Israel and the movement of things

[Pindar]

Regardless of being either a supporter or critic of the recent actions in the Middle East with Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah: how do you think things will unfold?

[PanzerJaeger]

The US used its veto power for the first time in two years today to block an arab-backed resolution to end the Gaza incursion.

With this clear showing of support from the US, Israel may well permanently reoccupy the Gaza strip and southern Lebanon, in order to stop the vicious muslim rocket attacks and kidnappings.

Israel's only PR concern is its reputation in the US, and fighting muslim terrorism only helps them across the pond.

[Papewaio]

Very good for the militants whose powerbase gets stronger in a conflict.

If other governments see a cost benefit in assisting Israel rather then the other parties that is about the only way for a quick resolution.

I wonder what would have happened if the UK had in the 70s and 80s invaded in force into Ireland to stop the IRA? An escalation of bloodshed and if anything the loss of Northern Ireland along with international pariah status. Why? Because it was never proven that the IRA operates under the auspices of the Irish government. Now if like Palestine the IRA was put in charge and then continued terrorist activities that would change the dynamics of the situation.

Hezbollah however are not in control of Lebanon and if anything are in active opposition to the ones in power... more of an uneasy truce situation. So escalating the conflict with both Palestine and then Lebanon is not the solution path to minimising bloodshed. It might draw in Syria, who were only recently pushed out of Lebanon, so it again rewards the militants. Iran may increase funding to Hezbollah, but this maybe something they are hesitant to do knowing that the US can track money transactions and is looking for leverage to pounce on them.

Worst case scenario is another Arab vs Israel war plus Iranians plus Iraq Civil War plus a Kurdish uprising in southern Turkey. In other words war across the Middle East.

If Iran gets involved you may see an oil embargo and then $130 a barrel prices.

[Vladimir]

With Iran still a regional power, things won't change for the better. Opressive governments need a scapegoat and Israel is right next door. As I remember, things were relatively calm until we started dealing with Arafat in the 90's. It seems road to peace is wide and straight.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reference to the path to hell if you're not familiar.

Edit to Pape:

Don't assume Lebanon has a cohesive government. Hammas has a very strong presence in the Lebanonese government. The problem is that the government doesn't have the will and ability to purge Hammas from the government. This means that the government of Lebanon is technically "responsible" in that it's weakness prohibits it from being otherwise. The western style of politics doesn’t apply in every corner of the world. Self preservation is the key. Lebanese leaders will mostly survive an attack by Israel, but they won't survive if they challenge Hammas. The two may be in opposition but the former can’t stand up against the latter. In the end, it’s just politics.

[Beirut]

I see a great effort being made to kidnap Israelis in the future. It will be the new weapon of choice by the opposition, the successor to the suicide bomb.

Israel's reaction, right or wrong, has been so frantic the enemy will not be able to resist twisting Israel's tail again and again.

[Don Corleone]

Hezbollah, at the end of the day, is Iran's homegrown export division of the Islamic revolution. There one goal is to establish Sh'ite theocracies across the Middle East and eventually the world. Syria, with no oil of it's own, continues to fund itself by playing henchmen to Iran and allowing them to use their territory as a launching pad and safe haven for Hezbollah. I feel bad for the Lebanese. While there are some Lebanese in Hezbollah, it is much more an organization of Iranians and Syrians. Other then declaring they don't care who's responsible, they're going to end it, I cannot imagine what Israel's rationale is.... Lebanon only recently threw off Syrian shackles and gained some limited form of self-determination. If Israel wants Lebanon's quasi-secular ruling coalition to collapse and have an all out theocracy at the helm to their North, they're playing all the right cards.

Personally, I think the Palestinian incursion for kidnappings, followed so closely by Hezbollah repeating the action means only one thing.... more time for Iran to develop nuclear weapons while international attention is diverted. At the end of the day, Israel is proving to be one of Iran's greatest enablers.

And you'd be hard pressed to find a more staunch defender of Israel in the Backroom then yours truly...

[Divinus Arma]

Here we go:


Some in the left media (Joe Klein specifically- on CNN about 30 minutes ago)are speculating that the Hizballah incursion was actually an act by Iranian elements, the Iranian para-military wing that supports Hizballah in Southern Lebanon (can't remember their name). The reason for this, as Joe Klein explained, was that it provides Iran with an opportunity to deflect all of the attention it was sure to get at the upcoming G8 summit. Others still (NPR) are supporting this concept by arguing that Iran may lose the support of Putin as the potential for accesion to the WTO is presented to Russia. NPR seems to confirm this an dis reporting that Israeli intelligence officials have leaked that the Israeli government has intel to show Iranian involvement.

It seems that Israel has not only taken Iran's bait, but has decided to call Iran's bluff and "go all in". Israel knows that although Iran will be able to play victim and win European support, they will ultimately lose their nuclear capability after U.S.-supported Israeli strikes obliterate their facilites. Iranian meddling in Israel will provide Israel and the United states with an opportunity to take out the Iranian nuclear capability before it is too late and without time-wasting diplomatic wrangling. The real issue here is not kidnapped soldiers or Hizballah or Hamas, it is Iran.

[Pindar]

While my post is concerned with the future, given a few of the posts I thought I would present this. It is from a lawyer Andrew Jacobson I read on a blog. His ideas:

"1. Iran is trying to build a bomb and moving fast in those efforts. Who knows how long it will take, but the Manhattan project took us less than 4 years, starting from scratch and without computers or prior technology. Difficult to believe that it will take Iran (which has already been working on this program for a number of years) 10 more years to complete. I just have no faith that the Iranians are that dumb.

2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.

3. Iran has a close patron relationship with Hezbollah.

4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

5. Iran supports and/or controls some of the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.

7. Hamas and Hezbollah know that Israel must militarily react to the recent kidnaps and attacks and that their actions will ignite, at a minimum, a low level military conflict/incursion by Israel into the Gaza and Lebanon.

8. Any military action by Israel will naturally to draw knee-jerk and harsh international criticism of Israel, regardless of the acts of the provoking parties.

9. In spite of its embarrassing missile fizzle, North Korea knows that its July 4th stunt is extremely provocative to the United States.

10. Higher gas prices (created in large part by the actions of Iran) have the American public and economy concerned.

11. Constant low level violence in Iraq, and the eager air play given such violence in the American MSM, have created an anti-war mood in the U.S.

11. Hezbollah's, Hamas's and North Korea's provocations have all occurred within a week of the date that the Iran situation is referred to the Security Council for what will likely be further endless hand wringing and inaction by that feckless organization.

13. Only two countries have the military will (maybe) and capability (probably) to possibly stop Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program — Israel and the U.S.

So here is my observation/theory — Iran has orchestrated much (if not all) of the current unrest and violence in order to: (i) distract attention from its nuclear weapons program, (ii) tie down Israel militarily in order to reduce the chances that Israel could unilaterally (or in combination with the U.S.) launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, (iii) scare the American public (and politicians) into rejecting any unilateral military option against Iran for fear of further inflaming the Mideast (e.g., "Geez, we've already got huge issues in North Korea, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't possibly afford any further foreign entanglements" or "We better not do anything to Iran, we might further inflame the Mideast, threaten our oil supply and the U.S. economy" (Lord knows we don't want to pay $%/gallon for our SUV's)), and (iv) create world furor against Israel (and indirectly the U.S.), to further raise the stakes and international opposition to any unilateral military strikes."

[Divinus Arma]

Beat ya to it Pindar.

And I took my cues from the left.


edit: Though you did add some excellent background to further prove my our points, Sir.

[Papewaio]

Actually I think the current situation is a lot more simple and is a classic rolling snowball scenario. Simply applying a couple of the more classic sins greed and the lust for power:

The Political side of Hamas gain power in Palestine and are now the new government. Then the military arm as a whole has lost some of its glory and power. So either the entire arm or a splinter group of hardcore members decide that they do not like to be further down on the power structure and go out and do business as normal. They kidnap a soldier so they can show that they still are as powerful as before. An internal power struggle between two competing arms of the same organisation.

Now Hezbollah go "Hmm, the Hamas guys are looking tougher then us so we had better do something quick to look after our own powerbase." They go out and kidnap two soldiers. "Hey look at us we are twice as hardarse as the Hamas guys."

Never attribute something to country scale machinations when individual malice and stupidity suffice.

[Pindar]

Beat ya to it Pindar.

And I took my cues from the left.


edit: Though you did add some excellent background to further prove my points, Sir.

[Divinus Arma]

Never attribute something to country scale machinations when individual malice and stupidity suffice.

I think the correct term is "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity". Simplicity even in this case, as you have explained, is sufficient.

But WAIT! What about War for BIG OIL AND THE GREATER BUSH CONSPIRACY!?!?!?!?! It seems that you have renounced the evil Bush plan to dominate the world?!?!?

Sorry, I had to. Let's get back on track. This is a historically important thread and a topic that we may very well remember for the remainder of our lives. My apologies for the stupid joke and unnecessary distraction. Please continue.

[Papewaio]

No the standard quote would be insufficient. Iran could quite easily have tipped this over on the basis of malice. However it is an even easier scenario that this is like what happened when Sein Fein came to the peace table... a splinter group of the IRA did one of their worst terrorist attacks ever. Primarily motivated to hold on to their internal powerbase, individual stupidity and malice not some illumanti cabals machinations.

[Kanamori]

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

[Quietus]

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

The analysis is they did it to prevent movement of arms through the airport. They've also blockaded the ports.

[Divinus Arma]

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

Most are speculating that these are acts targeted specifically to the Lebanese Government. After all, Hizballah is a political force in Lebanon and holds positions in the cabinet as well as in the Parliament.

A spokesman for the IDF on CNN stated that the goal of the ISraeli action is to secure the release of the two prisoners while simultaneously encouraging the Lebanese government to take positive steps towards securing the border between them from Hizballah action.

After the kidnapping, Israel made it very clear: Release them or we will turn back the clock 20 years in Lebanon. Some are also speculating that this is a show of forse against other regional players. Remember the syrian fly-by last week? Israel seemed to be itching for a fight.

All in all, this is a pretty stunning turn of events given the relative quiet in Southern Lebanon since 2000. I found last year's Lebanese protests against Syrian involvement following the assasination of a nationalist anti-Syrian political candidate a particularly moving show of solidarity in Lebanon.

It will be interesting to see how this develops within the region. Really quiet sad. I wish these Muslim nations could get there act together. (I do like Jordan, though. That King Abdullah II is a swell guy.)

[whyidie]

As for the movement of things my prediction is:

Nothing more than whats happened to date. I don't think we'll see an all out war in the region and I don't think Israel will further occupy any part of Lebanon for longer than a couple of weeks.

I think the exciting things happen in the Israel-Palestine territories and some type of bearable exit is found for Lebanon.

[Don Corleone]

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

Two reasons. One, as Quietus rightly points out, is to prevent the flow of weapons in from Syria and Iran.

The second is to prevent the kidnapped soldiers from being flown out of Lebanon to Iran.

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

Let's say we're correct and that this (and Hamas in Gaza) are employing diversionary tactics (sorry Pape... can't buy the one-ups-manship story... not at this widespread a level).... wouldn't the appropriate response be as limited a one as the Israeli public would tolerate? Thus, enabling the G8 agenda to remain focused on Iranian nuclear capability, not the border violence in Gaza, Israel & Lebanon?

[L'Impresario]

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

I do.

[Don Corleone]

I do.

Can you show me one time when Hizbollah (fully funded by the Iranian theocracy, btw) has acted in a manner not consistent with a position advocated the theocracy? Can you show me one source of arms, armaments for Hizbollah other than Iran or Syria (by way of Iran)?

[Idaho]

2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.

3. Iran has a close patron relationship with Hezbollah.

4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

5. Iran supports and/or controls some of the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

[Don Corleone]

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

Other than the Almighty and Infallible Word of Idaho (TM), do you have anything to offer us as to why Pindar's article is wrong on points 2, 4 and 6?

[ICantSpellDawg]

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

I agree with Pindar's points on all but #4

I'm not sure how Iran would be a supporter of the Taliban Regime after all of the issues that they had with one another.

[Idaho]

Hamas are a sunni and arab centric group and would not find much natural affinity from Iran.

Likewise with the Taleban - they were militant sunnis who were supported by Pakistan and opposed by Iran who backed the Northern Alliance. Didn't some other country back them too?

Iran is friends with North Korea?!? I really wonder at you yanks sometimes. Just because two countries are hated by the US, doesn't make them friends.

[Pannonian]

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

You're citing Michael Ledeen as a source on which to base foreign policy? Even within the neocon camp he is considered an extremist and a warmonger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen080602a.asp
August 6, 2002

However, nobody is perfect, and Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror."

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

That's our mission in the war against terror.

He sees Iraq as the first step in a wider destabilisation of the region. He has been known to forge evidence to push public opinion towards that goal, being the source of the yellowcake story.

[macsen rufus]

I still get a very bitter taste in my mouth whenever Americans point the "sponsoring terrorists" finger. We in Britain haven't forgotten NORAID; where was the "government responsibility for actions of extremists", then? Would the UK have been justified in blowing up JFK Airport in response, or turning NY into molten glass?

Over the years my attitudes towards Israel have changed a lot. When I was still a gung-ho, testosterone laden teenager like the Cube dude, I had pretty much the same attitude - "Go Zion, anyone who can take out six nations simultaneously must really rock." Now I've seen and heard so much more from both sides, I just despair. Religious nuts on both sides to whom the word 'compromise' is anathema. A vicious cycle of tit-for-tat, and "we're gonna hurt you more than you hurt us". Remember "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". There had been positive signs - the Road Map, partial withdrawals from occupied territories, Syria pulling out / being pushed out of Lebanon, a softer line in Damascus, and suddenly we've leapt back ten years or so. It's so much easier to destroy than to build.

But the question was, what's going to happen, wasn't it? Right now I think it will escalate. I'm sure Iran (or elements within Iran - it is far from a monolithic state) will become overtly involved, and if they do acquire nuclear weapons, no prizes at all for guessing where it will be aimed. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran had some territorial goals in respect of Iraq falling apart, and Iraq must be seen as part of the overall picture.

We shouldn't overlook the bitterness of the Sunni/Shia split, either, as provoking widespread animosity towards Israel will cover that split in a spurious sense of "Muslim unity". When Arab-Israeli tensions are lessened the islamic schism comes more to the fore again.

As to the question will there be another war - I believe it's started, but no-one's admitted it yet. Eventually the world's policeman will step in and control more of the Middle East (well, occupy, if not control). Because there is an elephant in the room -- OIL. It's the one thing people don't want to address. It's not a case of the impact Mid-east conflict has on oil prices, but what the impact of oil is on the politics. The one thing mainstream media is keeping pretty quiet about is peak oil - we have probably reached it already. The rest is a long slow decline in production, inevitably prices will go up, and there is a scrabble to control the remnants. The more wars, terror threats, "market jitters" etc there are to "explain" the ever rising prices, the less repsonsibility the big consumers have to take in the face of their oil-hungry voters, the longer the denial can continue. Stopping this regional conflagration will not prevent the $130 barrel, it would just remove one excuse for it.

For all the local animosities, it still looks like a fight of the glove-puppets with bigger players calling the shots.

So, in short: Israel will be at war with Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Iraq will collapse, Iran will make a landgrab (they're suddenly interested in the old Persian empire again, wonder why???), Jordan and Saudi will sit on the fence, Egypt will face both ways but get very repressive internally. General Arab uprising. The West will intervene about the same time as Russia. Winner gets the oilfields, and everyone else will just have to live with it. Israel will probably survive.

Unless some serious diplomacy kicks in during the next few days

Meanwhile China will nab Taiwan, flatten North Korea and invade Japan.

(And if you're in denial yourself about the oil running low, do a search on "Hibbert's Peak" and recent Saudi production figures).

[Devastatin Dave]

A big ice cream and pizza party. [come on dave - edited out]. Everyone will be happy, holding hands, and praising the UN for brokering a deal that makes eveyone happy.

[solypsist]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that John Bolton said that a resolution demanding that prisoners be freed and aggression stopped would highten tensions rather than ease them? There's something stupid in his logic.

[Incongruous]

The kidnapping of soldiers does not condone the bombing of civilian areas.
All soldiers should know that, and the condoning of it is nothing but cowardly.

Do you disagree?

[lars573]

Other than the Almighty and Infallible Word of Idaho (TM), do you have anything to offer us as to why Pindar's article is wrong on points 2, 4 and 6?

Because Iran funding Sunni groups like the Taliban or Hamas would be like fundamentalist protestant groups from the bible belt funding the IRA.