Analysts posit that Jerusalem’s warnings about the dangers of Iranian involvement in Syria could resonate even louder in Moscow
Satellite imagery of the military facility in Syria destroyed by Israeli air strikes on Tuesday is noteworthy not so much for its rareness, but, rather, because the pictures offer a strong visual representation of the close proximity of the target to both Russia’s Khmeimim air base and naval port in Tartus. This, in turn, validates in the eyes of many observers Israel’s explanation for why the attack ended in the killing of fifteen Russian servicemen whose aircraft was inadvertently downed by a Syrian-manned anti-missile battery.
Israel has over the past few years conducted some 200 cross-border aerial operations to impede Iran’s establishment of a permanent military presence in Syria and, prior to this week’s incident, the so-called de-confliction mechanism—essentially an open line of communication—between Jerusalem and Moscow had prevented any major direct or indirect confrontation between the two countries’ armies.
Nevertheless, the Russian Defense Ministry immediately laid blame for the downed plane squarely on Israel’s “hostile” and “irresponsible” shoulders, with President Vladimir Putin thereafter partially defusing the crisis by attributing the accident to a “chain of tragic circumstances.” In this respect, the Israeli army claimed that Syrian forces operated the defense system “indiscriminately” and that the four F-16s reportedly involved in the mission had re-entered Israel’s air space by the time the Russian carrier was hit.
Moreover, the targeted facility purportedly produced advanced weaponry meant for Iranian proxy Hizbullah in Lebanon and therefore “posed an intolerable threat” to the Jewish state. In this vein, whereas Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed “regret” over the deaths of the Russians in a phone call with Putin, he nevertheless stressed that full responsibility rests with Syria and its allies, primarily Iran. Given the circumstances, the comments reinforced the Israeli premier’s oft-repeated assertion that his government will do whatever is necessary to thwart Tehran’s attempt to entrench itself in Syria.
Indeed Tuesday’s developments raise serious questions about this potentiality, foremost whether the Islamic Republic is copying its tactic employed in Lebanon and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip of building military infrastructure in heavily populated or “busy” areas. Notably, reports surfaced in March that Tehran was pursuing such a strategy in Syria based on the assumption that Israel would not risk targeting installations adjacent to Russian assets over fear of igniting a conflagration with Moscow. The reports, citing Israeli security officials, alleged that Iran was constructing these facilities without Russia’s knowledge and in some cases under the guise of residential buildings.
Within this context, Putin’s move to calm tensions with Israel—this, after an obligatory harangue by other Russian leaders—suggests a recognition that the underlying cause of the fatal incident was not Israel’s actions to uphold its clear-cut red line, but, instead, Iran’s less obvious readiness to put Russian troops in harm’s way in the pursuit of its own unambiguous goal of destroying the Jewish state.
As a result, many analysts believe that, somewhat counter-intuitively, Israel’s strategic position may actually have been enhanced by the latest events.
“The Russians have shown that they understand Israel’s needs in Syria and this is now even more pronounced,” Yossi Kuperwasser, a former director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and currently the head of the Project on Middle East Developments at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, related to The Media Line. “[The downing of the plane] may cause some issues in the short-term but Putin is not going to block the army’s [freedom of action] especially after what the Israelis are going to show him in Moscow.”
To this end, Jerusalem apparently is confident enough to have dispatched on Thursday a delegation led by the head of the air force to the Russian capital. The Israeli officials were set to share with their counterparts the preliminary findings of an investigation into the deadly incident as well as a detailed outline of Iran’s military activities in Syria.
“If there is any change [in the equation],” Kuperwasser elaborated, “it will be a greater acknowledgement on Russia’s part of how dangerous Iran’s activities are. That the Iranians were using facilities to smuggle arms to Hizbullah so close to Russian bases may be a turning point.”
According to Zvi Magen, a former Israeli ambassador to Moscow, the current situation may superficially resemble a crisis, however, “if anything the Russians are collecting ‘levers’ to use in the future and now there is an additional card against Israel. This,” he explained to The Media Line, “could [be beneficial for Russia] when the time comes to determine the future order in Syria, especially as it pertains to the Iranians. But it is unlikely that Putin will push too hard.”
On the flip side, others have raised the possibility of Russia following through on its threat of “a proportionate response” against Israel. More realistically, they note that Putin’s allusion to “retaliatory measures…aimed first and foremost at further ensuring the safety of our military personnel and facilities in Syria” could entail providing Assad’s forces with the more accurate Russian-made S-300 or S-400 missile defense systems. This would effectively change the entire complexion of the Syrian theater and greatly inhibit Israel’s operational capacity in the country.
As regards Iran, the mullahs may decide their best course of action is to begin building infrastructure underground or in densely populate locations in Syria, which would also limit Israel’s ability to counter the Islamic Republic’s militaristic ambitions.
The ball, though, appears to be in Putin’s court, as has been the case since Russia intervened in the Syrian conflict exactly three years ago. Thus far the Russian leader has walked a tightrope between Moscow’s two close allies, who consider each other mortal enemies, allowing Israel to act as it deems necessary in Syria all the while depending on Iranian-aligned troops to do the dirty work on the ground. This, as the Kremlin continues to protect Tehran diplomatically in international forums, mainly in relation to the 2015 nuclear deal.
It is a delicate balancing act that worked for some time but perhaps was irreversibly upended on Tuesday. If so, the direction in which the Russian scale tips will have a major impact on whether it is Israel or Iran that ultimately realizes its goals in Syria and beyond.