Israel’s Declassified Airstrike

In March of 2018, the Israeli government officially admitted that it conducted an air strike against Syria’s nascent nuclear program in 2007. Haaretz published an extremely detailed article with accounts from those involved. The admission is a rare step for a nation that often prefers ambiguity over transparency and gives us an interesting glimpse into the workings and status of both the Israeli military as a fighting force               and for U.S-Israel relations.

Below is a list of observations I made while reading the article.

 

2007 Syria reactor strike.
The reactor before and after the strike.

 

Israeli Denials Are Often About De-escalation

From the article is it clear that the mission was kept secret for 11 years for political reasons, not military security. After the bombs fell, Israeli military intelligence and Mossad were much more concerned that embarrassing Basher Al-Assad than revealing operational secrets. Face-saving Military retaliation was the overriding concern, not revealing Israeli operational methods.

Israel Is Still Using The Prussian Method

Although by far the most competent military in the region, the Israeli Defense Forces are not a hegemon. As a military of conscripts and reservists, the IDF cannot be constantly mobilized. A mobilization that gets the IDF up to fighting strength could also alert enemies to its intentions. If Israel massed troops in the Golan to defend against Syrian retaliation, they risked tipping off the Syrians and compromising the mission.

Israel then, is still operating on a Prussian-style doctrine where it focuses power where it is needed quickly, rather than an American-style doctrine where a professional military is kept ready to deploy at all times.

Israel Consulted With The United States Before The Strike

In American discourse, Israeli military actions are often framed as completely independent actions. that is, they are taken regardless of external influences, and often in spite of them. This article makes clear that the U.S government was consulted months before the operation and was kept in the loop almost until the decision to bomb the reactor was made.

If this holds true for more recent strikes the U.S government could still be privy to sensitive information. Israeli air strikes against regime and Iranian targets in Syria are a possible example.(although these are also mostly unconfirmed.)

The United States Benefits

In Syria, the U.S used Israel as both a source of intelligence and a means of achieving a strategic objective while minimizing political costs to itself. It is clear from the report that the United States saw an attack on Syria’s reactor as politically unviable given the failure of intelligence (in both senses) in Iraq. The U.S could not afford another blunder, so it fell on the State of Israel to play policeman.

George W. Bush’s statement “a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do” is indicative of his intentions. He (and by extension the U.S government) was clearly willing to give Israel a free hand to protect itself and police the region while shielding the United States and the Bush administration from the political consequences.

Israel Has Self-Imposed Restraints

In contrast to its hyper-aggressive public persona, the Israeli government was extremely concerned about the environmental and human damage that could have resulted from the destruction of an operational reactor. The Haaretz article makes clear that this was a serious bone of contention within Olmert’s government and that Israel may have thought twice about blowing up the reactor if it had gone hot.

Syria Does Not Want War With Israel

In 2007 Assad’s army was at full strength. Despite this, and the recent Israeli failure in Lebanon, Assad allowed his reactor to be destroyed without so much as firing a shot in return.

The reason for this quite becomes obvious one looks at the course of the Syrian Civil War. In 2007 The Syrian army was unprepared to do much more than terror bomb civilians and kill protesters. As is the case in many dictatorships, the military is a tool of domestic politics, rather than an all-purpose fighting force. Its raison d’être is to protect the regime. In a direct confrontation with Israel, Syria would have been crushed, and Assad knew it.

 

Advertisements

Missile Defense Is Not War By Algebra

In recent months the debate over ballistic missile defense has become highly mathematical. With advocates and detractors pitting their numbers against each other. I contend that such arguments misunderstand the nature of ballistic missile defense and armed conflict in general.

Read More »

It’s Time For a New Israeli-Arab Peace Process

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has set off a firestorm in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Across the spectrum, states, terrorist organizations and U.S allies have repudiated the move as a threat to the peace process or a provocation. Protests have erupted in the West Bank and Gaza with some Palestinian factions calling the move a “declaration of war and Hamas calling for a third Intifada.” Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat went as far as to declare it the end of the decades long U.S brokered peace process and refused further negotiations until the decision is reversed. PA President Mahmoud Abbas made his own fiery speech denouncing the move and  proclaiming Jerusalem to be the “Capital of Palestine” (fun fact. I got slightly nauseous typing that).

Read More »

The Consequences of Abandoning the Iran Deal

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is in danger of being scrapped. Widely known as the “Iran Deal” the agreement was designed to block Iran’s path toward a nuclear bomb by limited their ability to produce the necessary fissile material.

By all accounts, including by the Trump administrations own admission, the deal been complied with. However, Iran hawks and the President have been seeking to scrap the deal citing Iran’s belligerence, growing regional power and sponsorship of terrorism. Recently, Trump announced that he plans to decertify the deal, sending it back to the U.S Congress to work out.

Read More »

Why Arab States Can’t Win Wars

Modern war requires not only modern weapons, but modern organization and tactics as well. Soldiers and commanders must be able to not only fight in cohesive units using combined arms, but plan and supply their operations as well.

However, in the Arab world, militaries have yet to understand this reality. In conflicts in Syria, Yemen and Iraq even the best equipped Arab militaries have failed to achieve their goals. Even with hundreds of modern battle tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops, wars between the Arab states are almost without exception, bloody, long, and inconclusive.
Read More »

Iran Tested Another Ballistic Missile

Iran has tested a high accuracy intermediate range ballistic missile, reportedly capable of a range of 2000 km and an accuracy of eight meters. This test comes two months after a similar test in March.

These specifications would put it among the world’s most accurate IRBMs. Even without a nuclear payload, a missile like this could hit any target in the Middle East with sufficient accuracy to be relevant in a military, and not just political context.
Read More »

The United States Built a Gigantic Bomb for Iran

Sometimes you come across a problem that you can solve with nuclear weapons but politics simply won’t allow it. Iran and North Korea were and are such problems. Both nation have constructed extremely heavily fortified nuclear facilities. Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment complex for example, is built 300 feet into a mountain.
Read More »

The U.S is Building it’s Own Iron Dome

Recently, The United States Army tested a new interceptor for a concept called the Indirect Fire Protection Capability. The IFPC is a system that the Army describes as being able to take down mortars, rockets, artillery, drones and even cruise missiles at short range. Sound familiar? It should; in essence the IFPC is an Iron Dome. Except, not quite.
Read More »