Iran continues to try to supply Hezbollah with advanced weapons for use against Israel, and the Assad regime, which owes its survival to Tehran and Hezbollah, has never been more compliant with Iranian requests to transfer or provide weapons to the Shi’ite terror organization in Lebanon.
With Hezbollah already in possession of 80,000 rockets and missiles, some of which can strike any target in Israel, Jerusalem faces a daily dilemma on when to intervene to stop the armament program – a step that could trigger a wider conflict – and when to step back and allow the force buildup to continue.
In principle, low-profile strikes allow for pinpoint action to disrupt the arms flow, without getting dragged into a wider conflict.
If a decision is taken to intervene, it would be when security chiefs feel that strategic arms are en route to Hezbollah, weapons that would allow it to cause serious damage to the Israeli home front or the IDF in the next round of fighting.
Such weapons might include advanced surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-sea missiles and guided surface-to-surface missiles – which would give Hezbollah the ability to hit sensitive strategic targets in Israel.
Unnamed American sources told The New York Times that this strike did not destroy all of the missiles it targeted, that Bashar Assad ordered his army to set fire to the site to try and hide that fact, and that another attack would be needed to complete the mission.
It remains unclear whether Wednesday night’s reported blasts are linked to such claims.
What is clear is that Iran, the Assad regime and Hezbollah are working to assist one another, and that Hezbollah’s efforts to increase its threat to the Israeli home front cannot go unchecked indefinitely.
National parliaments opposed to creating an EU-wide prosecutor want the European Commission to rework its flagship proposal, but EU officials say it is likely to go ahead.
Chambers in 11 national parliaments got enough votes to trigger a so-called “yellow card” procedure when they filed their complaints to Brussels earlier this week.
They are against the creation of a new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), saying that national authorities or existing EU bodies, such as the Olaf anti-fraud agency or the joint judicial office, Eurojust, are sufficient.
Van der Steur, who sits on the security and justice committee, said the VDD is not convinced the proposal will have any impact on EU-related fraud.
He is also concerned it would breach the sovereign rights of member states to prosecute such crimes.
He suggested the EU stops sending money to abusive member states instead.