BONDED BY DANGER

The blowing up of a convoy of vehicles on 18 January by missiles, apparently launched from an Israeli air force helicopter from the Syrian side (near the town of El-Quneitra), caused quite a stir and set out the key points of the forces in the Middle East in a most interesting way. Among those killed were five leading members of the Lebanese Hezbollah organization, as well as Mohammad Ali Allah Dadi, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and a number of high-ranking Iranian officers. Field commander Jihad Mughniyeh, 25, was also among those killed. He was the son of Imad Mughniyeh, nicknamed "Hyena", who was responsible for several terrorist acts and killed in Damascus in 2008, apparently by the Israeli special services. Three months ago, Jihad was appointed commander of the Hezbollah forces in the Golan Heights in Syria. Experts fear that what happened could lead to an escalation of the violence in the region. But is this really the case?

Who the main target of the Israeli air strikes was on this occasion - Hezbollah or the Iranian officers - remains a mystery. Some reports say that the Israelis themselves did not expect such high-ranking military officers to be in the firing line, and that they were dealing with an ordinary group of fighters. As is customary in such cases, the Iranian and Hezbollah leaders promised to wreak vengeance on Israel, and for that reason troops were brought to the Israeli-Lebanese border, the security of residential areas was tightened and the Iron Dome system and artillery were deployed. Specifically, IRGC leader Mohammad Ali Jafari said that the Iranians would wreak vengeance on Israel for the murder of their commander in Syria. "They can expect a devastating strike," Jafari promised. For their part, the Lebanese As-Safir newspaper reports, sources close to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah say that the response to the Israeli attack would be "painful and unexpected", but not so as to provoke a new war.

Sheikh Nasrallah's difficult choice

Why, then, is the militant Hezbollah trying to avoid a full-scale armed confrontation? The problem is that the group seems to have been drawn into the conflict from the most awkward side. As the Israeli media points out, Hezbollah has recently been trying to establish its influence in the Golan Heights and arms dumps belonging to fighters of the movement were found here recently. There are also suspicions in Israel that the movement possesses far more missiles than was earlier thought. Walid Sukkarieh, a military expert and deputy of the Lebanese parliament from Hezbollah, believes that Nasrallah, together with Syria and Iran is creating a people's volunteer corps in the Golan Heights to prevent Israel from normalizing relations with the local population. Sukkarieh says that Israel is even trying to establish relations with the al-Nusra front. The Hezbollah leader, incidentally, only admits that he is sending aid and weapons to groups fighting the Syrian opposition, but denies that fighters from his organization are operating on the Golan Heights in Syria.

Hezbollah's participation in the Syrian conflict is provoking a reaction in Lebanon itself from those who fear that in response to Tel Aviv's actions Nasrallah could drag the whole country into a war against Israel. There are people who say that Hezbollah is supporting Iran's interests more than Lebanon's. Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that, in the opinion of a number of observers, al-Riyadh supports the Lebanese army. So, it would appear that the Lebanese have had enough threats from Syria, where they could catch an infection in the form of ISIL. That is precisely why since December 2014 talks have been held between Hezbollah and the al-Mustaqbal movement, headed by Saad Hariri, the son of the Lebanese president Rafic al-Hariri who was killed in 2005, on creating an all-ethnic front of the struggle against the radical Islamists. So ISIL has practically contributed towards an internal reconciliation in Lebanon. If only the young Mughniyeh had not been killed… 

Now, Nasrallah finds himself in a difficult situation. Only quite recently, in an interview to an Arab TV channel, the sheikh was boasting about the weapons he had received from Iran and said that if Israel dared to attack Syrian targets his group would strike back fiercely. Now, it seems, that moment has arrived. But then we might get a situation when Hezbollah's actions could provoke a new war between Israel and Lebanon. However, the war between Israel and Hezbollah, as well as the exacerbation of internal differences in Lebanon because of this, could make life much easier for the radical Islamists of ISIL and further complicate Bashar al-Assad's position. 

It is significant that all this is happening at a time when the US, in the person of Secretary of State John Kerry, has unexpectedly approved a plan by the UN's special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, to "freeze" combat operations locally (starting with Aleppo) and even praised Moscow's attempts to organize negotiations between the Syrian authorities and the opposition. Many observers regarded these comments by Washington as a sign that the White House is ready to back down from its demand for the immediate ousting of Bashar al-Assad.

What suits Iran?

Meanwhile, some observers believe that Lebanon is actively drawing Iran into the war with Israel. But does Iran need this war, especially now when the threat of ISIL from neighbouring Iraq is getting close and when the latest round of negotiations between Tehran and the "six" international mediators has just ended in Geneva? The sides apparently failed to achieve any significant results, although many of the participants thought the discussions were useful. They have extended the negotiations until the end of June, because technical support is also required for a political agreement. For his part, the IRI Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, IRNA reports, linked the possibility of signing a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear programme with America's goodwill. As became clear from Barack Obama's recent State of the Nation address, a struggle is going on in Washington between those who want to impose new sanctions against Tehran - and that means putting the negotiations under threat - and the supporters of Obama, who is against this. It points out that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself will be arriving in the US capital in February to try to talk Obama round.

In analyzing Iran's wishes and options, two factors should be noted which were clearly defined at the beginning of the year: first, the agreements between Tehran and Moscow, and second, a possible thawing of relations between Tehran and al-Riyadh.

According to FARS agency, during a recent visit to Iran by Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu Russia and the IRI signed an agreement on broadening cooperation in defence and also turned to negotiations on supplies of the S-300 air-defence missile system at a total sum of about 800m dollars. In June 2010 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 which imposed restrictions on supplies of conventional weapons to Iran, including missiles and missile systems, in connection with which on 22 September the then Russian president, Dmitriy Medvedev, signed a decree banning the delivery of the S-300 system to Iran. It seems that Russia has now reviewed its attitude to the missile deal and the Iranians have forgotten about their former anger towards Moscow. Significantly, according to IRI Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan, Russia and Iran have agreed to work together in the fight against the interference of external forces in the affairs of the region. According to the minister, particular attention was focused at the talks with Shoygu on questions of the joint struggle against terrorism and the causes of the worsening of the situation in the region, "one of which is the destructive policy of the US, which is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries". "We have common challenges and threats in the region, and we can only counter them by working together," Shoygu said in Tehran. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said that it was perfectly realistic for the Islamic Republic to join the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] if progress is made at the negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme.

As regards Saudi Arabia, with whom the IRI has not associated since the times of the 1979 revolution, Tehran has suddenly stated its readiness for "direct talks with Saudi Arabia on a range of issues covering all subjects where the interests of Iran and Saudi Arabia intersect". "In the light of the unprecedented human and financial losses caused by inter-religious conflicts, (we) must stop further bloodshed and wage a wholehearted  struggle against the extremism and terrorism which has found its expression in ISIL," Admiral Shahmani, head of the security service and an advisor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said.

Incidentally, from what Shahmani said, it appears that radical ISIL has again unwittingly emerged as a kind of unifying factor capable of bringing even age-old enemies together. But is it a coincidence that, alongside the peaceable statements of al-Riyadh and Tehran, in Yemen Shia Houthi fighters, who have always been regarded as a force under Iran's control, have been suddenly pressing home their unlikely success and virtually staging a coup d'etat?