|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
This is what is puzzling me, unless there is a full 180 reversal of position of Hezbollah, will Israel just keep dropping bombs on Lebanon, I mean they will soon tire of bombing the same targets and then what's left. Hezbollah is not getting hurt by this. Israel may be seeking an uprising against Hezbollah by Lebanon at large, the reality is the issue is far more complex given Lebanon's history and past conflicts, its a juggling act within that nation itself. I still think this begins and ends with Iran but Israel isn't touching them. I don't see how the Lebanese government will survive this scenario and who benefits the most from the collapse of Lebanon. |
Yeah. I understand the Lebanese having bad feeling towards Israel cause of the years of occupation. But didnt Lebanon know going into this that they dont have a chance.? And if it was Syria & Iran pushing Lebanon to do this why would they throw an ally to the wolves.? Unless the got something up thier sleeve. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
This is what is puzzling me, unless there is a full 180 reversal of position of Hezbollah, will Israel just keep dropping bombs on Lebanon, I mean they will soon tire of bombing the same targets and then what's left. Hezbollah is not getting hurt by this. Israel may be seeking an uprising against Hezbollah by Lebanon at large, the reality is the issue is far more complex given Lebanon's history and past conflicts, its a juggling act within that nation itself. I still think this begins and ends with Iran but Israel isn't touching them. I don't see how the Lebanese government will survive this scenario and who benefits the most from the collapse of Lebanon. |
I can't see Israel wanting the collapse of Lebanon itself.
That's just a whole other scenario much like the States are in atm with Iraq.
They'll probably just find what they need to find and hopefully that'll be it.
Now as far how long that's going to take is another question...
I have to give credit to Israel for keeping this all within' Lebanon's borders atm too.
They could have easily escalated this much, much further if they wanted too (militarily) but they are, for now, playing this spot on. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
just who and what i am... |
respect.
be safe |
|
|
| A.J. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I have to give credit to Israel for keeping this all within' Lebanon's borders atm too. They could have easily escalated this much, much further if they wanted too (militarily) but they are, for now, playing this spot on. |
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah they are showing a lot of restraint. They should just bomb the whole region instead! :rolleyes:
Destroying all of the civilian infrastructure in Beirut, Lebanon because of the actions of a terrorist group in that country is really kind. Israel has been so KIND!!!! They have been so nice to the innocent civilians, i mean, they could have been a lot worse, but for now, taking out their roads, power and international airport has been spot on!
Give me a ing break. |
|
|
| Dj Alex (ISR) |
| quote: | Originally posted by A.J.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah they are showing a lot of restraint. They should just bomb the whole region instead! :rolleyes:
Destroying all of the civilian infrastructure in Beirut, Lebanon because of the actions of a terrorist group in that country is really kind. Israel has been so KIND!!!! They have been so nice to the innocent civilians, i mean, they could have been a lot worse, but for now, taking out their roads, power and international airport has been spot on!
Give me a ing break. |
At least someone supports Israel.. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| 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. |
|
|
| Goashem |
| quote: | | 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 |
Epicurus, maybe you can shed light on this for me as a lebanese. israel has been targeting alot of civilian infrustructure, there was alot of civilian causulties. wouldnt that skew the lebanese opinion against israel? and see the hezbollah as heroes that stand up to the bully? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abhay
Economically, India is a lot more closely tied to teh west than Iran any day.
Believe me. |
At the moment, but that is debatable, once they start building that new shiny 4billion dollar pipeline from Iran through Pakistand to India the US wont be a convinient ally anymore. You also have to take into account the deals that India and Iran have over Natural Gas, they're in the millions of tons of natural gas. So more or less India is becoming dependant on Iran for it's energy and they have publicly expressed that
"nothing will get in their way" when it comes to strenghthening their relationship with Tehran.
Link
Link2
Pakistan is more or less in a similar scenario when it comes to choosing who they would side with when it comes to the US-Iran.
Link Link2
Given the current situation where India and Pakistan, which in my view are the two strategic players that need to be on board with the US/Israel if they are to attack Iran/Syria, given that they are more inclined to either not act, or provide very ambivalent support given that they've more or less acknowledged that they are friendly with Iran but they probably still want to keep some degree of neutrality as to not become direct enemy with the US. Given this current situation i believe that an attack from the IDF on Syria/Iran unless the US gets on board would be an utter failure. And this is in the best case scenario for Israel, where India/Pakistan do not get involved and side with Iran. In the worst case scenario where India/Pakistan side with Iran, Israel would just be utterly crushed, and the US would not be able to get involved or would just have no leeway given that India/Pakistan have nuclear weapons and a war against them would not be viable.
I guess we will have to wait and see, but for those that are wondering why Israel have not touched Iran/Syria just take into account that they are probably aware of the current situation with India/Pakistan and are restraining from escaliting this in a scenario where they just have no chance of winning or coming out uninjured.
k, now with pictures! So that you can get a better idea of the geo-politics behind this.
This is how its colored, Burgundy -> Pro-US or US controlled territory. Bubble Gum Blue -> Well its ovbious now isnt it. Dark Grey -> Swinger Countries, depending on which way they swing is more or less how the bigger conflict will be determnined. Orange -> Slight opposition to the US on engaging in military operations in Iran. For some of the other countries i dont know if anyone has any info on they're standing. For example Saudi Arabia and Kazahkstan? |
|
|
| skot_e |
| something i noticed on the news last night with the map is that Syria is on the border of Israel- wasn't aware of that. So why then would Syria be getting Hezbolla to attack ie why not just do it themself? Could it actually be that they are not prompting this, and that Hezbolla is acting off their own bat? |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
something i noticed on the news last night with the map is that Syria is on the border of Israel- wasn't aware of that. So why then would Syria be getting Hezbolla to attack ie why not just do it themself? Could it actually be that they are not prompting this, and that Hezbolla is acting off their own bat? |
Maybe cause Syria wants to stirr the pot but doesnt want the finger pointed directly at them. i also dont think Syria would wanna look like the culprit because it can bring real war to them & Israel would prolly win. |
|
|
| cluBBer |
| NASRALA (in russian it means , "she had a " I think he was born that way ,when his mother had a good ) WILL SUCK OUR DICK |
|
|
| dennis |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
WTF???are you on crack?how are they suppose to get the out of the way when there is no way to get out in the first place?:rolleyes:
the terrorist regime of Israel doesnt give a what anyone thinks of them nor will the listen to anyone. |
Your just pissed cause Iran is next :haha: |
|
|
|
|
