QUOTE: Israel's use of systems disruption to coerce Lebanon

Israel's message to Lebanon's government through its bombing of Lebanese infrastructure: "If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."

Gal Luft (a friend of the Global Guerrillas weblog) to the Washington Post.

Note: this is global guerrilla logic (using an airpower effects based operation to accomplish it). Here's the problems with this approach.

• First, the goal of coercion must be within the capabilities of the target state (it's not in this case).
• Second, coercion like this is only useful if the objective is to get a state to give up a policy (the more ancillary it is to the state's existence the better) than to get them to act proactively -- particularly since large scale systems disruption rips down states. Lebanon is getting weaker by the day and Hezbollah is now existential to the state.
• Third, if the state doesn't officially relent and the state fails, global guerrillas can still achieve a de facto victory. This doesn't work for Israel. The failure of Lebanon only makes things worse.

IF this method of coercion is repeated in both Syria and Iran (and it looks like it will since an EBO is a war on the cheap for the aggressor and current tensions are leading in this direction), what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

According to John Robb, the United States, in its efforts to destabizie Iran, will utilize Kurdish guerrillas.

However, as spinoff from Israel's action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Turkey now asserting the right to take similar action against Kurdish guerrillas based in Iraq.

While the United States has apparently responded to Turkey by promising to curb these guerrillas, that could only be effected by offending the Kurds.

[Terence Dodge]

" In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war."

If getting access to heaven is your prime goal then this is a logical step, faith based goverments are taking note and perhaps issueing tickets. "recipe" does imply a plan which is a bit of a reach for a fast food nation.

Terence

[John Robb]

Duncan: and the point is that it is messy? Terence: ;->

[Cavolonero]

See these eyes so green
I can stare for a thousand years
Just be still with me
You wouldnt believe what I've been thru
It's been so long
Well its been so long

And I've been putting out the fire with gasoline
Putting out fire
With Gasoline

[Friendly Fire]

worth reading in full

In fact, although no one is making the point, Hizbullah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelmingly at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm’s way. Unlike Horowitz I won’t presume to read Nasrallah’s mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.

But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country’s economy.

Because of Israel’s press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel’s military installations. But Hizbullah’s rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army’s sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.

It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.

[Duncan Kinder]

John: "Duncan: and the point is that it is messy?"

The point is that it is nonlinear.

[redcurve]

“ . . . what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.”
Posted by John Robb on Wednesday, July 26, 2006

As a general rule, statements of this sort imply that ‘epochal war’ ‘from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas’ is a problem, or at any rate, an undesirable outcome.

But “failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas” is not a problem, but the solution to what will otherwise be much worse, much more intractable problems.

Engendering “failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas,” that is to say, is the goal.

A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?

Currently, Hezbollah’s main problem is how to integrate and train the tens upon tens of thousands of new recruits rallying to its banner. That fact, in itself, guarantees war without end.

That fact also represents a spectacular success for Israeli policy.

Israel needs war without end to sustain its state/military system. In every effective sense of the term, there IS no Israel other than its existing as a perpetual warfare state.

Without war, Israel implodes.

In MY view, ““failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas” simply DEFINES Israel’s strategic intentions.

redcurve

[Duncan Kinder]

"A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?"

Ceaseless war actually would not be good for American capitalism, which in recent decades has featured managing risk over manufacturing products.

This is particularly the case when the war takes surprising zigs and zags based upon factors which financial models have not taken into account.

[sammy small]

redcurve

Without war, Israel implodes.

Only by way of circling the drain of the leftist/liberal mindset.

"Only by way of circling the drain of the leftist/liberal mindset.

Posted by: sammy small"

Sammy small, evidently incapable of replying to a post with alternate analysis, resorts to insult.

Hmmmm. "Small" in more ways than one?

redcurve

[sammy small]

"In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war."

My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms. Maybe keeping the epochal war pre-nuclear would be the lesser of the evils.

We can accelerate the development of defensive systems, but ultimately we will either have to kill off the infestation or invite it in to live with us and take over.

[syberberg]

"but ultimately we will either have to kill off the infestation or invite it in to live with us and take over."

We already have. They're called "corporations" and "shareholders". ;->

Dark scarsam (in the classroom) aside, this perpetual war is what the current crop of facists need (on either side of the conflict) in order to justify their existance and hold on to power.

Of course, it's more complex than that, a good propaganda machine is always usefull, so is keeping the majority of the population in debt so they have more to immediate things to worry about than what's going on Over There (where ever "There" might be).

Keeping a relavtively large part of the population poor and illeducated as well helps, by making the Armed Forces seem attractive in the way of pay and benefits, a way out of their situation, sometimes the only way.

Sorry, strayed off the track a little there.

[redcurve]

Here’s what Professor Oren Ben-Dor said, posted today at:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1197235.ece

Yes, Ben-Dor is Jewish, born and raised in Israel, although currently residing and teaching in England.

A few relevant quotes:

Ben-Dor: “Israel was created through terror and it needs terror to cover-up its core immorality. Whenever there is a glimmer of stability, the state orders a targeted assassination, such as that in Sidon which preceded the current Lebanon crisis, knowing well that this brings not security but more violence. Israel's unilateralism and the cycle of violence nourish one another.”

Ben-Dor: “In Hebrew, the word elem (a stunned silence resulting from oppression or shock) is etymologically linked to the word almut (violence). Silence about the immoral core of Israeli statehood makes us all complicit in breeding the terrorism that threatens a catastrophe which could tear the world apart.”

“To sustain that mentality and to preserve an impression of victimhood among outsiders, Israel must breed conditions for violence. Whenever prospects of violence against it subside, Israel must do its utmost to regenerate them: . . . .”

Ben-Dor: “What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”

To repeat: “Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”

BUT; Israel’s MASTER also needs terror, and war without end. The production of offensive weapons of war accounts for in excess of 40% of all Israeli “value-added” production.

Israel’s military/industrial complex has significant links to and integration with the American military/industrial complex. Both wealthy Israeli citizens AND the Israeli Armed Forces are heavily invested in American arms manufacturers. Israel and its nearly ceaseless consumption of U.S. war material constitutes both a crucial market for the American military/industrial complex as well as a vital testing ground for concepts and strategies of combating so-called “4th Generation Warfare.”

As John Robb so insightfully wrote:

“. . . what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.”
That’s the key. Israel is driving the instability, and dragging the U.S. into it. Israel is attacking unilaterally, but trying to blame ‘terrorists.’ Israel is grabbing the lands of other people, then blaming them when they try to defend themselves.

redcurve

[redcurve]

Duncan Kinder wrote:

“Ceaseless war actually would not be good for American capitalism, which in recent decades has featured managing risk over manufacturing products.”

Well no, Duncan. Capitalism TAKES risks, along with producing new risks in the process of creating new needs.

The idea that “American capitalism . . . has featured managing risk over manufacturing products” may sound pleasant to the ears of second-year economics students but it correlates very poorly, if at all, with the actuality of U.S. state-capitalist policy.

In case you haven’t noticed, the current ‘managers’ of domestic and international capitalism in Washington and London have thrown the ‘management’ of risk out the window, and are engaged in almost non-stop risk taking.

You yourself indicated as much in your second paragraph when you said:

“This is particularly the case when the war takes surprising zigs and zags based upon factors which financial models have not taken into account.”

At a certain point, risk-takers have to STOP taking various factors into account and just leap. That, among many other things, it what led to Iraq. Bush and the NeoCons wanted the oil, so they simply took the risk, went for it, and took it. That’s not ‘management;’ that’s piracy, or buccaneerism, or theft, of old-style colonialism, or choose your favorite term.

We’re in the era of non-stop resource wars. The dominant feature of American capitalism is theft. There’s the oil; America simply takes it.

Currently, the hyper-right wing Wall Street Journal is screaming that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a ‘terrorist.’ But absolutely nobody can cite a single instance of Chavez’s ‘terrorism.’

That’s because he simply has not done any terrorism. Nobody can find any.

But he has oil. So the WSJ is preparing the ground for overthrowing the democratically-elected Chavez, occupying the country, and taking the oil.

Do you call that ‘managing risk’?

redcurve

[subadei]

"A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?"

Of course. We Americans are, naturally, a simple collection of savants that foster international aggression in the name of profit. The idea that the US is an intellectually complex system of free thinking individuals is simply untrue, fantastic even. Our Modus Operandi is simple destruction in the name of raw profit. You've hit the nail on the head now haven't you.

[redcurve]

Sammy Small wrote:

“My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms.”

That is just a fascinating concept, Sammy.

On the basis of concluding that an “epochal war” is coming, you propose to “force” an epochal war.

And after that, I suppose all that’s left is to blame the victims, eh?

And just who are they accusing of engaging in “unprovoked terrorism”?

redcurve

[syberberg]

It would appear the the Israeli soilders that were captured had actually crossed the Lebanese border:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

So, a recce troop was told to cross the border with the purpose of being killed/captured. Charming.

I also fail to see how the destruction of the UN outpost was a "tragic mistake". The IDF knows full well exactly where the UN has it's positions. It looks to me like the Israeli's way of saying "Sorry, we don't want a UN Peacekeeping Force along that border. We want more time to try and draw Syria and Iran into the fight first."

redcurve, I agree with you. I wonder how long it'll be before the IDF decides to hit Syria. I'll give it maybe 10-14 days max. What would your estimate be?

[redcurve]

"redcurve, I agree with you. I wonder how long it'll be before the IDF decides to hit Syria. I'll give it maybe 10-14 days max. What would your estimate be?"

syberberg: I would love to wade in here, to support you as you supported me, but in truth on that specific matter I honestly don't know.

Eventually, in accord with the inner logic of the Israeli program of perpetual war, Israel must and will hit Syria. Israeli provocations have been constant for years. Only a few weeks ago, as many of us will recall, Israeli jets buzzed one of Syrian President Assad’s residences.

The only comment I feel justified in making is to point out that the driving dynamic will manifest somewhat counter-intuitively.

IF Israel pacifies (that is; ethnically ‘cleanses’) Lebanon up to the Litani River,

THEN my understanding is that Israel will require some time to digest its new (favorable) strategic position. Under that scenario, Israel will forego carrying the war into Syria.

That’s counter-intuitive because, of course, it would seem that Israel would want to ‘sustain the momentum,’ militarily. However, an Israeli “success” in Lebanon can only come about on the basis of a massive slaughter of innocents throughout Lebanon, so after (if) they ‘win,’ then the Israeli-American-European-quilt-tripped propaganda machine will need to be given some time to bury the evidence of what Israel will have done to the Lebanese people.

On the other hand:

IF the war goes badly for Israel (i.e., causalities in excess of 500),

THEN, the ruling Israeli clique is, in my view, likely to initiate massive operations against Syria, the goal being to take Damascus at all costs. Causalities will then be MUCH higher, of course, but the ‘gain’ will be sold to the Israeli population as being worth it.

Wild Cards In The Mix –

I don’t think Iran is likely to try anything directly, but may try to get Sadr to put pressure on the Americans in Iraq. If intelligence chatter indicates the Iraqi Shia might stir things up a bit for the gringos, then Rumsfeld may find he has to tell Olmert to cool things down.

Up to the current moment this war as been a plus for the Republicans vis-à-vis the upcoming November elections.

BUT; if Sadr wades in in support of Hezbollah, U.S. deaths in Iraq could conceivably rise to twenty per week, and by the time November rolls around Israel’s actions could come back strongly to damage the NeoCons in Congress.

That is; just enough additional American voters will make the connection that Israel’s actions in Lebanon caused more U.S. deaths in Iraq that the Republicans would lose an extra two or three seats in the House. As things are they already stand to lose about twenty, so an extra two or three would be most unsatisfying for NeoCon plans to further roll back the Constitution domestically.

I could go on and on because there are, of course, many more factors to consider. Doubtless others will chime in. On balance, however, as far as my predictive/analytic abilities go, the waters are far too murky at this early stage to make too definite a statement about Syria’s prospects.

EVENTUALLY Israel will attack Syria, with or without provocation, but that could be a year from now.

Hope this helps.

Thank you again for your support.

redcurve

[arash sotoodeh]

Thanks Mr. Robb for this good analysis, I have a question, how important do you concider the fact that other islamic nations( like Egypt or Marocco) could put themselves against US when a war in Syria or Iran starts? That would be at all crazy having war on five nations(Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran) and trying to feel secure of terror attacks.
I could think of a reaction of the islamic world , that they once say it´s enough war , we do not accept it anymore that in the name of war on terror, one islamic nation after another is attacked. Let´s hope it comes not so far. I have this bad feeling that when Iran is attacked, US has to deal at once with whole islamic world, ok, just a thought, thanks Arash

[enigma_foundry]

My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms. Maybe keeping the epochal war pre-nuclear would be the lesser of the evils.

Israel is very conscious that these are the last years in which it can reliable be said NOT to face a nuclear armed adversary.
It wants desparately to defeat Hizbollah, and it hopes that it can isolate them by very rapidly attacking them affter they attack Israel. The attack is disproportionate, because Isreal is playing for keeps now--it needs this defeat to hope to isolate Hizbollah.

It is very risky, and they must realize their exist a significant chance for failure, but the are disparete to get this tage out of the way soon, it would appear. Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?

[syberberg]

redcurve,

Cheers for the reply, there's a lot of good logic in there. I was working on the "momemtum" side of things. Like you, I'm trying to tie the threads together and can't quite see how it will unfold.

It all seems to hinge on how long it will take for the IDF to ethnically cleanse to the Litani...

It's fairly obvious that the attack on Lebanon is designed to anger both Syria and Iran. The "Israeli-American-European-quilt-tripped propaganda machine" (wonderfull phrase!) has already rolled on to accuse Iran of ordering the capture, which I strongly doubt as Hezbollah has a history of prisoner exchange.

Iran has already said that if Syria is attacked then they will join in and, as the ripple expands, we then have to consider how Russia and China will react. Not to mention the other Arab States, like Egypt and Saudi. Egypt and Saudi being the most likely to "do something" (mainly so Mubarak and the House of Saud can retain power) to apease their respective populations.

A wild card in the US is the far-right Christian fundamentalists, who see all this as the run up to the "rapture", pushing the US Administation into widening the conflict.

Another wild card is the Iraqi military itself, will they turn against the US/UK forces if Iran is attacked?

A big wild card in the UK is the growing weakness of Blair's position. An attack on Iran by the US/Israel may well force his hand to withdraw our troops from southern Iraq.

So, Syria attacked late August/early September at the soonest, middle of next year at the latest?

[syberberg]

enigma,

"Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?"

For Israel, water. For both Israel and the US (and the wider world), peak oil.

[sammy small]

J Robb

In considering the idea of Israel accelerating the creation of a failed state (Lebanon, not its parasite Hezbollah), I am wondering what your definition of a "failed state" is in the context of your premise. I can think of quite a few conditions which could or could not put a state into the failed category.

Do you consider a state with a stated policy of violent confrontation a candidate for failed status?

Lebanon chose to accept rather than fight Hezbollah. Maybe they were just tired of their civil war and just wanted to get back to a more normal life. I guess I can't blame them. But making a short term deal with the devil never lasts long. The balloon payment is coming due. Its too bad. They chose failure quite a few years ago, just living on borrowed time since then.

If Israel can perform radical surgery without hurting too much more of their infrastructure, maybe they will be able to focus on rebuilding in a more positive direction and put the radical surgery behind them. If not, it will certainly follow what you predict.

[jimbo]

'"Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?"'

"For Israel, water. For both Israel and the US (and the wider world), peak oil."

I would also like to suggest the Neocon agenda is playing an important part in this as well. In order to fulfil PNAC objectives the Neocons can ill afford to lose power. After spending years in the wilderness I cannot help but think they are going to do everything in their power to retain the White House. If that includes widening the conflict in the Middle East, I believe that would be more than acceptable to them.

It seems to me their time is running out. There are only two years left for the Neocons. They are also facing a possible weakening in the autumn. They simply must act now in order to foster the conditions whereby one of two outcomes are possible. First would be the election come 2008 of an acceptable Neocon president. Second, far more likely in my view, is the suspension of the election process as a result of the widening conflict. Effectively keeping the current administration in power for as long as the conflict endures.

The Neocons have done an excellent job in expanding the powers of a war time president. The Rumsfeld promise of the Long War makes these powers appear to be long term. The sooner they act the sooner they may be able to ensure Neocon continuity.

I think the conflict in the Middle East is simply the tool through which they seek to control both access to oil and to retain control of the US.

[Marcello]

"Another wild card is the Iraqi military itself, will they turn against the US/UK forces if Iran is attacked?"

Even if they did it would not exactly be an earth shattering event from a strictly military point of view.The NIA does not have really useful weapons for that scenario (no high end RPGs,ATGMs and MANPADS) and is wholly dependant on the US for everything.They are basically a sort of police force with a few obsolete tanks (the same T-72M1s which were massacred in 1991 and 2003) and some APCs.All I can imagine they could pull off would be shooting their american advisors, maybe some small american unit nearby and then melting immediately into the insurgency.

[dan]

Marcello

I think you underestimate the chaos that Iraqi security forces turning against their US "partners" would create. Whilst they could certainly knock off some liaison staff and embedded advisors - a few hundred perhaps - they would also be in a very good position to take a substantial number prisoner - great bargaining chips - and would also acquire some fairly nifty US military hardware in the process. On the political level, we'd be in uncharted territory, and I suspect that all bar the most delusional Bush/neocon diehards would be screaming for the exits ( and this would include large numbers of military families ).

A big slice of US base protection in Iraq is premissed upon the Iraqi security forces running interference for them outside the perimeters, and informal accords with Shia militias to keep their powder dry ( ie the Sadrists won't attack the US military as long it stays within agreed red lines ) - take this away and US operating bases in supposedly cooler areas will become embattled very rapidly. The US may have great weapons systems, but their military is, to put it bluntly, surrounded - and if enough of the population that surrounds it withdraws its consent ( ie the Iraqi Shia ), then it will either be decimated in a bloody slaughter or suffer the "Warriors" exit scenario; either way, the US loses its army and a substantial slice of its hardware. It's a check mate situation.

If the Iraqi Shia want serious weaponry of the type that you outline, they need only visit their friendly neighbourhood Iranian quatermaster, and they will have access to all the tasty hardware that a well-armed insurgent could ask for.

[Marcello]

Some notes.I was speaking about the military situation.Politically it would be a massive blow, that goes without saying.

"they would also be in a very good position to take a substantial number prisoner - great bargaining chips"

They could snatch some of those aforementioned advisors/small units nearby, that's for sure.I doubt that it would be a substantial number and their usefulness for bargaining is questionable (remember the "we do not deal with terrorists" mantra).I do not see an entire american battalion surrendering to an iraqi battalion anyway.
They might even manage to snag an handful of TOWs and Javelins missiles that they would have no training for.But the significant stockpiles of ATGMs and MANPADS would probably be safe in american bases beyond their reach.

"The US may have great weapons systems, but their military is, to put it bluntly, surrounded - and if enough of the population that surrounds it withdraws its consent ( ie the Iraqi Shia ), then it will either be decimated in a bloody slaughter or suffer the "Warriors" exit scenario; either way, the US loses its army and a substantial slice of its hardware."

While the occupation might become untenable I doubt that the iraqis would be able to overrun the bulk of the US military.Unless they were throwing themselves at the american bases and units like the bugs in Starship troopers they cannot overcome the US firepower advantage.Some units will be overwhelmed but the majority should be able to fend off the attacks.
Without adequate antitank weapons and SAMs the iraqis will not be able to deny the americans freedom of movement for withdrawal and resupply, (although they can restrict it).
And in such a situation the gloves would come off, if they have to nuke some cities to blast a path open for the troops out they will do it.

"If the Iraqi Shia want serious weaponry of the type that you outline, they need only visit their friendly neighbourhood Iranian quatermaster, and they will have access to all the tasty hardware that a well-armed insurgent could ask for."

ATGMs and tandem warheads RPGs don't exactly grow on trees, even in Iran.The iranian armed forces need them and Hizbollah may need more of them soon as well.
There is only so much money and manufacturing capacity.

[Duncan Kinder]

One of Israel's problems is more psychological and perceptual than tactical or technical.

Several months after the Iraq invasion, as the insurgency was beginning to take off, I was then discussing the matter with my father. We agreed that the situation was beginning to resemble the 1930's-style Tarzan-type movie, where the Westerners have just moved into a native village. At first, the natives are uncertain, looking at them. What will the sahib do? But the Westerners betray some sign of weakness. Then the natives move in.

Iraq has betrayed the weaknesses and limitations of Western-style conventional warfare. This is rubbing off on the Israelis. People are looking on, saying, "Yes, Israel can make a lot of sound and fury; but what does this signify?". Despite Israel’s current robust performance, people are not that impressed.

[dan]

Marcello

Iran is neither short of money nor manufacturing capacity at present; and I suspect that their capacity to successfully reverse engineer, and then produce their own functional versions of high-end rpg's, manpads, short to medium range rockets and ATGM's has been significantly underestimated.

Add in all the kit that they managed to loot from arms dumps in Southern Iraq in the early part of 2003, and I would contend that they have plenty of the kind of weaponry that would be required to accomplish something like this.

As things stand, the routes from Kuwait to the Southern approaches of Baghdad have yet to become an IED problem for the US military. If that changes and they blow a few key bridges between Nassiriya and Baghdad, just to add to the fun, then the road-based logistics effort will quite likely be placed under very severe pressure.

More pertinently, there has yet to be a Shia suicide attack against any target in Iraq - if senior clerics give permission for the use of "matryrdom operations" then the sheer weight of suicide, car and truck bombs that would be deployed will make our heads spin. In the end, this will be the tipping point to watch out for.

[Marcello]

"Iran is neither short of money nor manufacturing capacity at present; and I suspect that their capacity to successfully reverse engineer, and then produce their own functional versions of high-end rpg's, manpads, short to medium range rockets and ATGM's has been significantly underestimated."

The question is not if they have manufactured decent (albeit not stellar) antitank weapons because we know they do.
The Saghegh RPG and the Toophan ATGM for example.
The point is that they cannot throw them around like candies because they can only churn out so many of them.From what I have heard their army is not exactly awash in them and obviously would like more.Then Hizbollah may need them soon.A decent ATGM system in particular is complex and expensive to manufacture, requiring specialized labor and machinery.Not something that can be increased in an overnight.

"Add in all the kit that they managed to loot from arms dumps in Southern Iraq in the early part of 2003"

That's the same kit the sunni insurgents have been using fo years.Bar occasional lucky hits it will not make a dent in in Abrams tank covering a withdrawing column.That's part of the reason IEDs are used so much.

"If that changes and they blow a few key bridges between Nassiriya and Baghdad, just to add to the fun"

That's what engineers are for.
Note that the situation will be untenable but the USA has simply too much firepower for an Isandlwana repeat.

[haydar]

I doesn't look to me like the Israelis are having much success with destroying the Lebanese state. Sure, the physical infrastructure has taken a hit, but I don't see the government collapsing any time soon. I would surmise that this is because Hizbullah doesn't want the government to fall, and they hold most of the cards. Hizbullah seems to have planned for this scenario meticulously, including building the necessary relationships with the other communities to to ensure that a new civil war doesn't break out. Israel assumed they would have the initiative in this campaign, but it now looks as if they are the ones who have overplayed their hand. I don't believe that EBO is going to work, though if the Israelis get frustrated enough, they could certainly bomb Lebanon back to the stone age.

I am now wondering if Nasrullah is going to take the initiative and unleash rockets past Haifa. He will do this knowing that Israel will then be forced to unleash a full scale invasion of Lebanon. Which may be what he wants.

[dan]

Haydar

Nasrallah has explicitly threatened to target beyond Haifa. I would take him at his word that they have the capacity to do so.

According to UK media, he is currently in Syria meeting with Ali Larijani and senior Syrian officials. It will be interesting to see if there is any official statement that comes out of this regarding the modalities for a ceasefire; I rather suspect that there will be. The Israelis will, naturally, reject this - and this will open the door for Hizbullah hitting further South.

[Caelan]

The notion that Iraqi military units will turn on their American partners is beyond ridiculous. The US military is the only thing holding the Iraqi government together. When (if ever) the Iraqi government is confident that it could maintain itself without the presence of US forces, it will simply ask the United States to leave, and the US will do so. (The US wants out of this fiasco as soon as possible, but has the responsibility of propping up this government until it can stand on its own)

The first priority of any government is regime survival, the Iraqi government forces attacking US forces compromises that priority. The groups that have anything to gain by attacking the US military are those that have little or nothing to gain from the success of a (nominally) democratic government. The Sunni, Shia organizations that refuse to be disarmed, and those that hold goals that are external to Iraq, such as Al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria. While these are powerful forces within Iraq, they do not control the Iraqi military.

As far as the Israel/Lebanon conflict being good for business, unless your business is energy, this is untrue. The war thus far has been pressuring investors to sell, depressing the value of markets (offset somewhat by hopes that the Federal Reserve will stop increasing interest rates). If this war turns regional, expect a major sell-off and oil prices around $90/barrel, which will increase the cost of doing business across the board, and will therefore drive profits down and create inflation.

The only country involved that would see an economic windfall because of this war would be Iran, and that is only if it can protect its infrastructure from Israeli bombs and continue to sell oil.

And syberberg, whatreallyhappened.com is notoriously inaccurate, biased, and filled with conspiracy theories. You might as well be reading Pravda or the National Enquirer.

[Adam]

Caelan,

Just because the Iraqi government wants it doesn't imply that the Iraqi military want it (thats the US controlled military who are - and remain - basically out of their depth on a wet pavement. The governments real troops, the Badr Corps and Mahdi Army, are another matter entirely). Iraq simply isn't the kind of country where we can talk about there being a meaningful entities of either government or military. There simply hasn't been anything like that since 2003. Today its more a case of influences and informal groupings, perhaps a government by nod and wink. The current Iraqi government is a blend of a number of fairly hard-case Shi'ite groups.

The recent crisis in Lebanon has meant that quite a lot of news agencies have dropped the Iraq fiasco as old-hat, because there is an exciting new fiasco to look at. Which is a shame as the farce is just beginning. Iraqs been an amusing ride, but the bad news is that the bloodbath is just getting ready to roll. With a thousand or so dead a week (proportionately roughly equal to US casualties at Antietam each week, but not featuring people in uniforms, so the West cares less) there's nowhere to go but down at this stage.

Yesterday, for example, the Mahdi army (connected to part of the current Iraqi government) and British forces had what can be described as a raging firefight complete with anti-tank missiles being shot at the British. These firefights were all across the South of Iraq and included the major locations of Basra, Amara and Diwaniyah. Basra, the critical port that keeps the entire logistics show on the road for the US and British militaries, has been a hot potato for months as rival Shi'ite, Marsh Arab, and other groups (including the army, police, and oil smugglers) shoot it out. Chicago in the 1920s was a good deal more organised.

Now generally when people are shooting missiles at you its a clue that you might have upset them. And when its part of the government its a fair guess that its the government that's upset with you. Except that its not really the whole government, just the bit that controls the Interior ministry, the police, the secret police, the torturers and so on.

The really exciting news is that the same day Bush annouced that the South was peaceful. We all know what that means - a few months ago Lebanon was a sign of what the middle east will become...

Whats been happening in Basra and the South of Iraq is a story that would need the combined efforts of the scriptwriters of Dynasty, 24, and Days of Our Lives to tell. Its a tale of lies, treachery and deception, fathers and sons and family legacies, rich and poor, oil and sports cars, assassinations and miraculous escapes, and political comedy. Not always in that order. One day there is a magnificent book to come out of this, Iraqs version of Dr Zhivago, assuming anyone would believe it.

In this weeks instalment Grand Ayatollah al-Najafi warned of the possible (read: certain) popular revolution (read: raging civil war) if the government did not address the pressing issues (read: just shoot more of the Sunnis and have done).

Najafi's not been overly fond of Sunnis since dodging assassination attempts by Sadaams people. A grenade almost got him in 1999 (he still has the scars). The latest attempt was by sniper. This was halted by an Iranian commando team; I doubt the US will be making a movie about them heroically stopping assassins in Iraq... Perhaps if they were cuter. After that, for some reason , he ignored the US orders to disband his militia and replace it with former Baathist Allawi's hench-thugs (it was rather like asking Martin Luther King to accept people in white pointy hats as bodyguards...) The fact that he's still alive means that it was a wise move.

Anyway as his statement said, in part "...we cannot restrain a revolution of the people, with all its unsavory consequences."

A Pakistani, Najafi is a quietist, which means he's pro a separation of church and state, and further that the church has no position on secular matters. This recent set of comments is a big step for him, on the order of the current pope announcing a new crusade.

Another grand ayatollah, Sistani, also a quietist, is closely allied to the Iraqi government. Sistani was closely involved in destroying the original US plan in Iraq to install Chalabi, he was also the star of the current governments campaign literature. So they'll more or less agree with him. And getting rid of the foreign occupiers was something of their campaign theme.

Their current demand is that the Iraqi government must take over security altogether from the foreign forces in Iraq. That means the US military as no other military formation in Iraq counts for much.

So we've got shootouts to make the British behave, spearheaded by government supporters, and the clerical establishment, also government supporters, are saying that its OK. And until they get complete control of the security forces their troops will keep shooting... Not exactly being subtle in the hints about leaving are they?

[redcurve]

Syberberg:

A few responses;

You wrote:

“Iran has already said that if Syria is attacked then they will join in and, as the ripple expands, we then have to consider how Russia and China will react. Not to mention the other Arab States, like Egypt and Saudi. Egypt and Saudi being the most likely to "do something" (mainly so Mubarak and the House of Saud can retain power) to appease their respective populations.”

Reply: Iran will, in all likelihood, do a bit more if Israel attacks Syria, but will still try to exercise enough restraint to forestall being directly bombed by either U.S. or Israeli tactical weapons. All in all, Iran needs still more time to build its regional position. IF Syria is NOT attacked, and IF Iran itself is NOT attacked, then in agreement with some others who have posted here, my view is that Iran will emerge from this recent cycle of violence greatly strengthened both politically as well as in its RELATIVE military strength. This will especially be true if the U.S. only keeps blabbing (while holding Israel’s coat), but undertakes no major action of its own. In that case, the U.S. will be seen as having been neutralized by the Iraqi Resistance such that it isn’t CAPABLE of undertaking any independent action.

Iran’s RELATIVE regional position is also highly likely to be enhanced, in my view, by the evident fact that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, along with other lesser players, will do nothing but squawk and run around in circles. That’s all they ever do. They NEVER “appease” their respective populations, but only repress them. Mubarak, for example, whose entire government is controlled in real time by Langley, NEVER gives concessions to even moderate let alone dissident elements in Egyptian society, but only bullets, billy clubs, tear gas, torture chambers, etc. That is the policy Washington has ordered Mubarak to carry out on an ongoing basis, going on now for twenty plus years, and Mubarak, a CIA operative of many decades standing, obeys his orders faithfully, avidly, and without question. On rare occasions he makes a few tepid anti-western squawks, but that’s only done for propaganda purposes – to enhance his “credibility” – and never has any substantive consequences.

Always during these periods of elevated violence we hear the refrain; “But what will the ‘Arab Street’ think of this or that?”

Well, the solid evidence of more that forty years now establishes that there IS no ‘Arab Street.’ The only thing that takes place out in the ‘Arab Street’ is a bunch of squawking and running around in circles. Occasionally the CIA and/or the Mossad sends a team or two out into the ‘Arab Street’ to conduct one assassination or terrorist operation or another, mostly to STOKE the squawking and running around, but also to make certain that authentic opposition never gets off the ground (by, for example, murdering authentic, indigenous, non-violent labor organizers, etc.).

Outside of that, for all intents and purposes there is no ‘Arab Street,’ no Arab public opinion, or anything else even remotely resembling such things.

HOWEVER: there are Arab operational groups, not to be confused with “Arab Public Opinion,” of which Hamas and Hezbollah are archtypes. They, of course, DO take action, which, naturally, accounts for the current muck-up.

Russia and China: They will do nothing but squawk, then look strictly to their own advantage. Neither of them are even moderate players in the Middle East, let alone serious players. To be sure, China has a presence in the MARKET in the Middle East, but only as a purchaser of oil. As such, it has no DETERMINANT role in how events unfold. That is, China can only react, but has no capacity for affecting events. As for Russia; it has very little presence in the dynamic. Russia can choose to sell a few more mid-level weapons systems here or there, or it can choose to sell slightly fewer such systems. Whether or not it does so depends strictly on its capital needs, especially in relation to its primary business partners, the German BundesBank (Central Bank; now the ECB) and the Deutsch Bank.

Other Issues:

You wrote;

“A wild card in the US is the far-right Christian fundamentalists, who see all this as the run up to the "rapture", pushing the US Administration into widening the conflict.”

Reply: Those far-right Christian fundamentalists are themselves merely reactors, not movers. Here in America they aren’t given as much credence or influence as others think they have or as they themselves pretend. True, a certain percentage of them desire the “rapture,” but the only thing those types are doing is engaging in a particularly pathetic version of public masturbation. It’s how they get their jollies. Even Bush himself looks upon them with contempt, seeing them as nothing other than useful idiots, “grunts in the trenches” of electoral politics, only stooping now and then to throw them some red meat (e.g., anti-abortion rhetoric, etc.).

Rather, the old CP quip already from the 1930’s highlights the core dynamic of U.S. politics: “Wall Street cracks the whip – Washington jumps.”

You wrote:

“A big wild card in the UK is the growing weakness of Blair's position. An attack on Iran by the US/Israel may well force his hand to withdraw our troops from southern Iraq.”

Reply: You think that’s a real possibility? I would certainly hope so, even if only as a demonstration of the inherent decency of the British people. It would be great if you could expand on that point.

You asked:

“So, Syria attacked late August/early September at the soonest, middle of next year at the latest?”

Reply: Again, at this time I just don’t know. The fog of war is still too thick. The best I can say is to emphasize that Syria will not last any longer against a combined U.S./Israeli assault than Saddam lasted in March of 2003.

It’ll be a cake-walk into Damascus for them. As such, another ‘short and splendid’ victory. In other words, ideal for a run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections.

Here’s the best I can do; Cheney bows out gracefully as Vice President (but continues to pull strings from behind the throne on behalf of the NeoReactionaries). Frist or some other Republican whore is appointed to fill the slot and is given a prominent (media spokesman) role in an invasion of Syria in the spring of 2008. The last remnants of authentic Syrian resistance are mopped up by June of that year immediately prior to the Republican Convention which nominates Great Hero Frist as its candidate. The Reps sweep into office in November of 2008 after which Wall Street’s knives plunge even deeper into the back of the U. S. Constitution and the rights of the people.

Analyzed from a perspective which focuses on the valorization crisis of western capitalism, that’s not so much a guess on my part, or even a mere scenario, but speaks to certain systemic imperatives driving the dynamic of global capitalism (specifically its finance capital sector) as we go forward toward the end of the first decade of the new millennium.

redcurve

[redcurve]

Jimbo wrote:

“In order to fulfill PNAC objectives the Neocons can ill afford to lose power.”

“They simply must act now in order to foster the conditions whereby one of two outcomes are possible. First would be the election come 2008 of an acceptable Neocon president. Second, far more likely in my view, is the suspension of the election process as a result of the widening conflict. Effectively keeping the current administration in power for as long as the conflict endures.”

“etc.”

I completely agree. The Neo’s will not and cannot relinquish power. The Israeli ruling elite, too, understands that necessity as vital for its own interests. Thus, Israel’s actions are conducted with the interests of its patron in mind.

The American ruling class has simply had it and totally run out of patience with so-called ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’ and all other such thing, all of which they view as tantamount to Bolshevistic communism. They see Constitutional guarantees of personal freedom as contributing nothing to the bottom line, and understand that personal liberties have, in themselves, become fetters on the accumulation dynamic and constraints on the exercise of ‘market freedom.’ As such they are to be swept aside. The Democrats, of course, are totally on board that program, seeking only to give it a ‘kinder, gentler’ visage.

redcurve

[syberberg]

Caelan,

"And syberberg, whatreallyhappened.com is notoriously inaccurate, biased, and filled with conspiracy theories. You might as well be reading Pravda or the National Enquirer."

I linked to that place because it had gathered reports from; The Jerusalem Post, Asia Times, Hindustan Times, Forbes, Barhain News Agency. All of which I have found to be reliable in the past. If it was JUST on the say so of the website I wouldn't have bothered. When gathering intel, I like to cast my net far and wide.

All we know for certain, is that there was a "cross-border" operation of somekind. Whether Israel are telling the truth, or Hizbollah, we'll probably never know. Personally, I trust neither side to tell the "full truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The question one should be asking here is "Who benefits the most from this?"

[Caelan]

Adam:

You seem to be confusing elements within the government with the government itself. That US forces are facing an insurgency that has infiltrated parts of the government is unfortunate, but it does not turn the government itself against the United States in a way that is being described by the previous posters.

I believe the context of the unlikely scenario laid out above is that the Israel/Lebanon affair becomes a regional war that pits the Iraqis, supporting Arabs against the United States, supporting Israel. This is made even more unlikely by the fact that when push comes to shove, the states that make up the Arab world refuse to face an existential threat to support the Palestinians. This is exactly what the scenario asks of Iraq.

For the scenario described earlier, it would require all of the militias to stop fighting one another, and start fighting Americans, or, that the Iraqi government makes a decision to oust the US through force of arms. It’s pure fantasy.

Syberberg:

All of those papers were reporting the same announcement made by Hezbollah, (in some places it refers to him as a Lebanese police officer), at any rate, the terrific weight that whatreallyhappens.com seems to place on the veracity of this story is manufactured by listing every new organization that happened to pick up the story. This is not investigative reporting, none of those newspapers was able to get independent confirmation that the soldiers were in Lebanon. The dishonesty in which WRH uses to influence has convinced you that some Hezbollah propaganda is truth.

The headline that WRH uses for this story is “The Two Israeli Soldiers Were Captured In Lebanon” in all caps. (Note the passive voice, as well). The headline should have read, “Hezbollah Claims that Israeli Soldiers were Captured in Lebanon,” or “Lebanese Police Claims that Captured Israeli Soldiers were in Lebanon.”

There is also the inconvenient fact that soldiers were also killed during the Hezbollah raid in which the soldiers were kidnapped. Knowing that Israel has paid a high premium for the corpses of their soldiers in the past, why would Hezbollah not remove those corpses? The answer is because they were not in a Lebanese town, they were in Israel and their first priority was to escape with the living hostages.

As to your question of who benefits from this:

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have the most to gain from this war. Iran’s economy is tied to the price of oil, which will certain increase because of this war. Hezbollah, and by extension, Syria can take advantage of a severely weakened Lebanese state. Israel has been embarrassed and weakened by this conflict in that it could not produce a dramatic 7-day war result. Also, the Israeli economy is suffering for this war. What Israel has to gain from this, obviously, is the destruction of Hezbollah, but only if Israel can accomplish it. If Israel fails, her neighbors won’t have humiliating defeat as its only reference in regard to dealing with the IDF, they’ll be less inclined to show restraint against Israel in the future.

Who benefits from repeating Hezbollah propaganda as truth? Hezbollah, obviously.

[Truther]

URGENT:
According to the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List, Osama Bin Laden is NOT wanted for the crimes of 9/11 See for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
What Else Haven’t We Been Told?
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”: CIA unit that hunted bin Laden closed:
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/
Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York: CIA Commander: U.S. Let Bin Laden Slip Away:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

What Do the Experts Think?
Veterans of Viet Nam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq believe 9/11 was an Inside Job. Visit the Veterans for 9/11 Truth here: www.v911t.org Scholars including Physicists, Engineers, and University Professors believe 9/11 was an Inside Job. Visit the Scholars for 9/11 Truth here: www.st911.org

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman; professor, retired USAF pilot, Viet Nam Veteran, and director of the “Star Wars” program under Presidents Ford and Carter believes 9/11 was an Inside Job.Visit Robert Bowman here: http://bowman2006.com/ Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D.; professor, former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center in Dallas, Texas believes 9/11 was an Inside Job. Visit Morgan Reynolds here: http://nomoregames.net/

[syberberg]

Caelan,

You raise some good points there. As I said before, we will never get to the exact truth.

A point on the word "propaganda". Proaganda isn't the art of telling lies, but the art of using "selected truth, oversimplified to the point a child could understand it and then repeated", as Geobels so succinctly put it. Or as Edward L. Bernays puts it: "The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda." So it's fairly clear that you give more credence to the Israeli propaganda, than Heezbollah's. As I pointed out earlier, I trust neither side, but trust the Israeli government even less given their past. So why do YOU trust the Israeli propaganda more than Hezbollah's?

Also, all the reports I've seen so far say pretty much the same thing, ie: A "cross-border operation IN southern Lebanon" and not a "cross-border operation IN northern Israel". That maybe a minor difference, but it's a very important difference. Also, Olmert said that the Hezbollah forces had "crossed the Blue Line". The Blue Line isn't the Lebanese/Israeli border as that has never been fully mapped and so is open to dispute as to exactly where it runs.

You also say: "in some places it refers to him as a Lebanese police officer". So as far as you're concerned, if I'm reading your words correctly, that the Lebanese Police Officer is actually a member of Hezbollah? Where is your proof of such?

Who benefits from repeating Israeli propaganda as truth? Israel and the Neo-Cons, obviously.

As for who gains the most overall? Certainly not the Lebanese economy which is suffering far more than the Israeli one. The Neo-Cons get to extend their "Long War/War on Terror" by having Israel go after both Hamas and Hezbollah. The American/Israeli military-indusrtial complex. The Western oil corporations will benefit far more than Iran (or any other oil exporter) from the increase in the oil price. Syrian gains will be fairly minor, as they run an increased risk of being attacked by Israel and getting caught beteewn both the IDF and the US forces in Iraq. Militatarily, Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) demonstrate that their militias are more than capable of stalling a force like the IDF and making them bleed for every meter of ground they "capture". It also says, "This is just the fighting prowess of our iregulars. Think about what our regular troops can do. Your airpower is (relatively) meaningless without ground forces to back it up."

I look forward to further discussion.

redcurve,

Thanks for outlining the influence (or lack thereof) of the Christian Far-Right. I had thought that the influence was limited, but not being American, I didn't know for sure.

Re Blair. Yes, a distinct possibility. Brown will not differ much, I feel, but he has to win over the Labour backbench MP's and keep public opinion on his side to prevent the Tory Party from winning the next election (although there again, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. It all hinges upon the outcome of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5216214.stm

Also, with the loss of a Chinese UN observer and the lack of a strong enough response by the UN, you can pretty much take for granted that China will veto any Security Council Resolutions that call for sanctions on Iran's nuclear program and certainly no chance of anything being brought under Chapter 7 which allows for the use of military force to enforce the sanctions. Blair has already had to change his postition in regard to a ceasefire and looks set to put pressure on Bush (it may work, it may not) to get that ceasefire. More here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5222288.stm

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-27T220619Z_01_L27807830_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-BRITAIN-USA.xml

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1201307.ece

Brown (currently the Chancellor) is most likely to replace Blair as PM, but if he takes the same foreign policy line as Blair stands a very real chance of losing the next General Election for Labour. It's still up in the air, so we'll have to wait for it to settle, but an attack on Iran by either the US or Israel could well be very telling, particularly if Brown supports it.

Intersting times indeed.

[Josh Koenig]

Wow, weird troll infestation.

My great lament is that there is not one promanent figure in American Public Life advocating that we let the middle-east deal with the middle-east. Take that occupation money and plow it into alternative energy and efficiency, and let the people who live in the region decide (bloody as they want it to be) how they want to govern their affairs. Or, perhaps, let the Chineese take up guard duity if they need the juice so bad.

Seems to me that all the neo-con formulations of a "they" we must fight "over there" before we face them "over here" are fantastically paranoid and somehow still ignorant of the multivariate fissures and faults of middle eastern and islamic enthnography. If the US were no longer an occupying power in the region, and no longer a supporter of corrupt regimes, there would be an enormous swell of infighting, and suddenly no reason to hate on the Great Satan any more so than, say, the Turks, who are close at hand.

[syberberg]

"Wow, weird troll infestation."

I do hope that's not aimed at me.

Otherwise I agree with you.

[Marcello]

The problem with Iran arms procurement is that they cannot be sure of what specific scenario they are going to face and tailor production and purchases accordingly.If the israelis launch a long range air attack the iranians will need good air defense systems and as many MIG and Azarakhsh (local production fighter) fighter jets they can purchase and manufacture.Conversely if instead the americans launch an air assault then fighters become useless as the overmatch will be too big to fight simmetrically.A conventional ground assault against Iraq is unlikely but they cannot rule out to be forced to do that to take advantage of some window of opportunity. In that case they will need as many T-72s, Zulfiqar tanks and Raad self propelled artillery systems as they can.Then the navy has requested and got some replacements for their worn out large surface combatants , because they cannot afford to completely lose that capability in case of conflict with neighbors but on the other hand they will be mere targets in an all out war with the USA.
In short they have to cover all their needs and cannot afford to concentrate themselves on RPGs, ATGMs and short range SAMs.

[RosOz]

What is with the Israeli soldiers crossed the border? Nasrallah says they got them over the border. There seems to have been a typo from taking Israelis across the border by Hizbollah to, taking Israelis who crossed the border. Forbes never repeated it that way again. Dr Abdul Rahman Zaidan, Palestinian Minister says Hizbollah was planning the grab for 12 months, which ties in with the fact of 3 failed attempts in the last 18 months.

I would love to know what Turkey, the USA and Kurdistan are talking to each other about. But the state of Kurdistan has to be on the agenda. And Kurdistan has to be just waiting.

Bazarni July 27 "The fight is over Baghdad," he says, "This is the problem that is happening. Yes, we are facing serious problems in Baghdad, especially between the Shiites and the Sunnis, but I cannot call it a civil war."

Kurdistan has no intention of becoming a failed state and is proving itself quite adept at getting what it wants. And its view on Turkey having a go.

Barzani on 27 july "Even if the Turkish army comes in they will not be able to solve this problem. Even if they have the U.S. military with them they will not be able to solve the problem, because the problem is a political one. We believe Turkey should think of a political solution to this problem,"

Very mild. What is being offered? Certainly ongoing US protection. And recognition by Turkey and the US?

In the absence of the central government looking like a state Kurdistan is certainly building its own. Building investment opportunities (changed investment laws to allow 100% foreign ownership), does deals with US and UK universities, talks to its neighbours.

And oil, declares the role of the federal authorities is only an administrative role confined to the handling, i.e. exporting and marketing, of the extracted oil and gas from existing producing fields. Further points out that on the management of oil and gas resources and the distribution of proceeds under Articles 111 and 112, reverts to regional if one of parties is unreasonable. And

“If that occurs, then the regions and the governorates may exercise full control over all the fields, both old and new, including some oil and gas exports, and revenue collection and distribution”

Israel, unless that loony lobs a bomb on Jerusalem, will not be a failed state.

And from watching Dr Abdul Rahman Zaidan, Palestinian Minister on our TV last night wondered what else is emerging out of this current war. He did go on, but was very definite about Hamas being very different to AL-Qaeda.

“I don't want to comment on Al Qaeda's statements, because there is a big difference between what we are trying to convey to the world and what Al Qaeda is saying.”

Blamed the US and Israel but,

‘Q….. That means expanding the war to other countries in the West one would presume, because that's what Al Qaeda has always done in the past. Are you worried that that will damage your cause as Palestinians?

DR ABDUL RAHMAN ZAIDAN, PALESTINIAN MINISTER: Partly, yes, because we all the time try to differentiate between what we are doing here, what we are living here, what we are suffering here and between what Al Qaeda is doing in other parts of the world. I'm not giving an approval to what al-Zawahiri said or didn't say. I am trying to convey the message that we are suffering here and something has to be done. We are suffering locally. We are not trying to export our problem to other parts of the world. We are not trying to exploit our problem to the Western societies. But we are trying to let the world understand that we have a just cause and something has to be done.”

And then Hizbollah

TONY JONES: Dr Zaidan, it's been reported that Israel and Hamas were actually very close to a deal that would have included a prisoner exchange and a stage withdrawal from Gaza. But then Hezbollah in Lebanon decided to take advantage of the situation and create a second conflict in the north. Since then, the world's attention has shifted away from what's happening in Gaza. Do you blame Hezbollah for that?

DR ABDUL RAHMAN ZAIDAN, PALESTINIAN MINISTER: No, I don't think there is any connection. Hezbollah made it clear that he has been preparing for this operation for more than a year now, and the timing is something nobody can predict or nobody can know for sure when the timing would be, even Hezbollah himself……. As for the Palestinian side, I know that there were some talks, and I'm close to let's say the president, and all the time there was talk about mediation from different sides to reach a agreement and secure the release of this soldier and also on the same level, secure the release of some of the 10,000 prisoners.

Importantly, I felt that he spoke of Israel as a state, a nasty one, but a state.

Some argued that Hamas would by being elected to form a government evolve into one.

And an Iran with an independent Kurdistan, an independent Palestine State and an Arab Shia neighbour would certainly have a lot more on its mind than causing trouble for others. As it is the Kurds keep having a go, and the Arabs and Azeris cause plenty of trouble.

This is certainly a system on the edge of chaos. To predict anything would seem to suggest a belief in astrology. But maybe there are some signs of order emerging.

[dan]

Adam

A few more fun situational facts for you.

The Salvadoran government is in the process of deciding whether to rotate a new contingent to replace the, IIRC, 360 troops that are currently stationed in the peaceful Southern Shia area around Kut in Wasit province.

They've taken two fatalities in the past week, if the reports that I've read are accurate; I'm sure it's just random noise and the sudden spike in fatalities is a coincidence that has nothing to do with influencing the political debate over the deployment.

[dan]

Haydar

Updated information for you: Hizbullah are claiming to have fired a "Khaibar-1" rocket at Afoula.

[haydar]

My speculation but I believe rockets falling on Tel Aviv is the red line for Israel. They will have no choice but to go to full scale invasion to eradicate a threat to their heartland, and surely Hassan Nasrullah knows this. Syria has indicated its red line is the bekaa valley, where Israel would have to go to try to finish off the Hezbullah leadership. And so we see the contours of the "epochal war" in the making.

Hassan Nasrullah has become a very dangerous man, not only for Israel but for many Arab governments. They want him dead in a bad way, but I think it's too late. From a moral level he has already won the war, and there is no erasing that.

[dan]

Haydar

I hope you're wrong, but I suspect that you're right - I'm pretty sure that Hizbullah have the capacity to do this, but have yet to exercise the option ( which, perversely, suggests that they are exercising a degree of restraint that the Israelis and Bush/Blair are unwisely ignoring, as they're still wearing their "strategic opportunity blinkers" ).

Ceasefires have been offered since the beginning by Hizbullah - and when you ignore those offers, bad things are likely to follow in their wake - as you can never be sure if they're being made from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. One of the reasons that the IDF are reluctant to get too heavily involved on the ground in Lebanon is that they must be sniffing a trap - but as you say, Tel Aviv is the bait.

It's been interesting to note the highly precise and graduated Hizbullah responses to the IDF bombing campaign - they're slowly, but surely, expanding their targetting range. This is in spite of the massive aerial and firepower dominance that the IDF can muster - which suggests to me that they've largely failed to hurt Hizbullah militarily and badly underestimated the resources that are ranged against them. Haaretz was trumpeting an IDF strike on an apartment block in Tyre ( thankfully empty ) as a successful strike on a missile command post - the problem is that Sky, ITN and the BBC have camera crews and correspondents there who reported that it was the office of a local Hizbullah official, who was not in residence at the time.

Somebody needs to step in and stop this from escalating further by getting all parties to agree to an unconditional ceasefire - but we're in a diplomatic vacuum for the moment.

[Z]

Dan, Its hard to guage what Hizbollah's plans are. From the outside it seems they might just be hoping to weather the storm and survive. They may very well be capable of strategic thinking and have plenty of resources for a drawn out engagement-pure speculation, I have no idea what Hizb's plans and capabilities are; are they acting or mearly reacting?

But if they do have a vision and are capable of hitting Tel Aviv, then likely they want to avoid massive retaliation and the blame for escalating the war. In that regard, they may be gradually targeting farther south so as to slowly expand the area of economic damage to Israel without actually seeming to escalate. In which case, if and when they do hit TA it would be less shocking and therefore draw less of a response.

Also, they may be waiting for a publicized civilian mass casualty event that gives them the "right" to escalate.

I don't know about Syria. Do the Israelis want to pick another fight and are just offering the pretense of reluctance? Or do they really wish to avoid confrontation? If the latter, are there Neocons in Washington who are pushing them into one? If Hizb is still standing and fighting a month from now, they are going to want to blame someone for it.

And how will the Syrians react to Israeli moves into the Bekaa? Will they preempt? (doubtfull) or just hunker down and hope the Israelis will go away?

Which brings up the next question. (Marcello, et Al.) Do the Syrians have any kind of air defense to speak of? If they do, they might be able to make a fight out of it. If not, it will just be Lebanon on a grander scale.

[syberberg]

Dan wrote:

"Updated information for you: Hizbullah are claiming to have fired a "Khaibar-1" rocket at Afoula."

I found this report:

http://www.tacticalreport.com/Articles/Newswires/28072006.htm