A New Thread fot the Current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon mess

And so it was and is logical to compare forces.

And in this case, if there is an engagement, Syria will come out a loser militarily in any force-on-force action with the IDF.

Iranian threats of force, on the other hand, aren't immediately relevant to IDF action in Lebanon. Iran has no way to project power other than through arms shipments and irregulars, the interdiction of which is one of the current action's goals. So while one can take whatever the crazy Iranian leader says seriously about "crushing" Israel, the IDF doesn't have to launch any immediate sally at Iran.

What I did reference above was the outcome of a potential Iranian beatdown administered by US forces, for any number of reasons.

Now their are plenty of people in leadership within the US, probably in government and the military, who think Iran has a beatdown coming. And they have thorough plans ready to go relatively quickly to apply it. But it's across the theatre, in a manner of speaking.

Whether or not this would happen and when, and under what conditions, is still wide open.

Coincidentally, and I really didn't know, like you, that it would escalate so quickly -- from my blog entry re Ultimatum, the game, yesterday, this excerpt:
====
Under "Uncontrollable Crisis Area Events," Ultimatum provides a deck of shuffle cards with various unpleasant and strongly negative outcomes. "At the beginning of each game turn, the American player should role the die. If a six results, the top card on the deck should be turned over and its instructions [applied]." Example: Israel invades Lebanon, bombs Beirut and . . . "
=====

Gallow's humor.

Fact: Iran funds and arms Hezbollah. It doesn't get more direct than that.

I'll go out on a limb and say that we've already seen the worst ... it looks like Hezbollah can't re-arm any time soon, so if they're dumb enough to keep launching 100's of rockets/day then they'll run out of firepower in a couple of weeks. Their Beirut headquarters have been destroyed, so hopefully Israel has no more plans to attack there. I think these "open war" declarations by Hezbollah are a sign of desperation -- they're in no way prepared (or were expecting) an extended conflict and are resorting to scare tactics to mask the fact that they can't keep up the intensity of their attacks for much longer. At that point, cooler heads will prevail, although I can't see Israel leaving south Lebanon any time soon -- as in, not any time in the next year or two.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship_8;_ylt=AnRcUif6o_bCiI3jncsFVcoUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Another explicit Iran link (if proven true...)

Ok, so that implicates the U.S. directly in about half the wars of the last few decades.

Stratfor is in overdrive. Excerpted from their latest:

The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.

Hezbollah's strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.

The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there.

---

We are in a relatively quiet spell (emphasis on quiet). Both sides have made their strategic decisions. Both know how the war will be fought. Hezbollah thinks it can give as good as it will get for a while, and will ultimately be able to regroup for a guerrilla war against the Israelis. Israel thinks it can immobilize and crush Hezbollah quickly and decisively and will be able to withdraw. Both sides know Syria is the wild card, and neither is quite sure how it will play its hand. One side is wrong in its expectations about the outcome. That's the nature of war.

I don't see how it can result in a WWIII 10-countries vs. 10-other countries kinda thing

That's a pretty specific definition of World War III. I think many of us use that phrase to mean simply a non-localized war, or one with a different level of destructiveness. If Israel strikes Syria, or Iran, both of which seem reasonable possibilities, does the rest of the world stay on the sidelines? Do we see stepped-up attacks on US targets? If so, do we see a "moderate" US reaction? As has been noted above, I think most of us believe that the US has already decided it wants to strike against Iran, the question is just when. "Now" is both the best and the worst time. And what happens then?

https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php?

Dude, Iran is fucked. I don't know if they started it, I certainly believe they're up to doing so. However I think you've got Israel's objectives dead wrong.

I normally don't consider myself a leading conspiracy nut, so, I can't be the only one thinking this way. The only way these events make sense, in terms of the expenditure of arms and lives, and the increase of risk, is that someone needs a justification to end Iran's nuclear development programs. Someone. Some mystery party. Who could it be? (NB I'm NOT saying knocking out Iran's nuclear development isn't a worthwhile goal).

But then, I always thought Iraq was primarily about securing energy resources. Boy, was I glad to be proved wrong.

Somewhere, Dick Cheney is trying to link Hezbollah to N. Korea.

Neither the US nor Israel have the resources to invade Iran. It's gotta be airstrikes or back to the bargaining table.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), July 14th, 2006.

Well, their meeting has provided one of the stupidest quips Bush has ever uttered. Another one for the record books:

"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.

Putin's droll response: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

Mitya OTM re: WWIII similarity is meant broadly as a larger conflict escalatingly out of a (seemingly) localized incident.

anyone who directly instigates a conflict involving both the US and the Israeli military is gonna get there asses handed to them on a silver (probably highly irradiated) platter...

Like Saddam got his ass handed to him? There's a lot of comparison between Israeli/US vs. Iranian/Syrian military power in this thread, and, sure, we can handily crush nearly any country we like in the region, but can we manage the fallout? I don't feel comforted anymore by the "If all else fails we can bomb/invade them" shibboleth. And do we really want to drop a fucking atom bomb on Iran? That will really dissuade N Korea from pursuing nuclear arms (axis of evil, two down, one to go!).

New question: What are the chances that insurgents in Iraq are headed West to join Hezzbolah in fighting? Cause those guys get wet at night dreaming about engaging Israel in armed conflict.

Israel has issued its demands for ceasefire, but it doesn't sound like Hezzbolah's biting.

Cover story on this week's Time: The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.

We should be so lucky. We're still going to have cowboy diplomacy, except instead of John Wayne it's more like Joe Buck.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738739.html

Part of me sees this cross-border fighting continuing on for a few days. Lebanon is thrown back 30 years, Israel decides it's taught someone a lesson and stops the attacks, whatever, and we're just back in a stalemate with more bad blood on both sides. At least let someone come out of this with a different perspective.

... I agree, but this is ruling out some massive war mobilisation on the part of the US. Which I don't see happening without a direct attack on the US, but then stranger things have happened.

The militant group Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the attack on Haifa, saying it was responding to overnight Israeli airstrikes inside Lebanon.

Shortly after Haifa was hit, the head of Israel's northern command, Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, warned civilians in southern Lebanon to head north because "in two or three hours we are going to attack south Lebanon heavily."

CNN's Alessio Vinci described the scene in the southern part of Beirut as "utter destruction," with buildings collapsed and large areas devastated. (Watch devastation in southern Beirut -- 4:30)

The Israeli military said the airstrikes hit buildings where Hezbollah members lived and worked.

The Associated Press reported that the airstrikes reduced entire apartment buildings to rubble and knocked out electricity in parts of Beirut.

Earlier, journalist Anthony Mills said he heard at least six bombings near the Lebanese capital between 11 a.m. and noon (4 a.m. and 5 a.m. ET).

Lebanese officials said Sunday that 104 people have been killed and 286 wounded in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants that began Wednesday.

A total of 12 Israeli civilians and 12 Israeli military personnel have been killed since Wednesday. More than 100 others have been wounded.

The AP reported Sunday that an Israeli airstrike in the southern port city of Tyre killed nine civilians and wounded 42, according to security officials, and that five of those killed in Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon on Sunday held Canadian citizenship.

In the attack on Haifa, one of the Hezbollah rockets hit a railway depot in the city's industrial zone, killing at least eight and wounding 17 others -- six of them seriously -- Israeli medical services said. (Watch train depot shattered by rocket -- 2:29)

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Sunday that his fighters still have plenty of weapons and the will to keep fighting.

"Our fighters are ready, and they love the confrontation and have the determination to defeat," he said in a televised address in Arabic to the Lebanese people.

"And as we surprised [Israel] in the sea, and as we surprised them in Haifa, we will surprise them with what's beyond Haifa," Nasrallah said.

He accused Israel of attacking civilian targets, while insisting that Hezbollah was patient and has aimed its rocket attacks only at the Israeli military.

"The enemy does not know our capabilities," he said. "The Zionist enemy is ignorant of what we have on all levels. We are still in the beginning, and the Zionists will see."

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said the attacks on Lebanon will not end until Israel is sure "the reality will change" so there are no threats on Israel by Hezbollah.

Peretz spoke in Haifa hours after the Hezbollah rocket attack.

"Everyone who has attacked and harmed the city of Haifa and the Israeli home front will pay a very expensive and costly price for this," Peretz said.

Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said the missile contained Syrian ammunition.

"The Iranians supply Hezbollah with weapons and technology," said Mofaz, Israel's former defense minister. "Syria is taking part."

The weapon was a Katyusha rocket with a range of 35 to 40 kilometers (22-25 miles), Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Miri Regev said.

Iran rejected a similar Israeli assertion that it supplied Hezbollah the missile that struck an Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon on Friday, killing four Israeli sailors.

The Israeli military found the bodies of three of the sailors Sunday. The body of the fourth sailor had been found the day before.

Rockets also hit the northern towns of Akko and Nahariya on Sunday, and residents of northern Israel were told to take cover in bomb shelters. (Watch fear gripping Israeli towns -- 1:45)

Meanwhile, a U.S. military team has arrived in Beirut to assist in the evacuation of Americans trapped in Lebanon by the fighting, the U.S. Embassy confirmed. (Full story)

Israel on alert as far south as Tel Aviv
The Israeli military warned residents as far south as Tel Aviv to raise their level of awareness, as the country is on alert against conventional weapons, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli military said Hezbollah has fired more than 450 rockets into northern Israel since Wednesday.

Speaking before his weekly Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the attack "will have far-reaching implications" on Israel's relationship with its "northern neighbors."

A spokesman for the Italian government said Lebanon has been given a list of Israeli conditions for a cease-fire that includes the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah, the withdrawal of the group from south Lebanon and an end to rocket attacks on Israel.

The conditions were relayed to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in a phone call by Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, according to Italian spokesman Silvio Sircana.

Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. The group holds 23 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament. (What is Hezbollah?)

Other developments:

Israeli forces bombed the Jiyeh power plant south of the Lebanese capital early Sunday, sending plumes of smoke billowing across the sky, Lebanese army sources said. The sources said they had no report on casualties in the strike. Israel also struck northern Lebanon near its border with Syria.

Israeli forces redeployed to Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza early Sunday to halt Qassam rocket launches, the IDF said. The Israeli military moved in after launching three airstrikes overnight Saturday to quell "terror infrastructures" in northern Gaza. (Full story)

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called the Middle East peace process "dead." Speaking at a news conference after a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt, he said the peace process failed "because certain powers have given Israel every capacity to do whatever it wishes."

The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's military check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seems to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinians have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

This article speaks of the "chilling" message sent to Palestinians and Lebanese:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11741

Israelis were already sent that "chilling message" many years ago. Palestinian militants have long considered Israeli civilians legitimage targets and have openly expressed desires to kill as many as possible, women and children included.

What will come of this, if anything?