Rufiz Hafizoglu, Trend Arabic News Service Head
Amid events in Syria, a question of strike on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel and the United States arose. Despite the fact that Israeli officials have repeatedly made threats against Iran, then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview given during his visit to the United States, said Israel has no immediate plans to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, but did not rule out the probability of strikes in the future.
Not hiding concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu also noted that Tehran's potential for a diplomatic settlement of the conflict situation related to the nuclear program has not been exhausted, and Tel Aviv still believes in the efficiency of economic sanctions imposed on Iran.
Statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu on the efficiency of sanctions amid tensions between Israel and Iran are not very convincing, and Israeli officials are well aware that today, any military intervention in Iran would be a real threat to the Jewish state.
Excursus to not too remote history reminds us that these two states have already fought before in Lebanon. The most striking example of this clash is a "33-day war" in Lebanon in 2006.
Israel announced its victory in this war, but the real winner in it was Hezbollah in person of Iran.
It is the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon today that keeps Israel from taking concrete steps against Iran, because Hezbollah will immediately react to any action of the Jewish state against the Islamic Republic. Both officials of Iran and Israel perfectly well understand this. Given the fact that the Arab countries and Israel have common enemies in the region - Iran and its allies, it is possible that they will start a military operation against the latter.
The best way to suppress the real source of threat to Israel is a change in the Syrian power, which is the intermediary between Hezbollah and Tehran. And it's not so easy.
In fact, the policy pursued by Iran in the region worries not only Israel and the United States, but also Arab states carrying out "silent diplomacy" against Tehran - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, as well as Turkey.
No matter how these states pursue their interests in the region, eventually they will be forced to abandon the "silent diplomacy" as to Syria and Iran, and act together.
Despite the fact that in order to prevent events that are currently taking place in Syria, the question of military intervention in this country is on agenda, it is unlikely to be possible.
The most ideal way to solve the problem is, of course, to arm the army of "Free Syria" which has been fighting with the government of Bashar al-Assad and, and to weaken Syria in economic terms. Because both options, especially the economic embargo will yield results. Thus, as a result of clashes continuing for almost a year the Syrian lira devaluated by 55 percent. But the most serious damage was caused to the oil and tourism sector of the country.
Of course it is hard to believe that the Syrian regime will withstand the crisis, which brought about economic sanctions, but it is wrong to think that Iran will silently watch the fall of the Assad regime. That is why it is likely that Iran as a result of far-sighted policy will overtake events and take advantage of Bahrain against the Arabs and Hezbollah against Israel.