Risk management

At times it seemed on Thursday that we took a step back during the tango of American conduct over its expected attack in Syria. After Wednesday night, when everyone believed that an attack was just a matter of time, and would probably happen sooner than later, on Thursday different Western winds were blowing from Washington and London, where it was announced that an attack would be postponed until the U.N. Security Council could deliberate over the U.N. inspection team's findings in Damascus.

It was difficult to ascertain Thursday evening whether this was a declaration of the West's policy, aimed at exhausting diplomatic avenues prior to an attack, or whether it was a smokescreen intended to hide the activity behind the scenes and allowing the forces to surprise Damascus with the timing and targets of their choosing.

If the first option is correct, then there will be a few more days of discussions and debates before a military strike takes place. If the second option is correct, the attack could conceivably occur the moment the U.N. inspection team leaves Damascus.

Surprisingly, these question marks did not permeate the Israeli appraisal of the situation. Senior Israeli officials determined on Thursday, similar to the day before, that an attack was a certainty. It is possible that this belief stems from the assessment that U.S. President Barack Obama would have a hard time backtracking from an attack after his administration unequivocally concluded that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons (in other words the red lines that he defined were crossed), and it is also possible that Israel simply knows.

In this regard we should listen to the IDF chief of staff, who said while speaking at a ceremony for fallen navy sailors on Thursday that "the IDF is on the doorstep of challenging days."

Lt. Gen. Gantz knows the actual situation; in the past week he spoke at least once with his American counterpart Gen. Martin Dempsey and was a remote partner to the strategic talks conducted by an Israeli security delegation in Washington. Beyond this is the hidden aspect, the deep and intimate cooperation between Israel and the United States. Gantz is familiar with all of the interaction, and we need to assume that he stands on firm ground when he declares that the coming days will be "challenging."

The rest of the chief of staff's speech was intended to highlight Israel's efforts in recent days to deter the enemy and soothe the homefront. The message of deterrence was projected outwards toward Syria and terrorist organizations, warning them not to dare respond or launch missiles in our direction. A calming message was directed inwards, at Israelis, who Gantz said should continue preparing for their Rosh Hashana holiday without worrying about a war or unconventional weapons being used against us.

The chief of staff also alluded to the army's higher-than-reported alertness level along the borders and among its ranks.

This alertness is not based of information, rather risk management: Forty years after the Yom Kippur War in October of 1973 -- despite the low probability -- no one is willing to risk the possibility of being taken by surprise again.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו