Two Iranian warships that docked in a Syrian port were reported on Tuesday to have left the Mediterranean, sailing south through the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. It was not clear whether the vessels, which had docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, had unloaded cargo or had visited the port as a symbolic display of Iranian support for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Should Iranian warships revisit Syrian ports it is likely that they would be targeted by Israel, two retired Saudi military attaches have said. “An Israeli attack would come to show the Iranians that the Mediterranean is not an Iranian lake, a position shared by the European powers and the US,” the retired officials told the Saudi Gazette during a reception at a diplomatic mission here Monday evening. “It (the Israeli attack) would not be an overt military operation; the docked ships could be mined, or they might go up in flames through a secret operation using Israeli frogmen,” they said. The Iranians are trying to offset the international pressure on the ruling clique in Syria by some show of solidarity, but they have no obvious intention of engaging in direct military action on behalf of the Bashar Al-Assad regime, they maintained. “Look,” said Al-Houwaish (first name is being withheld upon request), a commander who retired in 2005 and who last served in Morocco, “the Iranians are using Syria as a bargaining chip to see how far they can get with the other superpowers. Bashar is a fool not to realize it or arrogant not to admit it. From the Iranian position, Syria can be traded for a larger regional power role in the region. Iran's main and only concern is its nuclear program, and I think ultimately they will accept international measures of supervision of their plants. Now, this does not negate the fact that their ultimate objective is to join the nuclear club by producing nuclear weapons but typical of the Iranians, they always think time is on their side. To them, time has no value.” Asked how they envision that an attack on Iranian ships could take place, Rear Admiral Al-Hethlann (first name is being withheld upon request), who retired in 2008 and last served in Egypt, said: “I do not want to speculate, but think of Entebbe in Uganda and the boats of Cherbourg, the Iranians would not know what hit them, and by then it would be over. Think of what happened to the USS Cole in Aden, the Israelis have the best Seals in MENA and are among the top three worldwide... the issue besides the attack is the consequences of the action.” Regarding the repercussions of any Israeli attack on Iranian warships, both military attaches agreed that the Iranians would not go beyond condemnation and the usual statement of reserving their right to respond at the appropriate place and time and would limit their retaliation to other places, definitely not in the Arabian Gulf. “Militarily, the Iranians are in the Stone Age; think of how Saddam's regime was dismantled. Not a drop of blood of the coalition forces was shed in the first three weeks. Yes, they have missiles and boat power to retaliate, but if damage assessment is measurable and retrievable, then taking out the Iranian nuclear installations would be feasible,” said Al-Houwaish. “Bomb the three known military air bases in Syria, the C&C center in the suburb of Damascus and the Ministry of Interior and Bashar is a sitting duck. The consequences would be in northern Lebanon, particularly Tripoli, and by their military arm Hezbollah in Lebanon,” added Al-Hethlann. On the Iranian denial about the nature of their nuclear program, both retired officials agreed that Israel is the one to go to bed with one eye open. “Israel is the target. That's how the Iranians are selling their secret activities in the region. Well, somehow one finds a measure of comfort in this. The Israelis are truly the watchdog,” said Al-Hethlann. “They may bite without barking when they sense real danger to their national security,” added Al-Houwaish. __
