Israel's role in toppling Saddam
By Neill Lochery
October 21, 2002
U.S. President George W. Bush has told Israeli and Palestinian
leaders not to distract the world from the coming U.S. war with
Iraq, however, now is not the time to isolate Israel in order
to appease the Arab world. On the contrary, as Israeli involvement
in any conflict is inevitable, it makes sense for U.S. planners
to co-ordinate planning activities with their Israel counterparts.
This time, unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf War, there is unlikely
to be any Arab participation in the Allied coalition. This lack
of a broad military coalition, however, should be viewed as a
positive development in that it potentially allows U.S. and Israeli
military planners greater scope for utilizing Israeli military
assets against Iraq than in 1991.
Those who cling to the belief that Israel can be kept out of
the war (as it was in 1991) are deluding themselves. The most
sobering news to come out of the Middle East in recent weeks was
the decision of the Israeli Cabinet to vaccinate 15,000 key health
workers against smallpox. Though the government in Jerusalem played
down the significance of the decision, it is clear there are growing
fears of a non-conventional attack of Israeli urban centres by
Iraq. If there is a chemical attack launched by Iraq then Israel
will respond robustly.
In 1991, the Israeli government made it clear "through the usual
channels" that any chemical attack would be met with a tactical
nuclear strike on Iraqi cities by Israel. The seriousness of the
Israeli threat at the time is difficult to measure, but many argue
that it was the major reason Saddam Hussein only used Scuds armed
with conventional warheads. In 2002, there is no guarantee that
the same decision-making process will be followed in Iraq, and
Israel knows this. Some elements of the Israeli military are,
in private, already calling for a pre-emptive strike against Iraqi
targets to reduce its capability of launching such an attack on
Israel when the expected U.S. air attacks commence.
Even a conventional attack by Iraq would bring an Israeli military
response. One of the myths of the Persian Gulf War was that president
Bush Sr. managed to keep Israel out of the war with a mixture
of the political carrot and stick. We have since learned that
Israel remained out of the war due to a secret deal struck by
the then-Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, and King Hussein
of Jordan, in which Shamir promised not to violate Jordanian territory
(land or air).
Shamir kept his word, but only just. Under strong pressure from
the hawks in his Cabinet Israeli bombers were prepared for missions,
but heavy cloud cover prevented them ever undertaking their missions.
In truth, the wily old fox Shamir allowed the Americans to presume
that it was their pressure that was preventing Israeli retaliation
for Scud attacks in the hope of maximizing the U.S. political
and economic payback to Israel at the conclusion of the war.
To this day, it is clear that figures such as Dick Cheney (then
secretary for defence) and Colin Powell (then chairman of the
joint chiefs of staff) remain convinced that Israel listened to
them in 1991. Crucially, both presume that Israel will also fall
into line in 2002-03. They are mistaken.
Accepting that Israel will respond to Iraqi attacks (code for
enter the war), it would appear more prudent to include Israel
in the war plans from the outset. This could be done on various
levels. The most obvious use of Israel would be in the intelligence
field. Despite improvements on the ground since Sept. 11, U.S.
intelligence gathering remains very weak. The over-reliance on
intelligence gathered from technical sources such as spy satellites
over hard intelligence gathered by agents on the ground remains
a key problem. Israel's two main intelligence agencies, Mossad
and IDF intelligence, have a far clearer picture of what is going
on inside Iraq, particularly the strengths of the opposition parties.
In terms of military operations Israel could contribute to the
widely expected air campaign, and by employing its Special Forces
to destroy Iraqi mobile missile sites on the ground.
On the political level, the Arab states would no doubt argue
that Israel's involvement was confirmation of the imperialist
intentions of the U.S. attack. In 2002, support for Iraq among
key Arab leaders, the Arab intelligentsia and the wider public
is much stronger than in 1991. This is especially true in Syria
where President Bashir Assad has started a process of economic
and diplomatic normalization with Baghdad. Crucially, it is unlikely
that any Arab state would come to the aid of Iraq -- even if Israeli
forces were overtly involved in military operations.
Israel exists in a dangerous neighbourhood and is keen to contribute
whatever it can to the campaign to remove a vicious dictator from
its doorstep. President George W. Bush should give the order to
his military advisors to involve Israel in the planning and execution
of the war. The brutal truth is that this will be Israel's war
as much as America's.
Dr Neill Lochery is Director of the Centre for Israeli Studies
at University College, London
This article was originally published in the National
Post on October 21, 2002
