Starting with the Middle East
- Over night (by our standards), the Israeli Air Force struck at Beirut's main airport, effectively shutting down the place with attacks on all three runways. In retaliation, Hizballah forces have struck at towns, and an Arab village as well (poor blokes), in Northern Israeli. The strikes were missile launches conducted across the border; Hizballah had threatened to shell Haifa if Lebanon was hit and though that has not yet come to pass, I think these attacks were a substitute. Apparently no one was killed, but one civilian is in critical condition.
- Also from CNN, Israeli forces have struck at a military airfield in the Bekaa valley as well as instituted a naval blockade. All of this is clearly designed, as the IDF indicates, to "block the transfer of terrorists and weaponry;" strikes on nominally civilian targets such as the Beirut airport also indicate that Olmert's government is linking the Lebanese government with Hizballah, meaning that this isn't a war on Hizballah the terrorist organization but rather on the Lebanese state in an attempt to rid it of its parasitic terrorists.
- On the other front, an Israeli airstrike that killed nine civilians (and thus was widely condemned) seems to have also at least partially accomplished its goal: one Hamas military leader is reportedly paralyzed and apparently others were killed in the same strike. The onus for the civilian deaths is not on Israel for dropping the bomb, but on the Hamas leadership for secreting themselves among civilians without regard for those lives, typically callous and cowardly behavior on the part of terrorists.
- With all of their usual balance, the New York Times headline their coverage of all of this "Once Again, Gazans are Displaced by Israeli Occupiers." Why do I ever expect any better?
- Two interesting comments on a more strategic level are worth noting. First off, the Captain wonders "Is Lebanon the Right Target?" He's on to something, considering it's still Damascus directing Hizballah, and through them the Lebanese government, and thus Israel might benefit from pressuring Syria more than its current offensive. But having said that, I feel that Israel must first take care of the short-term immediate threat, namely Hizballah forces built up on the Israel-Lebanese border, before turning the pressure onto Syria. Also, attacks on Syria would provoke even more crisis and potentially a wider war. But reports of Israeli mobilization and reserves being called up indicates that such action may not be far away.
- Second, and more ominously, it's becoming the view of the conservative blogosphere (myself included) that what we now have on our hands is a proxy war against Iran, cover for them as they desperately try and obtain nuclear weapons. They tried stalling but it looked like we might get enough courage up to actually threaten sanctions, so they've launched other operations to distract. Multiple sources here, one of the best comes from Powerline:
1. Iran is trying to build a bomb and moving fast in those efforts. Who knows how long it will take, but the Manhattan project took us less than 4 years, starting from scratch and without computers or prior technology. Difficult to believe that it will take Iran (which has already been working on this program for a number of years) 10 more years to complete. I just have no faith that the Iranians are that dumb.
I'd add to that this thought: if, as this author asserts (and I believe) there are significant links between Tehran and the Taliban, and indeed it appears that Iran gave refuge to shattered Talibani forces after our intervention in Afghanistan, is it too much of a stretch to suggest that they're linked up with Al Qaeda? From there, is it again too much of a leap to suggest that along with the rest of their marionettes, they were behind the Mumbai bombings? I don't think I'm coming across as a conspiracy theorist here, just as a realist about the long, often discrete, reach of the mullahs.
2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.
3. Iran has a close patron relationship with Hezbollah.
4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
5. Iran supports and/or controls some of the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.
6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.
7. Hamas and Hezbollah know that Israel must militarily react to the recent kidnaps and attacks and that their actions will ignite, at a minimum, a low level military conflict/incursion by Israel into the Gaza and Lebanon.
8. Any military action by Israel will naturally to draw knee-jerk and harsh international criticism of Israel, regardless of the acts of the provoking parties.
9. In spite of its embarrassing missile fizzle, North Korea knows that its July 4th stunt is extremely provocative to the United States.
10. Higher gas prices (created in large part by the actions of Iran) have the American public and economy concerned.
11. Constant low level violence in Iraq, and the eager air play given such violence in the American MSM, have created an anti-war mood in the U.S.
11. Hezbollah's, Hamas's and North Korea's provocations have all occurred within a week of the date that the Iran situation is referred to the Security Council for what will likely be further endless hand wringing and inaction by that feckless organization.
13. Only two countries have the military will (maybe) and capability (probably) to possibly stop Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program — Israel and the U.S.
So here is my observation/theory — Iran has orchestrated much (if not all) of the current unrest and violence in order to: (i) distract attention from its nuclear weapons program, (ii) tie down Israel militarily in order to reduce the chances that Israel could unilaterally (or in combination with the U.S.) launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, (iii) scare the American public (and politicians) into rejecting any unilateral military option against Iran for fear of further inflaming the Mideast (e.g., "Geez, we've already got huge issues in North Korea, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't possibly afford any further foreign entanglements" or "We better not do anything to Iran, we might further inflame the Mideast, threaten our oil supply and the U.S. economy" (Lord knows we don't want to pay $%/gallon for our SUV's)), and (iv) create world furor against Israel (and indirectly the U.S.), to further raise the stakes and international opposition to any unilateral military strikes. - More on that theme from Leeden over at the National Review:
It’s war, and it now runs from Gaza into Israel, through Lebanon and thence to Iraq via Syria. There are different instruments, ranging from Hamas in Gaza to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon and on to the multifaceted “insurgency” in Iraq. But there is a common prime mover, and that is the Iranian mullahcracy, the revolutionary Islamic fascist state that declared war on us 27 years ago and has yet to be held accountable.
"You cannot escape the mullahs. You must either defeat them or submit to their terrible vision. There is no other way." Some might shy away from such apocalyptic language, but I believe he's hit the nail on the head. The whole article is worth reading. - No doubt as a result of all of this, oil prices are nearing $76 a barrel. Even if it's not in Israel's best interests, I suspect the administration might try to hold them back in an attempt to keep oil from spiralling ever higher.
No comments:
Post a Comment