This incident is important because Syrian weapons trafficking poses a real and serious threat to Israel. Israel's strike came two days after it moved an Iron Dome battery to the North where Hizbullah has strike capabilities. The move may have been to preempt a Hizbullah retaliation and reassure nervous Israelis, but may also have been a first response to knowledge of the convoy. In either case, Syrian WMD are a threat which the Israeli government is right to take seriously. Striking Syria demonstrates that Israel does view Syrian WMD as a concern. The strike risked blowback from key regional players (Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have condemned the strike), exacerbating tensions with Iran (which has now threatened Israel over the strike), and delegitimizing Syrian opposition fighters as Zionist rebels. Israel knew these responses were likely but saw the threat of Syrian weapons in Hizbullah's hands as a greater risk and decided to strike.
Such decisions have been the subject debate here in Washington. Often occurring along partisan lines, questions about whether the Obama administration supports Israel's legitimate right to self-defense have been copious. Last week's Senate nomination hearing for former senator Chuck Hagel brought these questions - and the ugly partisanship behind some of them - front and center in Beltway politics.
What is common to the myriad hand-wringing and fretting about the Obama administration's position on Israel, however, is that it is almost entirely hypothetical with regards to Israel's defense. Less responsible parties paint a picture in which the administration is just about to sell Israel's security down the river. But the Syria strike is a good case study of what actually happens in the relationship, not what hypothetically could happen. So what was the Obama administration's response? The answer is especially important given that a) Israeli officials allegedly gave the United States advance warning of the strike and b) Israel's chief of Military Intelligence was in Washington meeting with Pentagon officials when the strike occurred. In other words, the administration was informed throughout the strike and had time to prepare a response.
Here's what happened: The White House had no official comment on the strike on either Wednesday or Thursday. White House Spokesman Jay Carney referred questions on the matter to the Israeli government. But he knew full well that the Israeli government was not commenting on the strike either. It was not until yesterday that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, often at odds with Prime Minister Netanyahu and possibly interested in ending his tenure as Defense Minister on a strong note, implied Israel was behind the strike at all. The White House deferred to the Israeli timeline on announcing responsibility for the strike despite questions about it from the press.
In addition, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Friday when asked about the strike that "we have grave concerns not only about security and safety of chemical weapons in Syria and responsibility the regime has there but about any other diversion of weaponry to Lebanese Hezbollah, et cetera." She would not even comment on whether the airstrike constituted a breach of sovereignty.
In other words, the administration supported Israel's legitimate right to self-defense. It was careful to avoid naming Israel as the party responsible for the airstrike while supporting the motives behind the strike. Despite the regional condemnation the strike has generated, the administration reiterated the danger posed by Syrian WMD. Such a response should assuage concerns from those fearful that Israel will be left to fight legitimate battles on its own. Despite all the hypotheticals, the reality is that in this case the Obama administration had Israel's back.