Monday, January 22, 2007
Is Lebanon about to get hot?
Just about everybody with two brain cells to rub together believes that last summer's war in Lebanon was inconclusive, and simply set the table for the next fight. Hezbollah is Iran's primary means for waging war against Israel, at least until it can put a nuclear warhead on the tip of a missile. Israel, for its part, knows that if it has to take overt or covert action against Iran it would be best to do so without the threat of Hezbollah on its northern border. It was therefore with great interest that I read the following two Stratfor "sitreps" this morning. The first is not really news, but it leads rather pointedly to the second:
The Hezbollah-led opposition protests in Beirut, Lebanon, are expected to escalate the week of Jan. 21. Highways will be blocked and movement to the airport and seaport will be disrupted. Labor unions have also called for a general strike Jan. 23.
There has been increased Israeli military movement in the Israeli-held Shebaa Farms in recent days, Lebanese army units stationed in southern Lebanon reported Jan. 21. Israeli troop movements, according to a Lebanese military source, exceed the normal routine of troop turnover. Armored personnel carriers have reportedly been deployed, and an increased number of tanks and self-propelled guns has been observed. The Shebaa Farms overlooks the west Bekaa Valley, a stronghold of Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah.
Commentary and speculation
Assuming the report is accurate, there are at least three possible reasons for this deployment, none of which is obviously inconsistent with the others. First, Israel has seen the increase in Hezbollah's tempo of operations within Lebanon, and might be attempting to force Hezbollah to worry about its flank (or deter Hezbollah from attacking Israel again). Second, Israel might be preparing to attack Hezbollah positions in the Bekaa preemptively. I doubt this, unless Hezbollah gives it a substantive pretext. Third, Israel may believe that negotiations with Syria will be forthcoming (perhaps because the Bush administration will push for them), and believes that its leverage in those negotiations will be improved if it has mobilized in the Golan. Regardless, Hezbollah is obviously asserting itself within Lebanon, and Israel cannot allow Lebanon to turn into another rejectionist state. The risks of war have certainly increased in recent weeks.
19 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 22, 09:58:00 AM:
"Hezbollah is obviously asserting itself within Lebanon..."
The developments will be interesting to watch. Late last summer two Palestinian families went after each other with clubs and knifes at a wedding in a village near the West Bank city of Jenin. The fight broke out over a Palestinian guest's nasty remark about Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Police tried to break up the battle for three hours. Seven people suffered serious injuries during the melee.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Jan 22, 10:19:00 AM:
Another possibility relates to the recent change in military leadership. As I recall, Israel has put a new guy (name not recalled) in charge, and he may simply be redeploying based upon new strategy...which may include more action, or simply heavier defensive prep.
By 
, at
Mon Jan 22, 10:35:00 AM:
Looking at it strategically, Hezbollah is an arm of Iranian foreign policy.
Where else in the Middle East is the Iranian attempt at hegemony in trouble right now?
Where could the Iranians open a "second front" to take the eyes of the world off of its involvement in Iraq, and put pressure on the US-Shia alliance to pacify Iraq? Could Shia sympathy in Iraq for Shias in Lebanon cause the desired fracture between US and the Maliki government?
Where in the Middle East is the US a defacto ally of Sunni Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, and obviously aligned with the "Little Satan"?
So yeah, for these reasons, I'm sure Lebanon will start cookin' soon.
I blame Bush, don't you?
-David
By allen, at
Mon Jan 22, 12:17:00 PM:
re: increase in Hezbollah ops tempo
This cannot be. Franco-American UNSC Resolution 1701 was invented to prevent just such an occurrence. Those who would accuse Hezbollah of violating this sacrosanct testament to international cooperation are clearly Israeli stooges. When things go down the drain, it will be the Joooos who done it.
Of course, if TigerHawk’s supposition of increased militancy by Hezbollah while under the vigilant watchful eye of the EU’s finest is prescient, then, that would require UNIFIL complicity, once more. Has anyone called Dr. Rice?
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Jan 22, 01:57:00 PM:
Hezbollah is Iran's primary means for waging war against Israel, at least until it can put a nuclear warhead on the tip of a missile."
Tigerhawk's Alternative Universe:
Ahmadinejad: "Let's Nuke Israel!"
Mullah #1: "Great Idea! We have nukes now!"
Mullah #2: "What will happen if we nuke Israel?"
Ahmadinejad & Mullah #1: "Who Cares! Everything will be all right!"
There's no reason to think Iran is going to nuke anyone. (1) They're nukeless; (2) They're not idiots. Mutually Assured Destruction is the equation that dominates any consideration of nuclear weapons use.
The thrust of your post is interesting, and we'll have to wait and see what Israel plans to do. But the Iran fearmongering is unnecessary.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Jan 22, 02:14:00 PM:
I would tend to agree that MAD ususally works. but then screwy there's that pesky 12th Imam thing these guys have going on.
The Iranian mullahs are simply not rational.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 22, 04:32:00 PM:
Some religious crazies in Iran would happily trade half of their nation's population to defeat the U.S. and Israel.
Iran's religious leaders don't have to worry personally about an American or Israeli threat. Those guys can relax at their second homes in adjacent Armenia during the war.
A day of reckoning is inevitable without major changes inside Iran.
"The Appointment in Samarra" as retold by W. Somerset Maugham in 1933:
The speaker is Death
"There was a merchant in Baghdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jan 22, 05:46:00 PM:
Mutually Assured Destruction is the equation that dominates any consideration of nuclear weapons use.
MAD presumes rational actors on both sides.
By , at
Mon Jan 22, 05:51:00 PM:
Look at the aptly named Screwy's comments and compare them with the prediction that just like the last Holocaust, the next one will be well-prepared with in particular European and American intellectuals and the Left well in accord with the aims of the perpetrators: kill all the Jews in Israel.
This is what Iran wants, what the regime under Khomeni, Khameni, Ahmadinejad and the "moderate" Rafsajani and Khatami has stated: "wipe Israel off the map."
As one Holocaust survivor said, "when someone says he means to kill you, believe him."
OF COURSE Iran will nuke Israel the first opportunity, believing that it could certainly absorb Israel's nukes and wipe out "the Jews" and so assert world-wide leadership of Muslims (who back that project 100%).
Why do you think Iran's Holocaust Denial conference was such a big hit (and Libs here in America loved it?)
Of course Iran's Holocaust will simply be a blinding flash and slow radiation death, no Iranian will PHYSICALLY have to kill Jews as the SS did. But the effect and death toll will be the same.
Eagerly awaited no doubt by Euros, Libs, and most Dems (see: Jimmy Carter).
That being said, Hezbollah doesn't really matter. A diversion that is meaningless. If Israel and it's people want to survive they will HAVE TO NUKE IRAN, before IRAN NUKES THEM.
That's the choice. It's that simple. Ahmadnutjob or not, it's the choice. He could be gone tomorrow and that would be the choice (Pakistan has not Nuked Israel because it would open to attack by India which is gigantic, more than three times the population of Pakistan). Sadly Iran has no nuclear giant on it's border ready to attack if attention shifts elsewhere.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jan 22, 06:28:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie's prediction is based on the hope that because many, even most, of the important figures in Iran have some sense of self-preservation, that we do not have to fear the few who seem to have lost this faculty in their grandiose dreams.
When such predictions prove out, it looks obvious to us in retrospect that of course self-interested people would not be so foolish. When they do not prove out, it looks obvious in retrospect that we should have listened to what the madmen promised.
Screwy may be right. But which way do you want to guess wrongly on this?
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Jan 22, 06:28:00 PM:
Screwy - what is it that makes you believe that MAD will deter Iran. What evidence do you have?
In fact, the proliferation of suicide bombing sanctioned by Iran and Iran's conduct during the Iran Iraq war (human waves) are prima facie evidence that Iran's theocracy is not deterred by any concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. In this regard, I suggest reading Benny Morris's piece in today's NY Sun or Jerusalem Post. It is entitled "The Second Holocaust."
http://www.nysun.com/article/47111
Nice of you to be so cavalier about Israel's 7.5mm people, allies of the US, Screwy. Is it that you just don't understand certain tenets of Islam? Willful ignorance? Anti-zionism? What is it exactly? Hmmm?
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Jan 22, 07:47:00 PM:
CP, I don't want to interfere with you going off on Screwy, but how many Iranian leaders personally strapped on suicide vests? How many do you think love their children and want them to live? The comfortably wealthy powerful in Iran aren't that different than the comfortably wealthy powerful in the White House (who, btw, also look forward to a prophet's return). No one wants to lose everything that is important to them - that's why MAD works.
Beyond that, Screwy cites a principle that sustained US peace for decades, and your gut reaction is to accuse him of hating Israelis? That's a pretty cheap shot.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 22, 08:08:00 PM:
The Iranian situation reminds me of a quote from an episode of the popular Russian television show "Antikiller."
"We underestimate the danger and know we are losing," the hero told an associate. "We are losing because we are at work and they are at war."
By K. Pablo, at
Tue Jan 23, 09:01:00 AM:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah... I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant..."
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
Speaking in Qom, 1980
By , at
Tue Jan 23, 02:54:00 PM:
Shochu John,
Interesting analogy back at you. What did it take to finally convince Imperial Japan that is was defeated, even after her overseas armies were defeated, her Navy sunk and many of her cities firebombed, with horrific loss of civilian life. What was that weapon again??
And the Iranians used human "volunteers", i.e. teenage boys, to clear Iraqi minefields to get at the Iraqi army, repelling their "invasion". That was real military professionalism.
-David
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 23, 03:16:00 PM:
You don't meet any warmongers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki these days.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 23, 04:35:00 PM:
LB and SJ:
MAD is premised on the notion that a nation is unwilling to sacrifice a substantial portion of its population to launch an attack. The entire underlying philosophy of suicide bombing is premised on the antithesis of MAD. That is, one is prepared to give one's life to take another. In large numbers. Islamic theology, strictly adhered to in a theocracy (after all) supports this latter philosophy and specifically repudiates MAD. One's own "destruction" on earth leads to paradise, if in pursuit of jihad and the elimination of Jihad. That's their scripture guys. The Soviets didn't do scripture. These guys do.
There is absolutely no basis to support the notion that MAD will deter the Iranian theocracy. In fact, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Completely. I didn't accuse SH of antipathy towards Israel. I merely asked why he would draw the conclusion he has drawn, if the evidence rather obviously refutes it. At a minimum, I would expect you guys to say, hey, I don't know what these guys would do. But to assert that MAD would be a governing philosophy of the Iranian theocracy has to be wrong. At best, it's an known. Why make the assertion? Why? Huh?
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 23, 04:36:00 PM:
correction: meant to say "elimination of the Infidel" not repeat Jihad above.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jan 23, 09:02:00 PM:
MAD was not adopted as policy until the Soviets proved that they could indeed behave as we expected them to behave. (and vice versa) Using atomic arms was seriously discussed by both sides during the Korean War. Partly because of the following;
Mutually Assured Destruction *ONLY WORKS* if both sides have second strike capability. If you can wipe out your opponent with a first strike, that's a great reason to do it. But if he has an ability to retaliate with sufficient force to destroy you even after a surprise attack, then it isn't worth it. (unless, of course, death doesn't scare you. See below)
Secondly, deciding that the Iranian people are our style of rational is irrelevant. They don't have their fingers on nuclear buttons. The Iranian leadership, theocrats, do. And to predict their behavior, one must think like an Iranian theocrat.
Que Cardinal Park's point.
Lastly, there are other issues involved with the decision making process. For instance, the ability to know who launched the weapons. If they just appear from the ocean (i.e. a submarine) or are delivered via clandestine means (the nuclear suitcase method), against whom will one retaliate? And how will you justify yourself to the world? There are other theoretical and thought process related issues related here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_Assured_Destruction
if anyone is interested.
Just remember that MAD is a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet, not a law, and treating it as such is a mistake. And it almost failed catastrophically several times during the Cold War.
