At the end of summer 2006, Hezbollah fired a “Nour” missile at an Israeli warship, inflicting severe damage on it and killing some of its sailors. It was said at the time that the emergence of the missile - which was developed by Iran and originally comes from China with a length exceeding six meters and a range exceeding 200 kilometers - surprised Israel and contributed to its decision to cease fire, although its aircrafts and satellites were monitoring the Lebanese territories around the clock since it was in a state of war with the small country. Last October, the trustworthy British “Jane's Defense Weekly” reported that Damascus supplied Hezbollah with “M-600” missiles, a Syrian version of the Iranian “Fateh-110” missiles with a range of 250 Km and a warhead mass of 500 kilograms. In early March 2009, the Israeli newspapers said that the military intelligence informed the Defense and Foreign Affairs Commission in the Knesset that Syria offered its main ally in Lebanon “Igla-S” shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles. These missiles are capable of destroying the unmanned Israeli aircrafts or the warplanes flying at a low attitude. After 2006, Hezbollah's leaders announced in many public statements that they rearmed themselves and that their military assets increased many folds after the 2006 war, and that they continue to prepare themselves for any possible new Israeli aggression. If these facts are known for Israel and its espionage networks and the entire world including the Americans themselves, why is all this controversy stirred up over the “Scud” missile which the Hebrew State says is now in Hezbollah's possession and that “damages the balance of power in the region?” Does this missile dramatically increase the threats which Israel claims to be exposed to, or are there underlying reasons behind the new crisis? Who is targeted by this controversy: Hezbollah or Syria? The statement issued by the US State Department two days ago perhaps explains some issues. The statement says that it was the fourth time in recent months that the American Administration draws Syria's attention to the armament of Hezbollah. This means that Washington brought up this issue before Israel did, even though via diplomatic means. It also means that the source of the information on the new missile might be the Americans. In other words, they could be behind this controversy in order to put some pressures on Syria. In its last issue, the American “Foreign Policy” magazine reveals US displeasure with the Damascus's “festive” conduct with what the Syrians consider to be a “victory” for them at many levels. The magazine explains that instead of showing flexibility after the Western (French and US) and Arab (Saudi) initiatives towards it, Syria revealed a conviction that its “steadfastness” has started bearing fruit. Thus, it espoused stricter positions at the strategic, political, and economic levels. [The magazine adds that] during the “summit” that was held in Damascus among Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, Syria announced via its Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallim that a dramatic change has occurred to its military creed, whereby the Syrian forces will engage in any renewed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. This means that the “engagement” policy which Washington decided to adopt vis-à-vis Damascus could be reconsidered if Syria did not modify its positions and begin to gradually move away from the Iranian cloak and its obligations, in line with the American desires.
