Syria refused to fight on Iran's side in case of a military stand-off between Tehran and Israel following an attack on its nuclear facilities, an American document published by WikiLeaks revealed on Wednesday.In a moment of understatement, Iran's reaction is reported as:
The statements in the document, dated December 20, 2009, were probably made by a diplomatic source who spoke with American Embassy officials in Damascus.
The source said Syria refused Iranian demands to join them in case a war breaks between Israel and the Islamic Republic or Hezbollah.
According to the report, official Iranian sources visited Syria at the beginning of the same month in order to solidify alliances ahead of a possible Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The quoted diplomatic source claimed the Iranians told their Syrian counterparts that it was not a question of will Israel attack, but rather a question of when it will attack.
Damascus told the Iranians in response not to expect Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas to take part in this war.
The Iranians, on their part, were not so pleased with the responseI bet.
It looks like the attack on Syria's nuclear facility sent a message--one that was actually received. If so, then maybe Obama should take note, that in the Middle East (and elsewhere) talk alone does not get the job done when there is no indication that you are willing or able to follow through.
Maybe Hillary and those who work for her should take note too, that there are still things in this world that can communicate a message better than twitter.
Still, that last reported comment by Syria--that Iran could not expect puppets Hezbollah or Hamas to join in--is difficult to believe. While Syria saw what happened to its facility and Hamas saw what happened to Gaza during Operation Desert Storm, being thoroughly manhandled in the process, Hezbollah faced nothing like the beating Hamas got.
The only thing that would hold Hezbollah back would be anger of Lebanese and the resultant weakening in its position. But is that likely?
Many expected another war between Israel and Hezbollah during the summer.
Could Hezbollah really be relying purely on bluster at this point, having rearmed itself?
Iran might not expect much from Hamas--but what would happen if Hezbollah did not tow the line?
UPDATE: Another Wikileaks revelation indicates friction between Iran and Syria over the killing of Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyah in Syria:
According to another secret memo, the assassination of senior Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyah triggered an exchange of accusations within the Syrian intelligence and sparked tensions between Iran, Hezbollah and Damascus.You know, all things considered--if the US cannot wean Syria away from Iran, it really is an indictment of the Obama administration.
...Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to Lebanon Abdel Aziz Khoja told US diplomats in Beirut that Hezbollah believed the Syrians were responsible for the Damascus killing.
According to the Guardian, no Syrian official was present at Mugniyah's funeral in Beirut's southern suburbs the following day. Iran was represented by its foreign minister, who, the Saudi envoy said, had come to calm down Hezbollah and keep it from taking action against Syria.
Khoja said that another rumor was that Syria and Israel had made a deal to allow Mugniyah to be killed. US diplomats reported that the killing led to tensions between Syria and Iran, perhaps because Tehran shared Khoja's suspicion of Syrian complicity in the affair.
Technorati Tag: Wikileaks and Syria and Iran and Hezbollah.
No comments:
Post a Comment