SCUDS AND SYRIA
Elliott Abrams
National Review, April 19, 2010
According to recent news stories, Israel believes that Syria is supplying SCUD missiles to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Should Israel bomb Syria to stop them? As the charges and threats from both sides multiply, the story of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is worth recalling.
On Aug. 11, 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1701 as part of an effort to end the war then raging in Lebanon between Israeli and Hezbollah forces. The resolution was the product of long negotiations involving primarily the United States, France, and the governments of Israel and Lebanon. The final text made crystal clear-over and over-that supply of weaponry by Syria to Hezbollah was prohibited. Relevant provisions of the text read as follows:
The Security Council,...
Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon...to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon....
Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory...for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon....
Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel....
Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft...the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories.
If the text seems clear, and even repetitive, to us now, it was less so at the time. As the resolution was being drafted and debated, the government of Israel approached the U.S. government to ask for a critical clarification. Suppose Syria violates the resolution, the Israelis asked? Do you agree with us that Israel will have the right to bomb any truck caravan carrying missiles or rockets from Syria into Lebanon for Hezbollah? And the answer was as clear as the question: Yes. With that now understood, Israel said it would go along with Resolution 1701 and begin to withdraw from Lebanon.
Without access to the most recent Israeli and U.S. intelligence, we do not know whether Syria has indeed shipped SCUDs-capable of reaching Tel Aviv and all of Israel's cities-to Hezbollah. Nor do we know whether other news stories are accurate in claiming that Israel asked U.S. permission to bomb such a supply caravan, and was told no....
But such stories harm U.S.-Israel relations, and reduce deterrence against Syria. It would be far better for both Israel and the United States to make it clear now: The supply of SCUDs to Hezbollah is a violation of Resolution 1701, and Israel has the right to act to prevent it, both under 1701 and as an exercise of the right of self-defense. It should also be made clear that if Israel strikes, it will have U.S. support, and we will veto any Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for doing so....
[T]he best message we could send right now does not require an ambassador in Damascus, just clarity in Washington: Sending SCUDs to Hezbollah will not be tolerated, and Israeli military actions taken to prevent it will have full American support.
(Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council
on Foreign Relations.)
