|
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
This is a speculatory post on my part, so bear that in mind before you criticize, but after thinking about this over the past few days, the following scenario may be plausible as an explanation to this situation:
First of all, I am convinced that Hizballah's actions were ordered, or at the very least, encouraged by Syria and Iran. Hizballah usually needs to consult with them before undertaking any massive operations along the Southern Lebanese border, and this "kidnapping" opertion is no exception, especially considering the circumstances in Gaza.
Second of all, this was most definitely not a mistake or a miscalculation (in the sense that Hizballah did not correctly predict the ramifications of the situation with regards to Lebanon) as claimed in the previous article posted by Renegade, but an act that, on the contrary, was intent on eliciting an Israeli reaction of this magnitude. To think otherwise is to be naive to the extreme. Surely Syria, Iran and Hizballah have witnessed the Israeli reaction to the Gaza kidnapping before undertaking this operation, and to believe that Israel would not react in the exact same fashion (or even worse) by shelling Lebanon is plain stupid. Now, whether Syria counted on being a potential target itself is a little more complicated, but I'll get to that in a bit.
Having made the above two claims, the obvious question that begs to be asked is: Why did Hizballah do it?
If we agree that Hizballah takes its orders from Syria and Iran, then Syria and Iran must have had vested interests in ordering (or encouraging) such an operation, especially at such a tense time.
From the Syrian perspective, it is well known that Damascus is fuming about their unceremonious exit from Lebanon last year, not to mention the ongoing Hariri probe that has all but fully blamed Syria for the murder. It is no secret that Syria still wishes to exert its influence on Lebanon, and counter the US-backed Senora government in Beirut by exposing its weakness. Ordering such an operation firstly demonstrates that it still wields enough power in Lebanon to be reckoned with, but more importantly, sets the stage for a potential return to Lebanon, not in the military sense (although there's a remote chance of that happening), but in the geo-political sense, if it can quell this situation from escalating any further by taming Hizballah. Furthermore, the repercussions arising from this situation amongst Lebanese society promises to be explosive, as there is a clear divide between Lebanese that support Hizballah (Shia) and those who don't (non-Shia). Any sectarian instability within Lebanon promotes the Syrian agenda, as the latter has always claimed that Lebanon cannot govern itself because of sectarian differences, and requires their help for security purposes. In a nutshell, Syria is telling the Lebanese government: you are still weak and we can still flex our muscle, so beware. You can't get rid of us this easily. We'll be back.
From the Iranian perspective, I don't think it's coincidental that the operation occured on the same day that Iran failed to fully respond to the Western nuclear proposal (click here). Threats about being referred to the Security Council and additional Western pressure about its response were surely temporarily aleviated after this event. Furthermore, and from a longer term perspective, it allows Iran, despite its denial of being involved, to demonstrate to the US that it has many cards to play in this game. In a nutshell, Iran is telling the US to cool off with the pressure by showing it (and other nations) that it can exert its influence in the region at will and potentially destabilize it even further.
From the Israeli perspective, engaging in such a massively disproportionate military campaign against Lebanon has a purpose, and it's most certainly not to recover the kidnapped soldiers. Surely, Israel doesn't expect to "uncover" or "find" the soldiers by bombing Lebanon, and surely, they don't expect Hizballah to cower under pressure by giving them back the soldiers simply because Lebanon is under fire (they never have in the past). So why attack Lebanon then?
If the situation does not escalate any further, and normalcy returns to Lebanon in the near future (i.e. one-two weeks), the Israeli reaction will have accomplished two things: weakened Hizballah militarily as the IDF has been targetting their strongholds, and supplied the Lebanese government, whose majority is anti-Syrian and anti-Hizballah, with the necessary pretext (against the opposition) to finally disarm the militant group. The Lebanese government can now point to the devastation and say to the opposition: see, this is what happens when you don't listen to us and Hizballah is not disarmed. Furthermore, Israel is hoping to once and for all turn the public opinion tide against Hizballah amongst Lebanese (even more so than before amongst the neutrals and the undecided), hoping that the latter will add impetus and/or credibility to any governmental decision to disarm the group. As mentioned in the Syria paragraph however, Syria is hoping that this deep schism already existing within Lebanese society with regards to Hizballah is exacerbated to the point of sectarian violence, so this strategy by Israel may backfire on them, if indeed it is their strategy.
Another more far-reaching (and perhaps more far-fetched) Israeli ambition is to draw Iran explicitly into this mess at all costs, forcing the US to react militarily. It is no secret that Israel's most fatal foe at the moment is Iran, and that the latter presents Isreal with a real theat to its security. Israel must be fuming about hearing soft rhetoric from Washington regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, with Bush now trumpeting multilateralism and diplomacy to solve this impasse, instead of the threat of force, and sees a potential Iranian involvment in this mess as the key to involving the US as well. If Israel attacks Syria, as the article claims (though I doubt it), Israel surely knows that Iran will react and mobilize its troops. After having signed a defense agreement with Syria last month (click here), and after proclamations of Ahmadinejad that a strike on Syria is tantamount to a strike on the Islamic world (click here), surely Israel knows that Iran would probably get involved. If Iran decides to mobilize militarily, this would leave almost no choice for the US but to react with force, or at the very least threaten to react with force. We could then witness an escalation of this conflict to very dangerous levels, although I'm hoping it doesn't reach this far. |
Excellent analysis. I agree with your assessment.
___________________
 Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.
|
