WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- What can Iran and Syria do if the United States starts flexing its military muscle over the Islamic republic's desire to pursue its nuclear program, or the Syrian regime's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri?
How damaging would retaliation by Iran and Syria be and what form would it likely take?
At first thought one would be tempted to say there is not much Iran or Syria can do. The United States military is simply too powerful for Iran and Syria's armed forces, both countries whose weapons systems have not been upgraded in decades.
The U.S. possesses far superior air, naval and land forces than the Iranians and the Syrians have in their dilapidated arsenals. The United States armed forces are better equipped with hardware such as Stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines carrying long-range missiles. The U.S. intelligence agencies have all the toys for boys money can buy, electronic eavesdropping paraphernalia and ultra-secret gadgets that even James Bond never dreamed of.
But things are never quite what they appear to be in the muddled Middle East. Closer analysis of the situation reveals that Iran and Syria have quite a few assets at their disposal. Even without Iran's nuclear strike force.
The two Middle Eastern countries may not possess Stealth fighters, nuclear-powered submarines and such, but they do have tactical allies who can help stir up trouble. The war in Iraq has demonstrated how much damage a ragtag guerrilla force made up of a few hundred, or maybe even just a few dozen men, can cause to a regular army.
The meeting in Damascus Jan. 20 between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quite revealing and should not be brushed aside as a mere courtesy call. But then, when you factor in that Ahmadinejad met with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is also the head of the Amal Movement, Lebanon's second largest Shiite group after Hezbollah, then met for 90 minutes with representatives of Palestinian resistance organizations in Damascus: the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, you know that this was no social call.
Together, Syria, Iran and its newly formed circle of allies are able to cause severe problems to the United States and/or Israel in the region.
Maher al-Taher of the PFLP summed up the meeting saying "we discussed the issue of pressure against Syria, Iran and Lebanon and confirmed the need to form a front that groups all the forces that opposes the Zionist-American schemes in the region."
According to several Lebanese sources, Syria has been dispatching arms and ammunitions to various groups in Lebanon. Why? United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 specifically called on all foreign forces and arms to be withdrawn from Lebanon. Why then is Damascus re-arming some of its client Lebanese militias unless it plans to activate them at some time in the near future?
Why is Damascus allowing guns and rockets to be transferred to PFLP-GC bases in Lebanon when the Palestinian refugee camps should not be armed?
Why is Ahmadinejad meeting in Damascus with the Lebanese Shiite paramilitaries and Palestinian armed groups? And just as pertinent a question, what was discussed between Syria's President Bashar Assad and his Iranian guest?
This is all speculation, of course, but my two cents go on Ahmadinejad and Assad doing some emergency planning. Most likely on the agenda was what to do if Iran's nuclear facilities are targeted by the United States and/or Israel. And by the same token, Syria is planning ahead to see what it can do to counter U.S. or U.N. sanctions if they ever came to be imposed.
A likely scenario is that Iran would unleash Hezbollah in south Lebanon on Israel. Israeli towns and settlements in northern Israel would come under severe bombardment from Hezbollah and PFLP-GC rocket fire. Amal, though less powerful militarily than Hezbollah, is no less politically important with Berri, the Amal leader, holding the seat of House speaker in the Lebanese parliament.
Renewed chaos in Lebanon and along the Lebanese Israeli border would raise tension in the area. But that would only be the start. Iran, which has been funding the Palestinian Islamist groups for years, would call in old favors and instigate a newer and deadlier intifada.
But still that is not all. Iran, which already "owns" most of southern Iraq, would let loose its agents and forces loyal to the Islamic republic in Iraq on U.S. positions in the country.
If President Assad's much-anticipated speech last Saturday to the Lawyer's Union is any indication of what's in store, it does not bide well. The Syrian president refused to submit to the U.N.'s interview request in the Hariri's probe.
Assad's tone towards Washington (and Beirut) remained "hostile," says Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who runs Syriacomment.com, one of the most informative blog sites on Syria.
"We should not give up our national sovereignty even if the circumstance requires that we fight for our country. We must be prepared for that," said Assad.
(Comments may be sent to [email protected].)
