Thursday, July 13, 2006
Hezbollah's folly and the wider war
War is breaking out between Israel and Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran and Syria in Lebanon. The United States has stepped right up and pinned the blame on Damascus and Tehran in separate statements coming from the National Security Council and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Cardinalpark asked some interesting questions this afternoon, particularly concerning our pending confrontations with Syria and Iran.
Syria's proximity to the field of battle and vulnerability to Israeli air and ground power put the Assad Ba'athists in grave jeopardy. Indeed, with an apparent green light from the United States and a muted response from every other relevant actor, I can think of only one reason for Israel to hold its fire: It does not know who will govern Syria once Assad is gone. Israel cannot afford to do in Syria what the United States is doing in Iraq.
There will be those who argue that the United States is trying to leverage this into an excuse for a military confrontation with Iran. I doubt it, insofar as Arab allies of the United States would be put in a very difficult situation if we went to war in overt support of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon or Syria. Perversely, I think there is a decent chance that Austin Bay is right when he speculates that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Fatah, and the Lebanese are quietly hoping that Israel weakens Hamas and Hezbollah, itself a necessary precondition to any resolution between Israel and Palestine. This war will "re-set the chess table" at a time when almost everybody thinks it is in great need of re-setting.
The culpability of Iran is an interesting question, especially in light of unconfirmed reports from Debka.com (admittedly, not a flawless source) that Iran's foreign minister has flown to Damascus. Debka argues that Iran directed Hezbollah's attack to achieve three specific objectives:
1. Iran shows the flag as a champion and defender of its ally, Hamas.
2. Sending Hizballah to open a warfront against Israel is the logical tactical complement to its latest order to go into action against American and British forces in southern Iraq.
3. Tehran hopes to hijack the agenda before the G-8 summit opening in St. Petersberg, Russia on July 15. Instead of discussing Iran’s nuclear case and the situation in Iraq along the lines set by President George W. Bush, the leaders of the industrial nations will be forced to address the Middle East flare-up.
Would Hezbollah have launched a war with Israel on Tehran's command? Perhaps. While there is no doubt that Tehran sponsors Hezbollah, people do argue over the extent to which Tehran directs its operations. The relationship between Tehran and Hezbollah is revealed in a short anecdote in Ali Ansari's excellent new book, Confronting Iran (which I highly recommend, by the way). In the days after September 11, 2001, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami saw speculation in the American media that Iran might have been involved. According to Ansari (who is neither particularly critical of Iran nor blind to its depredations), "Khatami, anxious that the blame not be associated with Iran, summoned Hizbollah leaders to Tehran to make sure they could confirm they were not involved." (p. 182)
If this remarkable anecdote is true -- and Ansari is a very credible scholar, so the odds are in favor of it being true -- we have learned three fairly obvious things about Hezbollah and Iran. First, if the president of Iran -- even a lame duck "moderate" president such as Mohammad Khatami -- "summons" Hezbollah leaders to Tehran, they come when called. In this sense, at least, Iran controls Hezbollah. Second, five years ago the president of Iran believed that Hezbollah might have had both the will and the means to pull off the attacks of September 11. If the president of Iran had to satisfy himself that Hezbollah might have attacked the United States directly, then it is safe to say that Iran believes Hezbollah is capable of a lot of violence. Third, Khatami believed that they might have launched those attacks without consulting Tehran in advance. That belief implies that the relationship is hardly master-servant.
Now, if Iran was uncertain whether Hezbollah was behind September 11, then it is also plausible that Iran did not know that Hezbollah was going to attack Israel in advance. Hezbollah may have sandbagged Tehran, and Iran's foreign minister may be in Damascus for the purpose of getting the most out of a very messed up situation.
Alternatively, Hezbollah may have acted precisely in accordance with President Ahmadinejad's orders, in which case Israel is now quite legitimately at war with Iran.
In all cases, the risks of escalation are enormous.
Comments are more than welcome.
UPDATE: Having slept on it, I have further thoughts.
4 Comments:
By 
FrauBudgie, at
Thu Jul 13, 08:35:00 AM:
Thankyou for the sobering analysis.
I can't help but remember Assad's protests a few years ago ... "I'm an opthalmologist, d@mmit!, not a tin horn dictator ..."
By 
, at
Thu Jul 13, 08:54:00 AM:
TH,
Very interesting analysis.
Whatever happens, we will be committed to back Israel's play - even if it is war with Syria.
Signalling that we are prepared to do that might get Syria to reign in their dogs in Lebanon.
Iran is more problematic - Israel can reach them with air assaults and covert ops, but a conventional ground assault mean we effectively commit to war with Iran as well.
We may go to war if Israel pushed and if Iran remains obstinate, but the more I think about it, the more it difficult it appears. Factors for us include - the effects on Iraq's stability, logistics, the expense (in blood and gold), the capability of Iran's army (we should expect both more competence and motivation than Iraq's), the state of our military (are we ready? if not, how long until we are?), and what do we do with Iran after we win?
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Jul 13, 12:08:00 PM:
Thanks for the analysis, Hawk, I'm having a hard time (a) getting my head around this escalation, and; (b) finding anyone who can talk about it with any authority/competence.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Jul 13, 12:42:00 PM:
Maybe Israel doesn't attack Syria because she's more interested in finding her soldiers than trying to start WWIII. One hopes.
I don't buy this "Iranians started it" theme. I think it's silly. But in addition to the distraction, they gain a lot of influence. Not so much on the international scene (though our calling on them as a powerbroker could help internationally), but in Iraq. Jews are killing Shia, and honestly, they're good at it. How does that play out in Iraq? I'm going to guess bad for our occupation and good for the Iranian influence in Iraq.
