SearchUser loginNavigationCreate new accountTeam AgonistEditor in Chief: Steve Hynd ThoughtfulGlobalTimelyMixed Bag of Candy: Corner: Brian Downing's Picks: Numerian's Numbers: Who's onlineThere are currently 9 users and 1505 guests online.
Syndicate |
Full Israeli Invasion of Southern Lebanon?Stratfor thinks that Israel, who has called up their reserves, are going to move full into Lebanon and try and break Hezbollah. They reason that the US thinks this is in its interest; that from the Israeli point of view they need to the forward ground which is being used to launch rocket attacks; and that if Israeli troops are in danger of being kidnapped anyway, then they might as well put the troops out there in Lebanon and create a buffer zone to protect civilian Israel. They further argue that Israel believes that at this point they're going to be condemned no matter what by the international community and that if they're in for a penny, they're in for a pound - the consequences of condemnation are no more severe for invading Lebanon than for what they've already done.
This is a giant geopolitical game of chicken. The assumptions underlying Israeli actions (and the US concurrence with them, which I must agree appears to be happening. Bush is basically giving the ok on all of this, at least publicly.) 1) They can defeat Hezbollah. Of course this is true in terms of battlefield victories. However Hezbollah will go into guerilla mode, and after the first few waves of targetting Hezbollah institutions and leaders, suddenly it will again become the classic insurgency game of guerillas amongst the population, and every strike against them simply increasing their support. Israel will have a lot of initial victories, but I doubt it can win a guerilla war in southern Lebanon, and once in it can't easily withdraw, since the enraged population will be behind using Lebanon as a launching pad for attacks on Israel. 2) Taking out Syria's air force won't trigger a reaction from Iran. It is entirely true that Iran cannot do much against Israel. It is, however, entirely capable of doing something against the US troops currently in Iraq and of driving oil prices sky high. This attack will be perceived in Iran as something the US greenlighted. Syria is an Iranian ally, and they have a defense pact. Iran may decide, entirely logically, that Israel is a US client state and that striking against the US is the best way to strike against Israel. 3) All of this won't trigger rage in Iraq, independent of what Iran does. I ain't so sure. The other question is what is going on with China and Russia. There are indications that some sort of grand deal with them may have been reached to cut Iran loose. But I honestly can't imagine what Washington could offer Beijing and Moscow to do so in a scenario like the one above, because the entire Muslim world is going to be enraged by this. The good will lost by appearing to act on Washington's side is significant, and the good will gained by not following Washington's lead is low lying fruit. Finally - the Neocons desperately want a war with Iran. They can't out and out declare one, but they can try and arrange one. They have very close ties to Olmert's faction in Israel. It is not unlikely that they are working together wil Olmert on this. Even granting that soldiers being captured is every parent's worst nightmare, it is hard not to see the Israeli response as disproportionate to suspect it was pre-planned - that the attacks were used to justify what Tel Aviv wanted to do anyway. If Iran does react with acts of war to this - the Neocons get their war. If Iran doesn't, its two strongest regional allies - Hezbollah and Syria, are badly damaged and Iran is seen to have done nothing to protect its allies. If you're a Neocon, that's pretty much win/win. We will see how this plays out over the next few days, and weeks, but this really is a case of playing with matches in an oil refinery, and who gets hurt by the ensuing explosion may not be exactly who the firebugs expect. Their constant, and continued assumption is that Iran won't dare to confront the US directly. If they are wrong on that assumption, the price will be a real war - not some pathetic war against a bunch of insurgents, but war against Iran, when US forces are pre-deployed in the worst possible fashion. Stay tuned. Ian Welsh July 13, 2006 - 9:27pm
|
![]() Premium AdvertisingAgonist Page on FaceBookAgonist Facebook Activity |