Russian-Israeli Dispute Erupts over Delivery of S-300 System to Syria

Russia plans to go ahead with arming Syria with the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. (Getty Images)
Russia plans to go ahead with arming Syria with the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. (Getty Images)
TT

Russian-Israeli Dispute Erupts over Delivery of S-300 System to Syria

Russia plans to go ahead with arming Syria with the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. (Getty Images)
Russia plans to go ahead with arming Syria with the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. (Getty Images)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated that his country intended to provide Syria with the advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems.

He said that the US, British and French strikes against Syria last week lifted “moral obligations” that were deterring Moscow from going through with the deal.

“Now, we have no moral obligations. We had the moral obligations, we had promised not to do it some 10 years ago, I think, upon the request of our known partners,” he said according to RIA.

He added that Moscow had respected the Western claim that supplying Syria with such arms would destabilize the region, even though the system plays a defensive role.

“After the recent attack however, we see no reason to commit to those pledges,” said the minister.

It appears that the delivery of the system is now only awaiting the signal from Russia President Vladimir Putin, in a move that will anger Israel.

An Israeli official had previously threatened to strike the S-300 system if they are deployed in Syria.

The delivery of the system will be a precedent because it will threaten the balance of regional powers.

Russia’s statements on Friday can therefore be interpreted as political and military messages to not only the United States, but Israel as well. Moscow has long preserved a delicate balance with Tel Aviv, while also maintaining ties with its rivals, Tehran and Damascus.

Former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate Amos Yadlin had confirmed that Russia will soon deploy the system in Syria.

“A plan has been set in place to deal with this threat. We will return to square one after eliminating this threat, which is exactly what we intend to do.”

The delivery of the S-300 system will not be a long process because the new batteries for these missile had already been sent to Syria in October 2016. This week’s announcement on the system only entails their redeployment at vital Syrian locations, such as airports, instead of their current positions near the Hmeimem and Tartus Russian bases.

Moscow had supplied Syria with the S-300 system in 2016 to counter “Washington’s mounting threats to carry out military operations against Syrian positions.”

The US, meanwhile, is also worried about the new system, not only due to its concern over its ally, Israel, but because it is aware that the S-300 can be merged with the S-400 system.

The merger will form a strong defense against any attack, stated Russian Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov.

Moreover, the US concern can also be traced to who controls the S-300 system in Syria. Having the Russians control the system is one thing, but having the regime control it is another.

Regardless of the discrepancy in estimates over the number of rockets that were intercepted, the truth remains that the Syrian defenses managed to mobilize to confront an attack. This alone is a cause for concern and supplying Damascus with the S-300 will be an even greater concern.

It becomes clear now why the Russia chose this week, in wake of the strike, to announce that it intends to deliver the new missile system to Syria. It was only waiting for the right time to do so and the Western strike was the excuse it needed.



Berri to Asharq Al-Awsat: Resolution 1701 Only Tangible Proposal to End Lebanon Conflict

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and US envoy Amos Hochstein in Beirut. (AFP file)
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and US envoy Amos Hochstein in Beirut. (AFP file)
TT

Berri to Asharq Al-Awsat: Resolution 1701 Only Tangible Proposal to End Lebanon Conflict

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and US envoy Amos Hochstein in Beirut. (AFP file)
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and US envoy Amos Hochstein in Beirut. (AFP file)

Politicians in Beirut said they have not received any credible information about Washington resuming its mediation efforts towards reaching a ceasefire in Lebanon despite reports to the contrary.

Efforts came to a halt after US envoy Amos Hochstein’s last visit to Beirut three weeks ago.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri dismissed the reports as media fodder, saying nothing official has been received.

Lebanon is awaiting tangible proposals on which it can build its position, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The only credible proposal on the table is United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, whose articles must be implemented in full by Lebanon and Israel, “not just Lebanon alone,” he stressed.

Resolution 1701 was issued to end the 2006 July war between Hezbollah and Israel and calls for removing all weapons from southern Lebanon and that the only armed presence there be restricted to the army and UN peacekeepers.

Western diplomatic sources in Beirut told Asharq Al-Awsat that Berri opposes one of the most important articles of the proposed solution to end the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.

He is opposed to the German and British participation in the proposed mechanism to monitor the implementation of resolution 1701. The other participants are the United States and France.

Other sources said Berri is opposed to the mechanism itself since one is already available and it is embodied in the UN peacekeepers, whom the US and France can join.

The sources revealed that the solution to the conflict has a foreign and internal aspect. The foreign one includes Israel, the US and Russia and seeks guarantees that would prevent Hezbollah from rearming itself. The second covers Lebanese guarantees on the implementation of resolution 1701.

Berri refused to comment on the media reports, but told Asharq Al-Awsat that this was the first time that discussions are being held about guarantees.

He added that “Israel is now in crisis because it has failed to achieve its military objectives, so it has resorted to more killing and destruction undeterred.”

He highlighted the “steadfastness of the UN peacekeepers in the South who have refused to leave their positions despite the repeated Israeli attacks.”