Axis of Evil

December 3, 2006

Get Serious About Syria
While Syria doesn’t present Israel with a significant conventional military threat, the fact that the two nations share a common border places Syria in a much greater position to influence events in Israel than many of their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The extent of that influence was made clear through Syria’s support for the Hizbullah terror organization during the recent conflict in Lebanon. Weapons, money, and fighters all passed from Syria into Lebanon to join the fight against Israel. Most, if not all, of the rockets fired against Israeli civilians by the Hizbullah were either Russian-made and smuggled to Lebanon from Iran and Syria or were locally made variants in Syria and Iran.

The border that Israel and Syria share runs along the northern and eastern sides of the Golan Heights, territory that Syria lost during the 1967 Six Day War. During the period that Syria occupied the Golan, from 1948 to 1967, they would routinely shell the Israeli farms and towns in the Galilee below, forcing a whole generation of Israelis to grow up in bomb shelters. However, after Syria’s defeat again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the border with Syria in the Golan was always Israel’s quietest. Now, many in the Israeli military intelligence are convinced that the situation there is about to change for the worse.

One of the indicators of this is the many aggressive, but also often contradictory, statements by Syrian President Bashar Assad. Since the war in Lebanon, he has oscillated between saying that Syria will “liberate” the Golan Heights by force and saying that he is ready for serious peace talks with Israel. In truth, Assad is only concerned about regaining the Golan Heights and doesn’t care whether it happens through peace negotiations or war. However, events in Israel may dictate which path Syria will pursue.

Within only a year, the Israeli public was subjected to a “one-two punch” of terror that was a direct result of previous Israeli peace overtures. Bombs and rockets continued to emanate from the Gaza Strip, which Israel unilaterally evacuated in August of 2005. The explosion of Hizbullah terror, resulting in a 34-day war, had been building up in southern Lebanon since Israel withdrew from there in May of 2000. Although Assad may be making peace overtures out of one side of his mouth, after Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli public is not ready for another historic step toward peace that will only lead to more terror and violence.

With Israel not in the mood for groundbreaking peace moves, and with Syria not really sincere about peace with Israel, Assad is left with only the military option, as outlined in the previous Dispatch. He knows that Syria can’t ever hope to defeat Israel in a straight up military confrontation, but there are ways that he can still accomplish his ultimate goal of regaining the Golan. Egypt was in the same position some 30 plus years ago, desperate in its desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula. Like Syria today, Egypt also didn’t care whether it was through war or peace; their ultimate goal was the same. According to Israel Defense Forces intelligence reports, Syrian forces remain deployed in forward battle positions along the Golan Heights border well after the end of the war in Lebanon.

Invade Iran?
The acquisition of the first “Islamic bomb” is likely the trigger for the next full-scale regional conflict against Israel, and everything else—including “peace negotiations”—is just window dressing to buy time and gain territory for the coming invasion. I say the first “Islamic bomb,” because although Pakistan is nuclear, they are not governed by an Islamic fundamentalist regime, yet. Nor does President Musharraf of Pakistan see himself as the next great pan-Arab leader like Saladin or Nasser, whom the secular Saddam Hussein strove to become. However, in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we have both elements, an Islamic fundamentalist who seeks to become the next great pan-Islamic leader and who wants the bomb.

An examination of how Ahmadinejad became so popular provides an insight into the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Muslims in the world. First, he implemented policies that pushed Iran even further into Islamic fundamentalism and isolation from Western influence. Second, Ahmadinejad aggressively expanded Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear program, with the ultimate goal being a nuclear bomb, despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and against all objections of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Finally, he has on numerous occasions denied the Holocaust and threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”

While there are some countries (France, Russia, and China) and people (Bashar Assad, Hassan Nasrallah, and Kahled Mashaal) that don’t see Iran and the actions and words of its president as a threat, most rational-minded nations are greatly worried, and rightly so. The immense popularity of Ahmadinejad alone says a lot about the “religion of peace” and its followers. However, what can the West do in order to neutralize, or at least slow down, this emerging nuclear crisis?

A lot of talk and ink has been expended on a debate of whether or not Israel will attack Iran, as they did Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in 1981, or if it will be another U.S.-led coalition of the willing. Of course, so much debate goes into the issue of armed conflict with Iran because the thought of UN-led sanctions – first of all even being agreed upon and second being effectively implemented – is a dead issue before it even gets going. The UN has made such a routine of failure and incompetence in serious global security issues that Ahmadinejad and Iran might even prosper under UN sanctions, as happened in the infamous Oil-for-Food program in Iraq.

Despite the looming threat in Iran, America will find that the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have left a sour taste with many, and future coalitions will find fewer and fewer willing nations. In Europe, countries are generally devoutly secular with rapidly growing Islamic populations, which means that they would rather sit on the sidelines of Middle East issues (with the exception of helping the Palestinian cause) than invite violence and protests in their own streets. Additionally, several European countries have vital economic ties directly related to Iran’s nuclear program, such as UN Security Council permanent members France and Russia. If there is to be an invasion of Iran, America or Israel may be forced to go it alone this time.

Nuclear North Korea
Completing the troublesome trifecta is North Korea, which recently added a nuclear exclamation point to their world status. But, believe it or not, they are the least worrisome of the three nations as far as actual threat of armed aggression goes. The attitude that North Korea is displaying is based more on fear and paranoia rather than hostility. They use the missile tests and other military means as a way of gaining the world’s attention, but in the end, their conventional military options are limited. They are connected by land only to South Korea and China, which severely limits their options, especially when factoring in their actual military capabilities.

However, the most worrisome part about North Korea is that they will export their knowledge and materials to hostile nations or groups. This includes not only the nuclear knowledge itself, but the means of delivery as well. Experts point out that the Iranian Shahab-3 and the Pakistani Ghauri-II rockets are based a great deal on technology derived from the North Korean No-Dong-1 rocket. The effects of this technology swap have secondary and tertiary effects as well with Iran, for example, possibly passing it on further to Syria and Hizbullah, and then in turn being used against Israel.

Bottom line, global terrorism is well accustomed now to operating within the global village, and in that supply-and-demand chain, the Axis of Evil nations find themselves as both the suppliers and the consumers. Cash-strapped and starving North Korea now possesses a working nuclear device and an effective means of delivery, which means that demand for these commodities will be high in the terror marketplace, a benefit perhaps more desirable than anything they can hope to gain from six-party negotiations.

Concerning The Times And Seasons
There is the old saying, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” But, even more suspicious are the nations, such as the ones mentioned here, that talk peace in public but carry on quite differently behind the scenes. While no serious offer of peace should ever be turned away, can serious talks actually occur under the shadow of nuclear holocaust and military invasion? Prophecy tells us that Israel will face many difficult times ahead, including invasion from the North and from Persia (Iran). However, prophecy also tells us that tiny Israel survives in the end. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and be a vigilant watchman upon her walls.

“For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them…” (1 Thess. 5:3).
By Will King
Correspondent, Israel Mosaic Radio

Photo Credit: