| |
COMMENTARY
Time for US to preempt
Mideast instability
By Erich
Marquardt
Israel's air strike inside Syria on
Sunday represents a sharp change in policy by the
Israeli government. Failing to pacify its Palestinian
population, the government of Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon is running out of options on how to respond to
Palestinian violence. No matter how many targeted
assassinations Israel carries out, or how many
Palestinians it inflicts punishment upon, the level of
resistance to the Israeli occupation has not weakened.
With Saturday's deadly suicide attack in Haifa, the
Sharon government found itself without an original
response.
Also, because of the international
outcry that has developed out of Israel's threats at
eliminating Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the Sharon
government also could not take that course. Therefore,
Israel retaliated in a new way, by bringing its internal
conflict into the affairs of a neighboring Arab state.
By attacking Syria, Israel is warning Damascus to cease
its protection of Palestinian militants, in addition to
demonstrating to the Middle East Israel's power and
leverage in dealing with other sovereign states.
By attacking Syria, the Sharon government is
taking advantage of the cloudy precedent set by the
United States' "war on terrorism". The Israeli
government has long desired to take military action
against neighboring states that have been supportive of
the Palestinian cause. Lebanon, Syria and Iran all fit
this mold. Yet the international pressure that develops
from such attacks has restrained Israel in the past.
Furthermore, when Israel has executed a full-scale
military invasion, as it did in Lebanon in 1982, it
quickly found itself the subject of guerrilla-style
warfare that eventually forced its military to withdraw.
But now Israel has shown a willingness to
increase its power in the Middle East by utilizing the
US government's precedent of "fighting terror". By
arguing that Syria is supporting Palestinian militants,
Israel is able to threaten, weaken and possibly
manipulate Syria while carefully doing so within the
bounds of the George W Bush administration's "war on
terrorism".
Just how in line with the Bush
administration's policy the Israelis are can be best
displayed through a comment made by US Senator Joseph
Lieberman, who is an opposition candidate in next year's
US presidential elections. Lieberman told Fox News on
Sunday, "What the Israelis appear to have done in
attacking Syria is not unlike what we did after
September 11 [2001] in attacking training camps of
al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." This statement expresses how
easily Israel - and all states seeking to gain power
over their rivals - can use the Bush administration's
precedent set through the "war on terrorism" to take
military action against other states.
Unfortunately for Syria, however, it does not
have the power to respond effectively to Israel's recent
attack. Furthermore, despite the fact that Israel's
latest action would normally be considered a gross
violation of international law, it is unclear whether
Syria will even be able to succeed in passing a United
Nations resolution condemning Israel for the attack;
after Sunday's air assault, the United States, which
frequently vetoes proposed UN resolutions that rebuke
Israel, denounced Syria more harshly than it did Israel.
Indeed, while 14 members of the UN Security
Council were nearly unanimous in condemning the Israeli
air strike, along with the Palestinian suicide attack in
Haifa, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John
Negroponte, was the lone individual arguing that the
United States "believes Syria is on the wrong side of
the war on terrorism" and that Syria needs to "cease
harboring terrorist groups". And on Monday, President
Bush said during a White House news conference, "I made
it very clear to the prime minister [Sharon] that ...
Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must
not feel constrained in terms of defense of the
homeland."
Therefore, both military and
political factors are currently working in Israel's
favor and allowing the country to pursue heavy-handed
foreign-policy objectives. On the one hand, Israel has a
massive, modern air force - in addition to having a
nuclear monopoly in the Middle East - and on the other
hand Israel has the support of the United States - a
permanent UN Security Council member with the power to
veto proposed resolutions condemning Israeli policy in
addition to having the necessary economic and military
resources to provide Israel with the modern weapons and
economic assistance it needs to survive as a Middle
Eastern power.
Yet despite what looks to be the
United States giving Israel a free hand in the Middle
East, it is not exactly clear whether this is current US
policy. While there are many members of the Bush
administration who have called for "regime change" in
Syria, and are unequivocally supportive of Israel's aims
in the Middle East, other members of the administration,
such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and other
officials his department, must be worried over Israel's
foray into Syria. They are worried because Israel's
actions threaten to cause further instability in an
already unstable region. Bush highlighted this in the
same White House news conference in which he publicly
supported Israel's decision to launch an attack into
Syria; he cautioned that "all [Israeli] action should
avoid escalation creating higher tensions".
Overall, the Israeli attack on Syria will serve
as a warning to other Middle Eastern states that the
Israeli government is willing to violate international
law and use its power to pursue its national interests.
Tehran in particular will look at Israel's current
meddling as another reason, in an already long list, of
why Iran should become a nuclear-armed state. By
becoming a nuclear-armed state, Iran will have acquired
a nuclear deterrent that should work to limit direct
Israeli involvement in Iranian affairs.
Recognizing Iran's strategy, Israel's attack on
Syria is also meant to serve the following warning to
Tehran: Israel has the power, and the political will, to
launch such strikes not only against Syria, but also
against Iran. For instance, Ranaan Gissin, an Israeli
government spokesman, said that while "Iran is not a
target", it is a "critical part" in an "axis of terror"
comprising Iran, Syria and Palestinian militants.
Therefore, if Israel felt that Iran was coming too close
to developing nuclear weapons, it might launch an air
strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, mimicking the
attack it launched against Iraq's Osirak reactor in
1981.
Taking into account these issues, Israel's
decision to attack Syria will work to speed up the
current geopolitical transformations that have taken
place in the Middle East since the US involvement in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Middle Eastern states now have to
fear not only the United States, but also the United
States' main proxy country in the region, Israel. This
will serve to heighten the need for Middle Eastern
states to increase their military power and possibly
acquire a nuclear deterrent in order to protect against
the foreign policies of both the US and Israel.
The one factor that could work to slow down
military escalation and possible instability in the
region would be if the United States were to rebuke
Israel harshly for its latest action in Syria. If the
Bush administration demonstrates to the Middle East that
it does not approve of Israel's violation of Syria's
sovereignty, Middle Eastern states would feel less
threatened by the United States and Israel, albeit
marginally. Yet if the US administration remains
acquiescent to Israel's attack, or continues to express
approval for it, then it risks fear-created instability
in the entire region.
Instability in the Middle
East should not be an objective of Washington, as the US
military is already overtaxed in Iraq and is facing
rising insurgency in Afghanistan. Washington should be
concentrating on keeping the Middle East stable while it
works to rebuild Iraq. Once this latter objective is
completed, Washington can determine whether it would
like to continue its policy of "reshaping" the Middle
East by applying pressure to the governments it
considers problematic to US interests in the region.
Published with permission of the
http://www.pinr.com Power and Interest News Report,
an analysis-based publication that seeks to provide
insight into various conflicts, regions and points of
interest around the globe. All comments should be
directed to content@pinr.com.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
