Source : Voice of Russia
Alastair Crooke, a Beirut-based British analyst, head of the Conflicts Forum, and a former Advisor on ME issues to Javier Solana, shares his take on the alleged Israeli air strike at a Syrian military research facility near Damascus
There is a certain amount of uncertainty about exactly what has been going on. I think it is clear now and the Syrian authorities have officially confirmed that there was a strike on a military research center which is not far from the Golan in southern Syria, it was destroyed and two guards were killed in that. That is generalized according to the Israeli press itself that this is a center which accumulates generally research from all sources and scientific experiment in a military sphere. And the Syrian Government has said that this was what it was also.
Now, also what was the case, that we know, one of the few things that are sure is that there was an intrusion of Israeli aircraft into Lebanon. There are reports that there was a strike on or near the border either in Syria or possibly just in Lebanon on crossing the border convoy of trucks. That convoy, it is suggested in the Israeli press, was bringing advanced weapons, not chemical weapons but conventional weapons, perhaps even components of surface-to-air missiles SA18 across and to the destination of Hezbollah from Syria.
Now, that has not been confirmed, no one has confirmed that on Israeli side or in Lebanon, or in Syria. And Hezbollah has made no statement beyond saying that it supports Syria, its people and its Army. So, there is no confirmation of the last one, but there are reports that there has been one.
The Hebrew Israeli press is also very clear in suggesting that this was the primary purpose of the over-flights in Lebanon and Syria, the military attack on the sovereign state, it was precisely what they call game changing weapons passing to Hezbollah from Syria. There is a long-long history to this and it is nothing new that there’ve been suggestions for a long time that weapons were passing to Hezbollah. None of this has been proven, and it has been raised periodically in the Israeli press.
I think what is quite striking too is that after the Israeli elections that took place a little while ago, the parliamentary elections in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu raised the issue of chemical weapons again in Syria and the danger of them falling into the hands of either the opposition or anti-Israeli elements essentially.
Indeed, even the Deputy Prime Minister went as far as saying that Israel might take preventive action. Equally, what was quite striking, was that official sources in Israel, foreign affairs officials actually then undermined the Prime Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements by saying there is nothing new happening with chemical weapons, there is no change in that positioning, there is nothing happening, there is nothing that requires any action on the part of Israel. So, the unnamed sources in Israel effectively countered the Prime Minister’s and deputy Prime Minister’s statements.
So, in a sense what we may be seeing is that the Prime Minister was proving his point by initiating a military action in Syria to underline that there is a risk by actually taking military action and trying to suggest that there is an action. Even though that military action was not aimed at chemical weapons facilities, even according to the Israeli press, but was aimed more at conventional surface-to-air missile shipments. Possibly no one knows if this is true or untrue, or what was struck, or if indeed a convoy even was struck on the Lebanese-Syrian border. That’s the stage of uncertainty at the moment, I should say, rather than the stage of what we actually done.
Sir, talking about the threat of chemical weapons in Syria, I’ve seen some kind of a leak in the Internet of the alleged conversation between two ground officers in one of the countries around Syria who were discussing a possibility of taking chemical weapons from elsewhere, like from Libya for instance, and bringing them to Syria. So, my point is that perhaps nowadays with all the turmoil in the region it would be so easy to stage some kind of use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad’s Government. So, anyway, do you think that such kind of scenario could be implemented, theoretically?
Sir alking about the threat of chemical weapons in Syria, I’ve seen some kind of a leak in the Internet of the alleged conversation between two ground officers in one of the countries around Syria who were discussing a possibility of taking chemical weapons from elsewhere, like from Libya for instance, and bringing them to Syria. So, my point is that perhaps nowadays with all the turmoil in the region it would be so easy to stage some kind of use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad’s Government. So, anyway, do you think that such kind of scenario could be implemented, theoretically?
Yes, I think you are referring to a publication of an alleged email from a European company, quite well-known and large company, about the possibility of transferring components for chemical weapons or agents to Syria in order for it to be alleged that it was action taken by the Syrian Government against the opposition, and therefore was intended as a black operation in order to delegitimize the Syrian Government.
I have to say that I’ve seen absolutely nothing to suggest that that email was true. We don’t know, there’s been no suggestion, no confirmation that it is an authentic email, or no collaboration that that has actually happened or indeed that components were moved or both of that nature. We can add that we do know that actually other things are moving from Libya. It is quite clear that weapons and other components are moving and have moved for some time from the theatre of Libya directly to the opposition in Syria. But there’s been no confirmation that those include chemical components at all.
But I think you are quite right that there is a fear because throughout the history of this type the Western states have used what are known as black operations – operations intended to deceive the public opinion and to make it appear that it is actually someone else that has initiated the operation, whereas it has actually been encouraged and supported by the Western intelligence services with the intent of trying to bring about further tension and the downfall of a particular group or government.
Sir, getting back to the international diplomacy, as far as I understand there are two distinct trends. One is a heightened anti- Assad rhetoric in the UN, in all kinds of official statements. And on the other hand there are rumors that perhaps with the coming of a new Secretary of State in the US the US could somehow soften their policy in the region, including in the Syrian issue. Do you think that this is a viable option?
Well, I think that the two elements you identified are both happening. I think one element is that at the moment we are expecting and see the beginnings of military actions, more extensive military operations by the Syrian Army and the Syrian Government in this coming period. And that is likely to provoke from those who sponsor and support the opposition calls for Western intervention in response to this. There has been quite a strong strategic military shift from the inside to the advantage of President Assad and the Syrian Army, they have made considerable gains on the ground at the expense of the opposition. The momentum is moving that way and it is expected that that shift, that that campaign increase in the coming period.
So, it is not surprising that to expect that there will be calls for intervention to support the opposition during this period. And perhaps we may read the Iranian warning against the Western intervention made by Mr. Velayati, the advisor to the Supreme Leader, in his turn. But again, I think what we see from the US very clearly is a very strong reluctance certainly on the part of the President, perhaps not shared by all Congress, but certainly a desire on the part of the Administration not to get entangled in the conflict in Syria.
And I think there is another element to this that has become very important and very strong. First of all, there was if you like the Benghazi moment where it was found that having allied the West particularly with Islamist elements in Libya, they had a consulate in Benghazi attacked and the ambassador killed. But then subsequently in Mali we have seen the events there and hostages taken in Algeria. So, there is a real sense of anxiety also present in the West about the rise of radical Islamist movements, the concern about what consequences of this rise will be.
So, on the one hand they are engaged in fighting radical Islamist movements in Mali and cooperating with Algeria in the same way. Yet in Syria they are actually encouraging and giving the facilities, even though they claim to be nonlethal facilities, to those same militants in the interests of overthrowing the Assad. So, the basic contradiction in these policies I think is engaging into West and thinking which is now increasing the concern about what is happening in the wider region as a whole and the rise of radical groups across north Africa and southern African parts of the ME, and even now in parts of central Asia.
