Author: Petr Lyukimson, Israel, exclusively to VK
Press Service of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) indirectly confirmed that the strike on the military convoy en route from Syria to Lebanon was carried out by Israel. This strike itself is intended to be a warning to the regime of Bashar al-Assad and to Tehran.
Leaders of the Israeli army refuse to disclose the technical details of the strike; however, according to military experts, neither Syrian nor Iranian territory was used for its implementation – the strike was made with the help of new technologies developed by the Israeli RAFAEL concern stationed thousands of miles away from these goals; most likely, from the sea.
The need for such an attack is attributed by foreign military observers to the fact that Assad is trying to send to the Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization "Hezbollah" arsenals of the weapons which he does not currently need, but which are able to hit Israel from Lebanon, including the Israeli gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea. It is primarily about ballistic missiles "Scud D” with flight range of 750 km, capable of carrying a warhead with chemical weapons weighing 1,000 kg (this is a modification of the Russian missiles" Scud " advanced by Syria with funding from Iran); Russian missiles “SA- 17" and "Yakhont "(the latter has a range of 300 km, can be launched low over the water surface of the sea and is extremely difficult to be neutralized by air defense systems), as well as the VX warheads stuffed with chemical weapons.
The blow was struck near the Syrian city of Al-Sabur located west of Damascus.
It should be recognized that this was a long-awaited strike - Israel has repeatedly warned that it would not tolerate attempts to transfer strategic arsenals to "Hezbollah" which has previously carried out attacks against Israel.
At the same time, it is possible that this attack was a rehearsal for the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, the probability of which, by all appearances, rises day by day.
***
The fact that Israel does not abandon its plans to strike on Iranian nuclear sites is evidenced by all the news of the last month.
Recall that in March and April U.S. President Barack Obama, U. S. Secretary of State John Kerry (several times) and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited Israel,.
Contrary to expectations, Hagel, who was suspected of anti-Israeli sentiment, in the course of the visit was not only confirmed that the U.S. will support Israel in any future situation in the Middle East, but also signed a number of contracts for the delivery to Israel of modern armaments, including those that allow operation at a distance of thousands of kilometers from their bases, without the need for in-flight refueling and landing. All military observers were of the opinion that these weapons were designed to facilitate the attack on Iran.
Following this, at the conference of the Israeli Institute for National Security former intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said that Iran, according to intelligence, crossed the "red line" set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2012.
Chief of Staff of the Israeli army General Benny Gantz said that Israel has all the capabilities to strike on Iran's nuclear facilities without assistance. In late April, Gantz’s predecessor as head of the General Staff of the IDF not only confirmed his words, but added that Israel can withstand Iranian retaliation, whatever it may be - the army and the civil defense office were preparing for this for the last several years.
Netanyahu, in turn, said that Amos Yadlin was mistaken: according to the latest intelligence information, Iran has not yet crossed the "red line" (i. e. has not produced 250 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20%), but it is rapidly approaching. Netanyahu warned that his statement to the UN remains: Israel will act only after crossing that line.
Recall that on April 23 the head of the research department of the Israeli intelligence Itai Baron said that he had irrefutable evidence that in Syria chemical weapons are used against the rebels (in Israeli hospitals more than 10 wounded Syrians have recently been treated). Pentagon officials initially reacted to the statement of Baron with a grain of salt, but then had to admit that it was true.
This recognition has created a new reality in the region since before President Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by Assad will serve as a "red line", after which the U.S. will be forced to resort to direct intervention in what is happening in Syria. However, according to the Israeli media, it appears that the red line was actually "rose": Americans clearly do not hurry with this intervention, fearing that the fall of the Assad regime will lead radical Islamist groups to power in Syria. Thus, Obama chose to say it is not certain that chemical weapons were used with the knowledge and under the orders of Bashar al-Assad and that he makes a "final warning" to Syria.
In Israel, such a position, on the one hand, was received with understanding, but on the other hand has raised concerns. Israel believes that in Iran the fluctuations of Obama will be perceived as weakness and unwillingness to take decisive action, and Iran will begin to build its nuclear program with new power.
At the same time, Israel believes that the warning made by Netanyahu at the UN had its effect, and Iran has reduced the rate of enrichment of uranium to keep away from the red line pointed out by the Israeli prime minister. But at the same time Iran continues intensively to build nuclear infrastructure that could enable him to make a real leap forward at some point and create a nuclear bomb in a matter of days.
Now Israel is watching elections being prepared in Iran, although analysts' opinions about the preferable outcome of this election are divided. Some believe that for Israel it is far better that Ahmadinejad remain president - a figure which uniquely causes a negative reaction in Europe and the United States. If Ahmadinejad is replaced by another leader uttering weighted speeches and flirting with the West, but continuing to develop the nuclear program, according to analysts, this will be much more dangerous.
Be that as it may, before the announcement of the election results in Iran and probably in the first few months after them the Israeli strike on Iran likely will not follow. That does not mean absence of the possibility of escalation in other parts of the Middle East.
