Disturbing signs in the north

The strikeon an airfield near Damascus early Wednesday, ascribed to Israel, raises a number of questions, the answers to which could have significant ramifications on the northern area for the near future.

The first question has to do with the type of attack and type of arms used in it. The Syrian regime is claiming that it surface-to-surface missiles were launched, rather than the airstrikes employed in similar cases in the past. If this is true, it could indicate an Israeli attempt to reduce the scope of contact with Syria's air defenses, and the Russian umbrella defenses above it, which we can guess were put on higher alert after the widely reported attack on arms convoys and weapons stocks that was attributed to Israel last week.

Anyone familiar with the matter knows that in terms of weapons, this is no surprise: one only needs to track the platforms that Israel's military industries offer for sale throughout the world for proof that Israel has a variety of capabilities in this area.

The second question has to do with remarks by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who in a meeting with EU ambassadors claimed that Israel was acting to prevent Syria from sending Hezbollah "weapons of mass destruction." As expected, his remarks were widely quoted everywhere, but it is likely that Lieberman meant to send a warning: In the past, Hezbollah has refrained from using unconventional weapons out of fear that doing so would prompt Israel to launch a war against it.

As has been reported, Hezbollah, in its unceasingly race to arm itself, has focused on increasing the range and precision of its rockets, as well as on equipping itself with advanced anti-aircraft and surface-to-surface missile systems. Thus far, it has let its patrons in Syrian and Iran handle the weapons of mass destruction, with an emphasis on chemical weapons. If, heaven forbid, this scenario changes, we would be talking about nothing less than an earthquake that would obligate Israel to make some serious decisions.

The third question is what it means that both Syrian and Hezbollah admitted immediately that an attack had been carried out, and explicitly accused Israel. In the past, the Damascus regime has mostly preferred to deny that strikes had taken place or to hush them up, knowing that if something hasn't been reported, it hasn't happened, and what doesn't happen doesn't necessitate a response.

The official report on Wednesday, the second in the space of a week, proves that Syria and Lebanon are no longer willing to remain silent about such strikes. For now, they are satisfied with making declarations, but at some point words might give way to action.

The daring of Syria and Hezbollah, as seen in the weapons smuggling operations that go on despite the strikes, is linked to their recent military successes in Aleppo, where the blows to the Islamic State are bolstering the stability of President Bashar Assad's government and therefore his self-confidence. For now, it looks like Assad and Hezbollah are focused mainly on the civil war in Syria and have no interest in a conflict with Israel, but Israel must follow these processes closely to prevent any miscalculation in which a tactical strike could devolve into an undesirable strategic mess.

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