The Israeli raid on Syria achieved its purpose, regardless of the mystery that surrounded its goals and the exploitation attempts deployed by the Syrian regime and its opponents. Until now, Tel Aviv had abstained from interfering in what is happening on its northeastern border and had settled for monitoring the situation after it addressed warnings – at the beginning of the crisis – against any incidents on its border when Damascus tried to activate demonstrations in the Golan and South Lebanon. This strike can be placed in the context of the traditional policy which is adopted by Tel Aviv and is based on the pursuit of the weapons and missiles shipments sent to Hezbollah and the Palestinian factions in Gaza. At this level, there is no need to recall the raids that targeted convoys in Sudan, the Red Sea and other locations. Israel does not seem to want wide-scale war. Nonetheless, it cannot remain silent towards the attempts to undermine the balance of powers or towards the threats against what it dubs its vital security in the face of Iran's attempts to uphold the security of the rejectionist axis or the resistance from South Lebanon to Iraq. Moreover, it does not wish to interfere at the level of the Syrian crisis, which is why it informed – prior to the last raid – all parties concerned, i.e. Washington and Moscow. As for the Islamic Republic, i.e. Israel's opponent, it also does not want a wide-scale confrontation, knowing that the Israeli strike provided it with an opportunity to carry out its threats after Ali Akbar Velayati, the Guide's advisor, threatened that any targeting of Syria would be considered a targeting of Iran and its allies in the region. But Iran settled for threats! Damascus for its part – as is usually the case – threatened to “respond at the right time," considering that the regime in Damascus cannot risk a confrontation with the Hebrew state that would further weaken it and hasten its collapse. Israel previously condemned the dispatch of Scud Missiles to Hezbollah and threatened with war in case this takes place. Lately, it expressed fears over the possible transfer of chemical weapons to the party or to extremist organizations, a thing against which Washington warned Damascus while urging Moscow to caution the Syrian regime about the wrong handling of these weapons. It is known that Russia never provided the regime with weapons perceived by Tel Aviv as being a threat to the existing military balance. And at the time, the Russian command reassured it that it would not provide Syria with assault weapons, fearing they would fall in the hands of extremist organizations which could in turn dispatch them to groups opposed to Moscow in Chechnya and in a number of Central Asian states loyal to Kremlin. Hence, the fear surrounding the fate of the Syrian chemical weapons is shared by Israel, Russia, the United States, Europe, Turkey and neighboring Arab countries, amid reports on the presence of a small American force in Jordan, ready to intervene and prevent the delivery of such weapons to extremist groups. This is especially true since the widening deployment of Jihadists in Syria has started to constitute a source of concern for the West in general, and has pushed – and is still pushing - Washington to converge with Moscow over the questions related to the day that will follow the regime's collapse. And while Ankara resorted to NATO's Patriot Missiles, Israel also deployed Iron Dome batteries in the Golan and Galilee. The United States, along with the European states, can still stand by and watch what is happening in Syria. But Israel is directly concerned, just like Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran. It is aware of the fact that drastic changes have affected its military and security doctrine since the eruption of the Arab spring and in light of its repercussions in the region, from Turkey to Egypt. It is also aware of the threat posed by the collapse of the Syrian regime's authority, the undermining of stability on its southern border and the transfer of its chemical and missiles arsenal to Hezbollah and extremist groups. More dangerously, it is preparing to confront the consequences of the collapse of all the understandings it shared with Damascus, especially after Tehran's support of President Bashar al-Assad's regime with men, funds and counsel is no longer a secret to anyone. Israel lost its strategic relations with Turkey following the attack on the Marmara ship, then lost Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt. Consequently, it lost two main pillars of its strategic security and is now forced to redraft a new perception of security along its northeastern border, whether the regime in Damascus lasts much longer or witnesses sudden collapse. Hence, the series of arrangements which existed since the arrival of President Hafez al-Assad to power in 1970 is no longer valid and a new formula should be sought. This naturally includes the border with Lebanon, one which was a large part of the understanding with the regime of Al-Assad Sr., then Al-Assad Jr. Tel Aviv and other Western capitals used to resort to the Syrian regime to deliver the necessary messages to Hezbollah, and to Iran from behind it. But following the exit of the Syrian troops from Beirut, and the regime's preoccupation with its domestic crisis, it has become imperative to find a new channel to deliver such messages, which would explain the insistence on the international sides to maintain the status-quo and the current government of Najib Mikati in Lebanon, one which is only matched by the insistence of the Americans on to Nouri al-Maliki's government. Indeed, what is known is better than the unknown alternative, which is pushing all the sides to reconsider their calculations, policies and relations. Naturally, the Israeli raid cannot be perceived as the beginning of the definition of the new relationship with Damascus, because it was not the first. It came in the context of previous strikes, the most prominent of which was the one launched by Israel in the summer of 2007 against what it considered to be a nuclear facility in Deir ez-Zor. It is unlikely that the sides fighting over Syria will resort to wide-scale escalation. It is unlikely that Benjamin Netanyahu will drag Iran and its allies into direct confrontation, no matter how high his tone was to get in regard to the nuclear file and how much he feels the international isolation noose tightening around Tel Aviv's neck, and regardless of his fears over the new faces in President Barack Obama's administration. At the same time, Damascus cannot open a front with Israel, as this could hasten the regime's collapse, while it seems that its ally Iran will find ways to escape war if the economic blockade is tightened around it and threatens with its loss of Syria! Therefore, the wide-scale war option in the region has become distant, although it was expected by many to reshuffle the cards and push everyone towards a dialogue that would tackle all the pending files in the context of one basket, from the Palestinian cause to the Iranian nuclear file and Syria's future, in preparation for the emergence of a new regional order on the rubble of this war. The ongoing war in Syria has so far provided all the warring sides with the chance to engage in bloody confrontations by proxy, like what used to happen during the days of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. But this arena is now about to deplete its purpose, and it is no longer possible for the international community to disregard the images of the massacres and human tragedies. Beyond that, Washington and Moscow might not allow further complications as they are growing closer to finding an understanding formula over a political settlement revealed by statements and positions issued by many sides, the last of which was the position issued by head of the opposition National Coalition Ahmad Maaz al-Khatib. And while the two parties involved in the conflict in Syria feel it would be impossible to even out the existing balance of powers due to the intertwinement between its internal and external elements, it is in Israel's interest to abide by the American insistence on studied change in Syria, in order to spare the entire region from an anarchy that would affect the interests of the two strategic allies and lead to guaranteed losses. It is also in Iran's interest to follow in the footsteps of the Russian action, no matter how much it is insisting on the stay of the regime, considering that Syria's slide towards total anarchy or wide-scale civil war will cause similar wars from Lebanon to Iraq, i.e. in arenas which Tehran still considers to be part of its confrontation front with America and Israel. Iran cannot risk further losses. This is why pushing the warring parties in Syria to accelerate a settlement based on studied change and with the participation of all the components of the Syrian people to reassure them about their future and fate, is the only way to stop the bloodbath, hasten the regime's departure and spare the region from further decay and chaos, from which no one will come out a winner, either domestically or abroad. The calculated Israeli raid revealed that none of the sides involved in the cold war in the region and in the bloody confrontations on the Syrian arena can wait much longer, while the abstinence cover is no longer good enough for hiding and eluding the confrontation of the crisis.
