Hizbollah is not a “Syrian shield,” and since the attack occurred on Syrian
territory, the Lebanese people would not agree to action that would likely
involve Lebanon in fighting in order to
protect foreign/Syrian interests. Hizbollah is also an ongoing violator of
Resolution 1701 concerning the prohibition on transfer of weapons to
Lebanon . The organization is supposed
to serve primarily as an Iranian military tool against Israel in the
event that the nuclear crisis develops into a military confrontation. Therefore,
Hizbollah has limited legitimacy for responding to the attack, either within
Lebanon or outside the
country.
In
conclusion, there are two additional points should be made. Israel has not assumed responsibility for an
attack on an SA-17 battery en route to Lebanon . This allows
Syria and Hizbollah room for denial.
Although Syria and Hizbollah chose not to deny
the attack, there was in fact no immediate military response. Nevertheless, even
if they did not respond immediately or escalate the conflict, Hizbollah and
Syria retain the ability to respond
in the future, settle open accounts, and operate in remote theaters without
taking responsibility for the response.
In
addition, the transfer of weapons, including high quality weapons that breach
Israel ’s red lines, will
continue to challenge decision makers in Israel in the
future as well. Israel will need to continue to
consider seriously the danger of escalation, which will grow from incident to
incident. Operational planners in Israel must assume that any operational
capability, knowledge, and/or weapons in Syria or Iran are liable to reach Hizbollah,
or have already done so.
Font: המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומ
No comments:
Post a Comment