Is Israel baiting Iran?

Last week, Ali Akbar Velayati, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that an “attack on Syria is considered attack on Iran.”

Yesterday, in a dangerous act of brinkmanship, Israel called Iran’s bluff.

But Israel doesn’t want to be perceived as risking provoking a war and so it portrayed its air strike on Syria as an imperative act of self defense necessitated by Syria’s alleged attempt to transport Russian-made SA-17 missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Syria denies that a convoy carrying such missiles was struck and even though the word of the Syrian government carries little weight these days, there are several reasons to doubt the narrative that U.S. officials have been disseminating.

Soon after Operation Orchard, an Israeli strike on a nuclear facility in Syria on September 6, 2007, U.S. officials told the New York Times that “the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria.” It was weeks later before details of the carefully planned operation became clear.

And here’s the all-important point: the timing of a strike on a convoy is going to be determined by the commanders of the convoy. Israel gets word that missiles are on the move and thus is left with “no choice” but to intervene.

But if the attack is on a stationary facility, then the timing of an attack is much more in Israel’s control.

This week there were multiple indications that Israel was preparing for military action:

So what are we supposed to believe? That in spite of the warnings, Syrian officials decided to try their luck and send a missile-carrying convoy on its way with the slim hope that it might evade attack?

Or, that Israel knew that the target of its choice, a research facility in the area of Jamraya, northwest of Damascus, could be struck at a time of Israel’s choosing and by striking now, Iran’s earlier pledge to defend Syria would be shown as empty — or, if Iran does actually follow through, then a pretext may have been created for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

For Netanyahu, soon to lead a government that will probably be less inclined to support military muscle flexing, this week may have looked like the ideal time to place a wager that he thinks he cannot lose.

Print Friendly
facebooktwittermail

Comments

  1. The last paragraph, probably more truth to that than anything the Israeli/U.S. PR machine pumps out. Seems like a gamble to bait Iran, but we shall see. I hope it falls flat, for the sake of the M.E. and all the innocent civilians that will be effected by the actions of a desperate mad warmonger.

  2. Frank Brodhead says:

    Thank you for these insights. There are some additional reasons, as well, for thinking that Israel would like to provoke an attack from Iran by attacking targets in Syria. If Netanyahu truly believes that it is threatened by an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and if out-going Defense Minister Barak’s recent statement that Israel would/could not attack Iran’s nuclear sites without US help reflects Netanyahu’s thinking also, then provoking an attack by Iran might seem to be a grim necessity. Certainly Israel could reasonably think that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program were going nowhere soon; and it is also apparent that US/EU/UN economic sanctions on Iran have not succeeded in forcing Iran to capitulate to P5+1 demands. Provoking a mini-Pearl Harbor might seem to Israel to be the only way out of its dilemma.