Iran launches a pre-emptive war...
Saturday, July 15, 2006 at 6:02AM ... in the only way it can.
Behind Hamas and Hezbollah stands Iran and its proxy Syria, which is why Israel has always worried far more about Iran than Iraq.
We had a choice on Iran, and we chose to rerun the WMD dynamic, believing--as this Administration seems to--that it was simply a matter of showing that diplomacy can't work before setting in motion the kinetics sometime before the term is up.
Guess what? Iran doesn't care to wait on that timetable, and so it launches it's form of a pre-emptive war--well-timed and well-placed.
Hamas and Hezbollah know what buttons to push with Israel (snatch-and-grabs), and Israel is more than obliging, in its ceaseless quest for buffers, to play its role.
This "open war" will feature far more firepower than deaths (AP reporting 73 Lebanese and 12 Israelis so far, which is barely a decent train wreck). Israel will suffer minimally, mostly in diplomacy. Lebanon and the West Bank will suffer large amounts of infrastructure damage.
None of this will matter in Tehran, which is more than happy to exploit Hamas and Hezbollah to its purposes. Assad will do whatever seems to help most in tying the Americans up and diverting their attention from his failed regime, whose economic fortunes--as always--will rise or fall with Lebanon (get ready for a drop).
In the end, the Palestinians and Lebanese and Syrians and Iranians will remain impoverished and disconnected, Israel will remain prosperous and connected, the conflicts will seem all the more intractable, and Iran will have bought itself some serious time.
Bush is no longer running the Big Bang. You have to go faster than the current if you wish to steer in this river. Because if you don't, someone else inevitably will.
Interesting how all this seems to come down just as the U.S. mistakenly believes it's finally getting somewhere on putting the Iranian issue in the UN Security Council.
Still believe the "perfect peace plan" between Israel and Palestine is what's really holding up stability in the Middle East?
Reader Comments (14)
It goes far beyond logic to believe that we have people in the U.S. State Department, so learned and groomed, who are either unwilling or unable to grasp the dynamic of the Middle East political geography. Furthermore, there are the realities of the Asian Pacific region concerning Taiwan and Korea, which are the “Middle East” equation for that area of the world. These little guys are controlling these big guys in cowboy hats, like they were puppets on a string.
The real cowboy would head to the uncharted area and stake a claim. Instead of Homesteading (Home-Land-Security), it would affect Global-Economic-Warming. It would bring the prosperity (Dr. Barnett’s shrink the gap) to the economically uncharted plains like an injection of civilization where there is not much civility.
We had the opportunity with Iran to pop holes in their backward o-zone layers and create a warming affect that the mullah’s couldn’t have controlled. The WMD repeat only hardens and shift’s the potential of connectivity to the dark-ages of stone and rock.
Without economic advancement you don’t have to worry about Global Warming, that’s for sure. Does the president of Iran have a “RED PHONE” straight to the desk of North Korean president Kim Jong Il? Do the Taiwanese have the ability to tap that phone call?
Iran in control of events? I'm not so sure.
Bush is smiling a lot lately. He is giving Syria a hard time. Adn Iran has done him a favor by promising to get dragged in if Syria is attacked.
I'd say Iran was in charge until Israel "over reacted" in Lebanon. The reaction of the Syrian Foreign Minister screaming at the Saudis et. al. for not backing them against the Israelis is an indication.
Every one expected at worst the usual diplomatic two step. Except the leash on the dog appears at best slack and at worst broken.
For the Iranians the front has shifted from Iran to Lebanon. At least this is the hope of the Iranians. If the shrapnel begins to fall upon the Syrians though, they might get a little upset with the Mullahs. Anyway, Hezbollah owes its existence to Iran. If enough confusion ensues it will buy the Iranians time. Israel is always the scapegoat and will continue to be if we let it.
I say ignore the second front in Lebanon. Continue to burden (though slowing down the rhetoric) the Iranians about their WMD so as to allow us a diplomatic face saving (because we already started the repeat), and then ignore them when the media heat relinquishes. Let them learn that they can not dictate strategy by these lesser pawns.
This will buy connectivity time to infiltrate the mullah’s kingdom and give us time to finish what we started in Iraq with on-the-job-training of SysAdmin future potentiality.
I have not seen a better strategy presented then that of Dr. Barnett’s. I say this because of the stratagem of the United States which is clearly covert. We need a strategy that can be presented to the Americans and too the world so that we will finally be understood. In this way can we truly SysAdmin and defeat the transnational terrorists. I have not heard that clarity from the Bush Administration nor from Congress.
“Guess what? Iran doesn't care to wait on that timetable, and so it launches it's form of a pre-emptive war--well-timed and well-placed.”
I have to agree with you completely on this one especially after reading comments on other blogs, such as Aquols. I guess the next question would be: was Iran buying time as you believe or is this the start of the war?
If the snatches were supposed to end up in Iran, then I would say this is the start of the war. If the snatches were suppose to end up in Iran then, tactically, Israel would try to close that option down by closing Lebanon down. The Israelis would stop all traffic in and out of Lebanon to keep the snatches in Lebanon, or at least make them go the greatest distance and time to Iran. I guess we will see if this was what happened or not.
It is not like Israel cannot be destroyed, it would take the combined efforts of the oil producers of the world to bring it about. So far the oil producers of the world seem unwilling to do this, cut off the world supply of oil to spite their faces. The exception seems to be Iran, of course.
If Iran plays by chess instead of checkers, then the move on Hezbollah’s part was made for a reason and your answer seems to be a good one. Iran is buying time to develop a nuclear military program.
If what I read is true, Iran (Persia) invented chess, then the thing about chess is that not everything is what you see. Some things are hidden in plain sight. I mean even when you are able to see all the pieces, a pawn can become something else and a straightforward move can turn into a castling of players. What I do know about chess is: Iran would not start the game without all of its pieces on the board, if this were the start of the game of chess.
Iran has had some sort of influence in Lebanon since the bombing of the U.S.M.C barracks in Beirut. Need I say more?
The train of history is rolling again. It is almost August (1914)! The short war dynamic will no longer hold in the mid-east. The scorpions are going to be crushed.
I think Mr. Barnett is a little cynical about all this. Iran isn't "buying time", if the Israelis do what is right, and defang Hizbollah. And Hizbollah is committing suicide, if they fully respond to their Iranian paymasters, as they appear set to do. The "international community" is tempering their comments to a degree that I haven't seen in my 40+ years watching this stuff. They know what Israel is doing, and they welcome it, obviously. And they won't make the same mistake they made in Iraq, they'll jump in after the action is completed, and get involved.
This move is a sign of Iranian desperation and weakness. If sanctions come, they will bite them hard, and they know it. And the slugs over at the UN are moving inexorably towards sanctions, as we saw last week.
The Israelis will pause for a bit more, prep the battle space, and allow US carrier battle groups to transit to the area, to respond to any WMD threat originating from the Bekaa or elsewhere (including Iran). Then they'll strike Hezbollah, and the world will quietly applaud. The arab thugocrats then need to presuade Assad to switch allegiance, and we'll all need to give him some security guarantees, and some help, and finally peel Syria away from Iran. We have many opportunities here, we just need to recognize them, and take advantage.
Bush isn't trying to "stay with the current", he's trying to allow an ally to kill islamofascists, which is what he wants, even though this generally involves swimming UPSTREAM, as we too often see, unfortunately. Israel is finally being accepted by the "international community" as a force multiplier, and all because of Bush's prescient quote: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".
I think that the over-reaction by Israel is intended to provide the bush administration with an easy excuse to get thrown into the briar patch and attack Iran. The administration can't get a UN Sec Council resolution past the Chinese and Russian vetoes.
Here in the US, we've gone into some medieval mode where everything is blamed on Iran, as the New Witches‚Ñ¢. How long before global warming gets blamed on Iran because they sold oil? Any unknown fear gets automagically projected onto Iran. Enemies fighting smart? Must be Iran's fault. Enemies using modern technology? Must be Iran's fault.
Alternatively, the election year dynamics prevent the administration from any criticism of Israel. Between the neocons, the evangelicals and the pro-Israeli lobbies, there is no maneuver room for the administration. So Rice's remark where she suggested that Israel show some restraint becomes the sharpest possible rebuke. If it is a rebuke.
"Iran has had some sort of influence in Lebanon since the bombing of the U.S.M.C barracks in Beirut. Need I say more?"
Ah but you do need to say more, such as relating how our marines got into Beirut in the first place. A 1982 Israeli invasion, very much against Reagans's wishes. Hezzbollah emerged in 1982, NEED I Í SAY MORE?
And you need to relate who knew about the attack on the marine barracks and didn't tell us: Mossad.
Why in the world I simply accept the contention that Iran is running things after all the equally "slam dunk" nonsense we were told about Iraq? The more CNN trots out Israeli "experts" the less I believe any of this, especially with former AIPAC employee Wolf Blitzer orchestrating the "dialogue."
I'd say that the kidnapping of the soldiers was more opportunistic than planned. In fact, it was probably 100% opportunistic. Both sides are in a quasi-continuing war, although they rarely ever have direct military confrontations. I would guess a Hezbollah officer near the border saw a chance to snatch a few unprotected soldiers and did so. They would then be used as bargaining chips with the Israelis to release jailed Hezbollah members.
But, Israel responded much more forcefully than expected and we have an open war on our hands.
The question at this point isn't "Why did Iran/the US set this up?" They didn't. The real question is "How will Iran/the US react to this or take advantage of it?" Things often happen without some conspiracy of higher powers, though those powers are remiss if they don't try to work things to their advantage.
Of course, I don't mean to entirely rule out the possibility that Iran pulled some strings with Hezbollah or that the US pulled some strings with Israel. I just see such scenarios as less likely than a spontaneous chain of events.
"Iran doesn't care to wait on that timetable, and so it launches it's form of a pre-emptive war--well-timed and well-placed."
Israel began the festivities on both fronts (assassination in Lebanon on May 26, kidnapping in Gaza on June 24).
Hammer Hiz'ballah? Take the sting out of Assad? Really, I feel we are missing the point here. Tom Barnett is spot-on is his analysis of where the situation is coming from, but fails to close up with the killer punch. If the general consensus is that Iran is testing the waters via a proxy-war with Israel, then the West (US and Blair) should take pre-emptive action against the Mullahs. The rest of the Arab world will breath a sigh of relief at an early exit of Ahmadinejad, Syria will have to seriously reconsider it's options and the Israelis can clear out the Bekka Valley and broker a better deal with Hamas for a permanent peace.
All in due time, Noel, all in due time. No need to go for the heavy push against Iran, as long as you're winning on the smaller fronts. That would expose us to many potential negatives, and it's not a first choice action. Remember the Reagan doctrine. You push back in many places, you resist in as many places as practical. And note that the Euros are FINALLY recognizing the Israelis as a force-multiplier in this overall effort. This is the significant change here, and one we need to build upon.
If the Israelis defang Hizbollah, and the Euros jump in to help stabilize Lebanon in the aftermath, while also returning resolutely to the nuke bargaining table with Iran, we will have scored a MAJOR victory here, and not just militarily, but more importantly in showing the world who is the "strongest horse", in Osama's words.
ifyou thought attack agianst hezbollah and hamas or devastating of syria and labenon will damage iran you are wrong, iran have more another alternatives than what you imagined,dont forget iran is too aware of it's position ignoring of large pro-iranian shiat population in pakistan,afghanistan,golf countries and...on one side energy power and potential iranian relationship and thier abiltiy to make it with alqaida and other sunni groups will added to iran's opportunity to win this conflict