Syria preparing Lebanon to be a battleground for revenge?

by **Admin** Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:35 am

Frightening
are recent reports of militias in Iraq and Lebanon being equipped and
reinforced, of military preparations and maneuvers taking place, as
well as of advanced surveillance installations being set up in a number
of countries in the region, primarily Israel, Syria and Iran.

There
are spider-web threads between the various players and events that may
help prevent direct wars. However, there are also high odds that the
spark of a battle could lead to unexpected wars. For instance, it may
not be at the core of Iran's strategy to encourage Hezbollah in Lebanon
to avenge the death of its military commander Imad Mughniyeh,
assassinated in the heart of Damascus. Nevertheless, by the end of this
week, Syrian authorities will announce who they believe is behind the
assassination, and it is expected that they will accuse Israeli
Intelligence, the Mossad. Syrian military preparations, including the
mobilization of security forces and an increase in the number of troops
near the border with Lebanon's Western Beqaa Valley, coincide with
announcing the results of the investigation of Mughniyeh's
assassination. Such developments entail the risk of matters getting out
of control, either for Iran or others, especially as reports indicate
that Palestinian factions similar to Fath al-Islam, as well as other
cells and networks comparable to and allied with al-Qaeda, operating in
Lebanon have increased their capabilities. It seems that Iran's
strategy in Iraq is based on taking the necessary steps to transform
southern Iraq into an arena for pro-Iranian militias or into a federal
state with an organic relationship with Iran. This is why Iran has been
stimulating Shiite Iraqi militias, either to bring these militias to
power through the upcoming provincial elections in October, or in
anticipation of US military operations that President Bush is expected
to conduct. It requires that Iran focus its efforts on southern Iraq to
prevent supplies from reaching American troops.

Whether
they be accurate or exaggerated, it is necessary to read through the
reports of Arab, Israeli and American media over the past few days.
Pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper claimed that Fath al-Islam had
"overcome" its defeat at the hands of the Lebanese army at Nahr
al-Bared. According to the newspaper, the faction has also "regained
its capabilities, restructured its deployment and redefined its
alliances". In another report entitled "al-Qaeda in Lebanon: What
comes after Nahr al-Bared?" the newspaper mentioned the presence of
dozens of small and medium-sized networks and stated that cells and
networks entering Lebanon and training in the country have emerged
either "in support of al-Qaeda directly or of groups similar to and
allied with it".

The
Israeli media, on the other hand, have conveyed warnings from a senior
Israeli military intelligence officer that Hezbollah continues to
prepare for the possible occurrence of a new war, and that Iran and
Syria continue to supply Hezbollah with weapons, allowing it to "grow
in strength". Interestingly, the officer anticipated that the operation
meant to avenge Mughniyeh's assassination could be carried out by a
"different organization" than Hezbollah, which may refrain from
conducting a direct operation, as Israel's military commanders have
made it clear that their response to any attack will be very costly for
Hezbollah and its allies.

According
to Israeli media, the advanced Russian anti-armor missiles sent to
Syria have found their way to Hezbollah, and, according to intelligence
reports, Russia thus found itself indirectly supporting Hezbollah
during the July 2006 war.

Syrian
forces have recently increased the number of troops near an area that
has become a strategic location for Hezbollah in the Western Beqaa,
namely Rashaya al-Wadi, thirty kilometers away from Syria's capital
across Mount Hermon. Such Syrian reinforcements on the other side of
Mount Hermon come at a time when Hezbollah is reinforcing its military
capabilities in the Western Beqaa where UNIFIL forces, deployed in the
South, are not present.

Such
reinforcements and preparations indicate the possibility of turning the
Western Beqaa into a base from which Hezbollah and non-Lebanese
factions and militias backed by Syria and Iran can direct attacks that
Israel considers provoking.

It
is interesting to note that this movement of Syrian troops coincided
with leaks in the Syrian media reporting that the Ministry of Interior
would announce the results of the investigation of the Mughniyeh
assassination at the end of this week. This in turn coincided with the
placing of Israeli security agencies on full alert in preparation for
expected attacks by Hezbollah or a "different organization" on targets
inside or outside Israel. In addition, as reported by its media, Israel
plans to commence what will be the largest emergency maneuvers in its
history next week, not to mention that it has decided to distribute
protective masks and has issued orders to its General Staff commanders
not to use cell-phones during sessions for fear of surveillance by
Iranian intelligence and Hezbollah. The media also mentioned that
Tehran has established highly advanced surveillance facilities in
Syria, a fact which was confirmed by Syria and denied by Iran, thereby
generating a certain amount of confusion.

What
Israel and Syria agree on are news of large-scale Syrian maneuvers and
intensive training in preparation for military confrontation with
Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a very stern
warning, stating that no attack "will go by without a response", and
cancelled his trip to Germany, scheduled for next week, due to the
tension with Damascus, according to Israeli television.

None
of these reports indicate that a decision has been made, either by
Israel, Syria, Iran or Hezbollah, to wage a serious war between them.
There are no indications of a strategic Iranian decision requiring
Hezbollah to provoke Israel into a war, nor are there indications that
the state of truce between Syria and Israel is evolving into a
confrontational relationship. More likely, it seems that using Lebanon
in "controlled" battles may entail miscalculations that could spark
larger wars.

It
seems that the Syrian leadership seeks to prepare Lebanon to be a
battleground for revenge, especially as the fear of intimidation has
died out at the Damascus summit. During that summit, Syria received a
clear response from those it had threatened with regret if they did not
attend: we will not fear you!

Some
have attempted to convince the Syrian leadership of the benefit of
reaching an agreement over Lebanon and allowing that country to
exercise its independence as a starting point for Syria to enjoy
improved relations with both the Arabs and the international community.
Even they were disappointed and forced to refrain from participating in
the summit with a high level of representation. Jordanian Monarch King
Abdullah II did his best to help Syrian President Bashar Assad on every
level before the summit, only to have all of his efforts frustrated by
Syria's responses. Consequently, he did not attend the summit himself,
and Jordan was instead represented by its representative in the Arab
League.

Currently,
there are fears of political assassinations resuming in Lebanon, and
especially of attempts against Prime Minister Fouad Siniora intended to
precipitate the downfall of the government, following Damascus's
success in prolonging presidential vacuum by hindering the election of
a new president and paralyzing parliament with the help of its ally
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

There
is an increasing feeling that the Syrian leadership may escalate to the
point of provoking a war with Israel, which may earn it sympathy among
the Arab population, as it has realized that no one at all, be it a
state, individual or organization, can prevent the establishment of the
Special Tribunal to try those suspected of assassinating former
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

Iran,
on the other hand, may wish to wait until after the American
presidential elections to determine its policies, especially those
concerning the use of Hezbollah in Lebanon, to better serve its
strategic interests in the region in general. Iran does not seek to
involve Tehran in a direct war with Israel, and it certainly prefers
continuing to wage its proxy-war through Hezbollah. However, if a war
is started by either a Syrian or an Israeli decision, the Mullahs may
find themselves dragged behind President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his
enthusiasm to become the hero leading the Muslim masses.

Although
talk about resorting to a military option by the US has rescinded
following the intelligence report indicating that Iran had ended its
efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb in 2003, there is now increasing
interest in the information provided by China to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna regarding Iran's nuclear program,
which, according to some, reveals Iran's true intentions. This
coincided with accusations made by the Chinese government against
Islamist extremists of seeking to instigate an uprising in Western
China.

According
to a report in "The American Conservative", the US president will
attack Iran before leaving the White House, most likely in the form of
missile strikes on military targets inside Iran. The report claims that
Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to the region was connected to this
issue. It also predicted that Iran would respond by blocking supplies
from Kuwait and the Gulf to American troops through Southern Iraq,
pointing out that Jordan could offer alternatives supply routes. Iran
may also strike ships in the Gulf, destroy ports and unleash
destructive militias on oil export installations and block roads
between Kuwait and Iraq.
This
talk of uncontrolled wars and controlled battles is not smoke without
fire, as what is happening on the field reinforces it and makes it
frightening. Recent developments in Basra are directly linked to Iran
and its sponsorship of Shiite militias, which serve as its allies and
as a shield if the Iraqi government were to cooperate with American
troops in military operations against Iran.

Tehran
has made a fundamental, radical and essential decision in its strategy
towards the Middle East, which is to form, groom, sponsor, finance, and
train militias loyal to Iran to serve as its muscle against
governments, even friendly ones. This is exactly what it has done in
Lebanon through Hezbollah, and this is what it has done in Iraq despite
the fact that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a close friend of Iran.
The
Mullahs in Tehran do not take risks or wager on anything that is not
fully under their control and in their possession. This is why they are
establishing and reinforcing their networks of direct intervention and
sincere allies among Shiite militias in Iraq and Lebanon, in addition
to "tactical" non-Shiite militias, such as the Palestinian factions
loyal to Syria, or organizations involved in direct confrontation with
the US such as those similar to al-Qaeda.

Dwarfing
and undermining these militias is a vital matter if the state in Iraq
or Lebanon is to properly exercising its authority. Coexistence between
the state and its institutions on the one hand, and militias working
for another state on the other, is impossible. Dismantling and
disarming these militias is essential if the state is to survive. The
place of leaderships such as that of Hezbollah or the Mahdi Army is in
political partnership within the structure of the state. Their place is
reserved and all Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr
have to do is agree to assume it.

If,
however, the response is a refusal to integrate the construction of the
Lebanese or Iraqi state, and an insistence on loyalty to Iran, then the
battle between the state and the militia will require measures that
would guarantee the state's victory at any cost and by whatever means
necessary. One of these means is available in the link between Tehran
and the militias in Lebanon, namely the option of informing Syria that
it is time to end its relationship with Iran or else face severe costs.
The new formula is making its way and ending impunity with penalties
and trials. Hence the fear that Damascus may resort to waging wars and
unleashing militias, either to divert attention or because it has
reached the conclusion that it is time to go all the way.