Nine Fronts in the Next War

After having written and posted several pieces regarding Iran and its malignant spread I find this piece at Front Page Magazine. The BLUF is that, in case of a war against Israel, nine fronts have the potential to exist. Israel is surrounded and will have to make one of two choices

1.      1. Fight conventionally and die

2.      2. Go nuclear

There will be no help from the Obama administration if it happens before the next election. That’s my take. Please, let me know your take.

Nine Fronts in the Next War

Posted By David Meir-Levi On September 7, 2011 @ 12:30 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |

The current unrest pursuant to the “Arab Spring” is a mixed blessing for Iran. On one hand, if young Bashir were to fall, Iran will lose its most important ally in the western part of the Arab world. A break with Syria would be a serious defeat for Iran, since it would no longer be able to supply Hezbollah directly, nor would it have direct contact and supervision over its proxy terror armies in Lebanon, the Sinai, and the Gaza Strip.  It would also be very bad news for Hezbollah, whose terrorist leaders rely heavily on Iranian supplies, funds, and armaments, all channeled into Lebanon via Syria.  Hamas too would suffer from a break in its link with its Iranian godfather.

But on the other hand, Iran is exploiting the great opportunity created by the chaos and upheaval of the “Arab Spring”.  Iran does not want to see its foothold in the west undermined by this upheaval, so it has helped Bashir in his use of extreme force; and it has also begun to manipulate the “Arab Spring” violence and unrest to its advantage.

To gain maximum benefit from the situation in Egypt and to turn the world’s attention from Syria, Iran has activated two of its proxies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to renew attacks on Israel: blowing up the natural gas pipeline from the northern Sinai to Israel, firing scores of rockets into Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, most recently launching three brutal attacks on civilians near Eilat, and more in the offing.  Igniting a new war between Israel and Egypt, or at least precipitating a crescendo in the incendiary calls for war from the Egyptian populous and neighboring Arab states, would be a marvelous win-win for Iran and for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the best organized and most popular of the political groups contending for power in post-Mubarak Egypt.

If Israel’s response to the attacks from the Gaza Strip and Sinai were to trigger a war with Egypt, Israel is likely to win; but the turmoil and upheaval in the wake of that war would weaken the Egyptian generals currently ruling Egypt with a temporary de facto mandate.  Once shamed in defeat, they would lose credibility and popularity (there already have been protests against their continued rule and postponed elections).  This scenario would create the perfect storm into which the MB could sail to political control.  If, despite the attacks, Israel shows restraint, the MB can still shame the generals for not confronting Israel, and then either provoke a war or use the failure of the generals to confront Israel as a way to shame and weaken them and pave the way for the MB’s own rise to power.

Better yet, if Iran, through its proxies, could spark a war with Israel, and the other forces confronting Israel were to join in, Israel would be fighting on many fronts at once.  In that case, the likelihood of Israel’s victory is in question.

El Qaeda is thoroughly ensconced in the Sinai.  Currently Israel and Egypt are said to be in conversation about Egypt’s re-militarizing the Sinai, so perhaps the Egyptian army could be deployed against al-Qaeda and Hamas there.  But if the MB succeeds in gaining a position of political strength in Egypt, it is not likely that the Egyptian military will be deployed in the Sinai to drive al-Qaeda out.  Quite the opposite, the MB wants a military confrontation with Israel. So it is likely to see al-Qaeda in Sinai as an ally in such a war. And if the MB and al-Qaeda go to war against Israel, then Hamas in the Gaza Strip is sure to follow.  Hamas cannot stand idly by while its Egyptian brethren initiate the great final jihad against Israel.

With Egypt, al-Qaeda and Hamas attacking Israel on its southern and western fronts, Iran will want Hezbollah to get in on the action and make use of the thousands of rockets and missiles that it has stockpiled just for this very moment, thus opening a northern front.

Syria may have difficulty deploying a large military force on the Golan front if it must use its military against its civilian demonstrators; but Iran will be in a position to aid Syria in suppressing unrest (probably in a manner similar to what Bashir’s father Hafez el-Assad did in 1982), and young Bashir will want a distraction on the Golan front to turn his citizenry’s attention, and the opprobrium of the world, from his slaughter of unarmed demonstrators. Even if Bashir falls, undesirable for Iran but an eventuality that the Mullahs may be anticipating, a Syrian government run by the MB or other Islamo-fascists of that ilk will be delighted to join Egypt and others in a pincer-movement assault on Israel. So a Syrian Golan front is very likely to open once Israel is at war with Egypt, Hamas, el-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

In the West Bank, Hamas is strong because its extreme Islamo-fascist ideology and commitment to Israel’s annihilation hold the sympathies of many.  Fatah and the PLO, the main components of the PA, are condemned in some circles for their collaboration with Israel.  The PA will not be able to maintain a position of power if it chooses to sit out a war against Israel; especially since the PA is in stiff competition with Hamas for the hearts and minds of the West Bank electorate, and it looks like entering a shooting war with Israel is a good way to win those hearts and minds.  So it is very likely that another intifada could erupt once the southern, western and northern fronts are aflame, probably targeting the Israeli communities scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.  Such a terror offensive could cause high numbers of casualties but is not likely to create an existential military threat.  However, a West Bank terror war would be a serious distraction for Israel and would reduce Israel’s ability to concentrate its military on the fronts that are existential threats.

And then there are the Arab Israelis.  No one knows for sure how many Arab Israelis are active supporters of Hamas et al, but however many there are, they could be mobilized for fifth column terrorism against Israeli military bases, infrastructure, and civilians: another distraction that would sap Israel’s ability to face the greater threats on its borders.

Egypt, al-Qaeda in Sinai, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria in the Golan, Palestinian terrorist forces in the West Bank, and Arab Israelis in downtown Israel: Seven fronts.

But there’s more!

Jordan sits on a powder keg and the MB is itching to light the fuse.  If the MB succeeds in supplanting the Hashemites, there can be little doubt that the newly Islamized Jordan will join the war against Israel, at very least by aiding and abetting the West Bank Arab terrorists, and perhaps by launching their own invasion from the east: front number eight.

Iran is moving ahead with alacrity to achieve WMD capabilities, despite some setbacks engineered by Israel over the past 5 years (Stuxnet being the most recent). Iran already has missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads to Israel and beyond.  West Bank or Israeli Muslims vaporized by Iran’s nuclear attack are not part of the Mullahs’ concerns.  Muslim men will be martyrs, united with their celestial virgins (unclear what happens to the women and children), and besides, “Allah knows best who is wounded in His way.”[i] The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel are merely expendable pawns , collateral damage, just part of the price that the Arab world must pay for its final victory over Israel.  Syria is a very important part of this equation, because Syria has substantial stockpiles of missiles and chemical warheads which can be deployed against all of Israel at very close range, to augment the internal terrorism from the West Bank and from Arab Israelis, and to mop up whatever of Israel may survive Iran’s nuclear attack.

So Iran is front number nine – and it will be a nuclear front.

In short, Israel is in greater danger now than it has ever been, even more so than during its 1948 war of survival.

Notes:

[i] A quote from Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from his writings on Jihad, quoting a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari.  See http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/ and http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx for Qur’anic and extra-Qur’anic sources.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/07/nine-fronts-in-the-next-war/print/

Al-Assad to Obama

Bottom Line Up Front
Basher al-Assad wants nothing from the United States and, like Ah.edinijad of Iran, says that he sees Obama's efforts as attempts to wrest control of Sudan. Why would Obama do that? In the view of our enemies the Wesr wants to loot all resources from each country and kill all the people. That is what they are saying.

I want to know why Obama and Clinton are dumping and wasting billions of our tax dollars by trying to improve relations with and allow our restricted technologirs to be accessed by this homocidal criminal!
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to U.S. President Barack Obama: Your Words Are Worthless
Following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, which aired on Syria TV on August 21, 211.

Background from MEMRI
"Reforms, as Far as All These Western Colonialist Countries are Concerned… Mean that You Give Them Everything They Want, Giving Up All Your Rights"

Bashar Al-Assad: "What is reassuring today is not the security situation, which, indeed, seems to be improving. What is reassuring is the fact that the scheme was entirely different: They wanted to topple Syria within a few short weeks. What protected the country was the awareness of the Syrian people. This is what we draw confidence from. Therefore, the escalation of events does not constitute a problem." [...]

Interviewer: "Why did the West respond negatively to these reforms?"

Bashar Al-Assad: "If we consider our past experience with the Western governments, we see that their traditional response to anything you do is: This is not enough. [...]

"They tell you that it is not enough because reform is not really their goal. The truth is that they do not want reforms, and some of them even get upset because they want you to refrain from reforms, so that your country will remain backward and will not develop.

"Reforms, as far as all these Western colonialist countries are concerned – and I'm not talking about the entire West, but only about the colonialist countries – mean that you give them everything they want, giving up all your rights. These are reforms as far as they are concerned: Give up the resistance, give up your rights, defend your enemies – all the things with which we are familiar, when it comes to the colonialist countries of the West.

"I say simply: Not in their wildest dreams – not now and not under different circumstances."

"The consequences of Any Action Against Syria would Exceed by Far what They Could Possibly Bear"
Interviewer: "Recently, Obama, by means of his secretary of state – and he was followed by Britain, France, and Germany – called upon you, loud and clear, to step down. What is your response?"

Bashar Al-Assad: "In several meetings with Syrian citizens in recent days, I was asked this question, but in a different way. They didn't ask me what my response was, but why I didn't respond.

"Sometimes one responds, and sometimes one doesn't. We deal with each case in the appropriate manner. When dealing with a friendly country, we sometimes respond in order to make our position clear, especially if we know that this country adopted a position that runs counter to its convictions, due to certain international circumstances.

"When dealing with non-friendly countries, we sometimes respond in order to convey the message that if they plan to take their policies too far, we are ready to go even further. In other cases, we want to convey the message that their words are worthless, by refraining from responding.

"In the case in question, we chose the latter approach, in order to tell them that their words are worthless.
"But since I am talking to Syria TV, which is very dear to every Syrian citizen, and for the sake of transparency, I can say that if I had wanted to discuss this, I would have simply said that this is not something you say to a president for whom being a president is not the main thing, a president who was brought to power not by the U.S. and the West, but by the Syrian people. This is not something you say to a people that rejects a high commissioner, whoever he may be. [...]

"The consequences of any action against Syria would exceed by far what they could possibly bear. The first reason is the geo-political position of Syria. The second reason is the Syrian capabilities, only some of which they are familiar with, and the impact of which they would not be able to bear.

"So we should draw a distinction between psychological warfare and facts, without underestimating this kind of intimidation. [...]

"The Syrian decision is far more important than any international resolution. This is a matter of principle. End of discussion. Security Council or not – we don't care. [...]

"The countries that make threats are themselves in a mess – militarily, economically, politically, and even socially. They are weak, much weaker than in the past. We did not give in to them six years ago, when they were at the peak of their might, so what, are we supposed to give in today?! Absolutely not." [...]