The next Middle East war - Hezbollah, instructed by Iran, is setting the stage for a new and bloodier conflict with Israel - By Clifford D. May -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/4/hezbollah-will-start-a-conflict-backed-by-iran/?utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed
Eleven years ago this month, Israel went to war with Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based Shi'a proxy militia. The fighting
began when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli villages and missiles at Israeli armored vehicles patrolling the border. Three Israeli soldiers were killed. Two were kidnapped and taken into Lebanon.
began when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli villages and missiles at Israeli armored vehicles patrolling the border. Three Israeli soldiers were killed. Two were kidnapped and taken into Lebanon.
They would be among the more than a thousand people killed during the 34 days that followed. Hundreds of thousands, in both countries, would be displaced.
The passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 on August 11 marked a halt to the conflict. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
was expanded and granted the authority to use force to ensure that southern Lebanon became free of "any armed personnel, assets and weapons" not under the direct control of the Lebanese government or UNIFIL.
It soon became apparent that UNIFIL would fail to accomplish that mission. Today, Hezbollah has an estimated 150,000 missiles of varying ranges and accuracy
pointing at Israeli villages and cities - about 10 times what it had in 2006. UNIFIL sees nothing, knows nothing and, of course, does nothing.
There has been one restraint on Hezbollah's rearmament: Israeli intelligence sometimes learns of Iranian shipments
of advanced missiles. Airstrikes have destroyed at least some of these shipments en route.
of advanced missiles. Airstrikes have destroyed at least some of these shipments en route.
Now, however, Iran has a new plan: Over recent months, its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been building fortified, underground missile production
factories in Lebanon.
"We are fully aware" of the factories, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman told military correspondents in a briefing
in Tel Aviv on Sunday. "We know what needs to be done . We won't ignore the establishment of Iranian weapons factories in Lebanon."
in Tel Aviv on Sunday. "We know what needs to be done . We won't ignore the establishment of Iranian weapons factories in Lebanon."
For the moment, the Israelis are giving diplomacy a chance, for example by briefing members of the U.N. Security Council, warming that the next war is
bound to be more destructive and bloodier than the last.
Among the reasons: Hezbollah's presence now extends well beyond southern Lebanon. It has taken control of Beirut's port and airfields. It is the most
powerful faction in Lebanon's government. To fight Hezbollah while sparing Lebanon is no longer possible.
In addition, Hezbollah's leaders have installed their missiles in (and under) homes, schools, hospitals and mosques. Their use of "human shields" ensures
a high civilian death toll and, incidentally, blatantly violates international law. But they are confident that many journalists, U.N. officials and "human rights" groups will reflexively blame Israel, not them and certainly not Iran for the carnage.
Another indication that Hezbollah may be preparing for a new conflict: It has set up observation posts along the Israeli border, claiming these are part
of an environmental effort called "Green Without Borders." Yes, that's right: We're to believe that Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah worries about climate change. We're not to notice that he has specifically mentioned that a leafier Lebanon will
provide better cover to his fighters should Israelis return.
A complaint Israel filed at the U.N. was rejected last week. Spokeswoman Eri Kaneko said the lookout stations and "tree-planting activities" raise no
suspicions. "UNIFIL remains vigilant," she asserted.
It seems odd that Mr. Nasrallah should be eager for renewed hostilities with Israel now, a time when he is deploying fighters in neighboring Syria defending
the Assad regime. He may believe that in Lebanon, as in Syria, Hezbollah can be reinforced by foreign fighters. In a speech last month, he threatened to open Lebanon's borders to tens of thousands of Shia fighters from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That, too, would be a clear violation of UNSCR 1701 but don't expect UNIFIL to respond.
The smart money says Hezbollah will do as the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran instruct. Their priority is to establish a Shia Crescent - an arc
extending from Tehran to the Mediterranean, with Iran controlling Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza as well.
They also are establishing a foothold in Afghanistan and attempting to spread their Islamic Revolution into the Gulf States. Tehran's theocrats view Kuwait
and Bahrain as lost provinces that, in time, must be reclaimed. They view the Saudis and the Emiratis as heretics and enemies.
Iran has begun to establish a version of Hezbollah in Syria as well. Foreign Shia fighters already are being imported for this purpose.
Tough decisions lie ahead. Israelis know that if they strike first, they will be accused of aggression. But if they wait, they may have to absorb more
- and more lethal - blows. Their missile defense system is high-tech and robust but it can be overwhelmed.
Through intermediaries, the Israelis have reportedly warned Iran's rulers not to expect to sit safely on the sidelines
should a new war erupt.
should a new war erupt.
Trump administration strategists in the National Security Council and Pentagon are not oblivious to the storm clouds gathering on this particular horizon.
Among the tools they are considering: Designating the IRGC a terrorist organization and imposing tough new sanctions on Iran - linked to its support of terrorism and ballistic missile development, not the Iran nuclear deal. That would at least send a shot
across the Islamic Republic's bow.
Also worth considering: Insisting that whatever independent actors remain in the Lebanese government stand up to Hezbollah and replace its armed forces
in the south as required under UNSCR 1701. If the Lebanese government isn't up to the task U.S. assistance should end.
Finally, why not give UNIFIL, which is funded largely by the U.S., new leadership and a reinforced mandate to do the work it hasn't done over the past 11 years?
An effective U.N. peacekeeping effort is not easy to imagine. But what's the harm in one more try?
Hezbollah's missiles will not rust - Caroline B. Glick -http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Hezbollahs-missiles-will-not-rust-499027
If we aren't indifferent to Hezbollah's expansion of its capabilities, what are we planning to do about it?
Last month IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Herzl Halevi made a stunning revelation. Hezbollah and Iran are
transforming the terrorist group into a military force capable of independently producing its own precision weapons.
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Halevi reported, "We are seeing Hezbollah building a domestic military industry on Lebanese soil based on Iranian
know-how. Hezbollah is producing weapons systems and transporting them to southern Lebanon."
Halevi added, "Over the past year, Iran is working to establish infrastructure for the independent production of precision weapons in Lebanon and Yemen.
We cannot be indifferent to this development. And we aren't."
Not only is Hezbollah building a missile industry. It is deploying its forces directly across the border with Israel - in material breach of UN Security
Council Resolution 1701 from 2006, which set the terms of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah at the end of the Second Lebanon War.
transforming the terrorist group into a military force capable of independently producing its own precision weapons.
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Halevi reported, "We are seeing Hezbollah building a domestic military industry on Lebanese soil based on Iranian
know-how. Hezbollah is producing weapons systems and transporting them to southern Lebanon."
Halevi added, "Over the past year, Iran is working to establish infrastructure for the independent production of precision weapons in Lebanon and Yemen.
We cannot be indifferent to this development. And we aren't."
Not only is Hezbollah building a missile industry. It is deploying its forces directly across the border with Israel - in material breach of UN Security
Council Resolution 1701 from 2006, which set the terms of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah at the end of the Second Lebanon War.
Under the terms of 1701, Hezbollah is prohibited from operating south of the Litani River. Only the Lebanese Armed
Forces (LAF) and UNIFIL - the UN's peacekeeping force - are supposed to be deployed in southern Lebanon.
According to Halevi, operating under the cover of a phony environmental NGO called "Green Without Borders," Hezbollah has set up observation posts manned
with its fighters along the border with Israel.
In Halevi's words, with these posts, "Hezbollah is now able to operate a stone's throw from the border."
In a media briefing on Sunday, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman discussed Halevi's revelations. Liberman said that the security community "is absolutely
aware [of the missile plants] and is taking the necessary action."
"This is a significant phenomenon," Liberman warned. "We must under no circumstances ignore it."
Perhaps in a jab at his predecessor, Moshe Ya'alon, who years ago argued notoriously that Hezbollah's missiles would "rust" in their storage facilities,
perhaps in warning to Hezbollah, Liberman added, "The factories won't rust and the missiles won't rust."
So if we aren't indifferent to Hezbollah's expansion of its capabilities, what are we planning to do about it?
Whatever answer the IDF decides upon, Israel is already taking diplomatic steps to prepare for the next round - whoever opens it.
Last month Israel filed a formal complaint with the UN Security Council against Hezbollah for setting up observation towers along the border and manning
them with its fighters.
Not surprisingly, UNIFIL and the Security Council rejected Israel's complaint. Ever since six UNIFIL soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb in 2007,
UNIFIL has turned a blind eye to all of Hezbollah's operations in southern Lebanon. As to the strike for which the complaint to the Security Council began setting the conditions, what purpose would it serve?
In a future war, Israel shouldn't aspire, for instance, to destroy Hezbollah as a fighting force. The goal, in my opinion, should be to destroy or neutralize
as much of Hezbollah's missile arsenal and its missile assembly plants as possible. If possible, Israel should also seek to destroy Hezbollah's tunnel infrastructure along its border.
The first question is whether the threat justifies action. The answer, in my opinion, is clear enough. Over the past 11 years, Hezbollah's missile arsenal
has become an unacceptable and ever-growing strategic threat to Israel. Whereas in 2006 Hezbollah's missile arsenal numbered some 15,000 rockets, today it fields approximately 150,000.
In 2006, at the height of its missile offensive against Israel, Hezbollah lobbed some 120 missiles a day at Israeli territory. Today it can shoot some
1,000 to 1,200 missile a day at Israel.
And it isn't only the quantity of missiles that make them an insufferable threat. It's also their quality. Whereas in 2006 Hezbollah attacked Israel with
imprecise projectiles with low payloads, today Hezbollah reportedly fields precision guided, long-range missiles like the Yakhont and Fatah-110.
The Yakhont missiles can imperil Israel's interests in the Mediterranean, including its offshore natural gas installations. The Fatah-110s, with a range
of some 300 kilometers, threaten metropolitan Tel Aviv and key military installations. Both missile types are capable of carrying payloads of hundreds of kilograms of explosives.
To be sure, in the 11 years since the Second Lebanon War Israel has also massively upgraded its military capabilities. Last week air force chief Maj.-Gen.
Amir Eshel said the force today can inflict a level of damage on Hezbollah in two days that it took it weeks to inflict in 2006.
The question is not whether Israel has the ability to respond to a Hezbollah assault. Given the lethality of Hezbollah's arsenal, it would be reckless
to assume that Israel can easily absorb an opening volley of missiles.
But battle losses aren't the only consideration Israel needs to take into account. For instance, there is the US. How would the US respond to a war?
As far as the Trump administration is concerned, the picture is mixed. On the one hand, President Donald Trump and his advisers are much more supportive
of Israel than predecessor Barack Obama and Obama's advisers were.
Under Obama, not only could Israel have expected the US to oppose an attack against Hezbollah's missiles, but there is reason to believe that the Obama
administration would have supported Hezbollah against Israel.
This is the case for two reasons. First, Obama's team made clear that his most important foreign policy goal was to develop an alliance with Iran.
Second, and in support of Obama's goal of courting the Iranians, his administration repeatedly leaked details about IDF strikes against Hezbollah weapons
convoys traversing Syria en route to Lebanon. These leaks worked to Israel's detriment and to Hezbollah's advantage by ratcheting up the danger that Israel's strikes at Hezbollah convoys would lead to an undesired escalation of hostilities.
At a minimum, Israel can expect that the Trump administration's response to a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon to be as tolerant as then president George
W. Bush's administration's response was to Israel's military actions in the 2006 war.
Bush and then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice immediately called for a ceasefire. But in the early stages of the war, they also supported Israel and
blocked anti-Israel resolutions from being brought before the Security Council. Their support for Israel began to weaken as the war dragged on and the IDF ran into trouble achieving significant battlefield gains.
Today, the Trump administration is divided on issues surrounding Israel. Trump's White House advisers, led by Steve Bannon as well as Vice President Mike
Pence and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, are likely to support a war with Hezbollah. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are likely to demand that Israel stand down.
One way to diminish opposition within the administration to a war is to highlight the depths of Hezbollah's control of the Lebanese government and of
the Lebanese military. The latter is particularly significant.
The foreign and defense policy establishment in Washington, with which Tillerson and Mattis are aligned, insistently continue to back the Lebanese Armed
Forces, despite the fact that it is demonstrably subservient to Hezbollah.
As recently as May, the US sent assault rifles to the LAF, in its latest batch of military assistance. The strategic recklessness of continued US weapons
transfers to the LAF was laid bare last November. US-made armored personnel carriers, identical to the type the US has provided the LAF, participated in a Hezbollah military parade in Syria.
Indeed, barely a week goes by without new evidence of the LAF's subservient position to Hezbollah. This week, for instance, 150 LAF cadets toured Hezbollah's
military museum with Lt.-Col. Ali Ismail, who serves as the head of the LAF's intelligence directorate in Nabatiya.
As for Iran, it is hard to know how it would respond. There is a low likelihood that Iran would strike Israel directly with ballistic missiles in the
event of a war with Hezbollah. Iran views Hezbollah's missiles as a means to deter Israel from attacking Iran - not the other way around.
Iran's most likely immediate response to a war would be to deploy its foreign militia to Hezbollah's side in Lebanon. Last month, Hezbollah chief Hassan
Nasrallah publicly asked Iran to send him foreign fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Iran.
Nasrallah's request, and the likelihood that Iran will grant it in short order, are another reason why war will eventually happen. Israel shouldn't stand
around while Iran sends thousands of fighters to Lebanon to join the next war against it.
As for the Saudis and Egyptians and their allies, they have been clear that they view Iran and Hezbollah as a greater threat than Israel. Indeed, last
year they declared Hezbollah a terrorist group. In 2006, they supported Israel until it began getting bogged down.
In a future war, if Israel is able to quickly deliver a serious blow against Hezbollah, the Sunnis would likely applaud it. So it boils down to capacity.
If the IDF can conduct a quick, effective operation against Hezbollah that would destroy, degrade or neutralize a large portion of its missile arsenal
and its missile assembly plants, then the benefits of moving forward, in my opinion, outweigh the costs.
Forces (LAF) and UNIFIL - the UN's peacekeeping force - are supposed to be deployed in southern Lebanon.
According to Halevi, operating under the cover of a phony environmental NGO called "Green Without Borders," Hezbollah has set up observation posts manned
with its fighters along the border with Israel.
In Halevi's words, with these posts, "Hezbollah is now able to operate a stone's throw from the border."
In a media briefing on Sunday, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman discussed Halevi's revelations. Liberman said that the security community "is absolutely
aware [of the missile plants] and is taking the necessary action."
"This is a significant phenomenon," Liberman warned. "We must under no circumstances ignore it."
Perhaps in a jab at his predecessor, Moshe Ya'alon, who years ago argued notoriously that Hezbollah's missiles would "rust" in their storage facilities,
perhaps in warning to Hezbollah, Liberman added, "The factories won't rust and the missiles won't rust."
So if we aren't indifferent to Hezbollah's expansion of its capabilities, what are we planning to do about it?
Whatever answer the IDF decides upon, Israel is already taking diplomatic steps to prepare for the next round - whoever opens it.
Last month Israel filed a formal complaint with the UN Security Council against Hezbollah for setting up observation towers along the border and manning
them with its fighters.
Not surprisingly, UNIFIL and the Security Council rejected Israel's complaint. Ever since six UNIFIL soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb in 2007,
UNIFIL has turned a blind eye to all of Hezbollah's operations in southern Lebanon. As to the strike for which the complaint to the Security Council began setting the conditions, what purpose would it serve?
In a future war, Israel shouldn't aspire, for instance, to destroy Hezbollah as a fighting force. The goal, in my opinion, should be to destroy or neutralize
as much of Hezbollah's missile arsenal and its missile assembly plants as possible. If possible, Israel should also seek to destroy Hezbollah's tunnel infrastructure along its border.
The first question is whether the threat justifies action. The answer, in my opinion, is clear enough. Over the past 11 years, Hezbollah's missile arsenal
has become an unacceptable and ever-growing strategic threat to Israel. Whereas in 2006 Hezbollah's missile arsenal numbered some 15,000 rockets, today it fields approximately 150,000.
In 2006, at the height of its missile offensive against Israel, Hezbollah lobbed some 120 missiles a day at Israeli territory. Today it can shoot some
1,000 to 1,200 missile a day at Israel.
And it isn't only the quantity of missiles that make them an insufferable threat. It's also their quality. Whereas in 2006 Hezbollah attacked Israel with
imprecise projectiles with low payloads, today Hezbollah reportedly fields precision guided, long-range missiles like the Yakhont and Fatah-110.
The Yakhont missiles can imperil Israel's interests in the Mediterranean, including its offshore natural gas installations. The Fatah-110s, with a range
of some 300 kilometers, threaten metropolitan Tel Aviv and key military installations. Both missile types are capable of carrying payloads of hundreds of kilograms of explosives.
To be sure, in the 11 years since the Second Lebanon War Israel has also massively upgraded its military capabilities. Last week air force chief Maj.-Gen.
Amir Eshel said the force today can inflict a level of damage on Hezbollah in two days that it took it weeks to inflict in 2006.
The question is not whether Israel has the ability to respond to a Hezbollah assault. Given the lethality of Hezbollah's arsenal, it would be reckless
to assume that Israel can easily absorb an opening volley of missiles.
But battle losses aren't the only consideration Israel needs to take into account. For instance, there is the US. How would the US respond to a war?
As far as the Trump administration is concerned, the picture is mixed. On the one hand, President Donald Trump and his advisers are much more supportive
of Israel than predecessor Barack Obama and Obama's advisers were.
Under Obama, not only could Israel have expected the US to oppose an attack against Hezbollah's missiles, but there is reason to believe that the Obama
administration would have supported Hezbollah against Israel.
This is the case for two reasons. First, Obama's team made clear that his most important foreign policy goal was to develop an alliance with Iran.
Second, and in support of Obama's goal of courting the Iranians, his administration repeatedly leaked details about IDF strikes against Hezbollah weapons
convoys traversing Syria en route to Lebanon. These leaks worked to Israel's detriment and to Hezbollah's advantage by ratcheting up the danger that Israel's strikes at Hezbollah convoys would lead to an undesired escalation of hostilities.
At a minimum, Israel can expect that the Trump administration's response to a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon to be as tolerant as then president George
W. Bush's administration's response was to Israel's military actions in the 2006 war.
Bush and then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice immediately called for a ceasefire. But in the early stages of the war, they also supported Israel and
blocked anti-Israel resolutions from being brought before the Security Council. Their support for Israel began to weaken as the war dragged on and the IDF ran into trouble achieving significant battlefield gains.
Today, the Trump administration is divided on issues surrounding Israel. Trump's White House advisers, led by Steve Bannon as well as Vice President Mike
Pence and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, are likely to support a war with Hezbollah. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are likely to demand that Israel stand down.
One way to diminish opposition within the administration to a war is to highlight the depths of Hezbollah's control of the Lebanese government and of
the Lebanese military. The latter is particularly significant.
The foreign and defense policy establishment in Washington, with which Tillerson and Mattis are aligned, insistently continue to back the Lebanese Armed
Forces, despite the fact that it is demonstrably subservient to Hezbollah.
As recently as May, the US sent assault rifles to the LAF, in its latest batch of military assistance. The strategic recklessness of continued US weapons
transfers to the LAF was laid bare last November. US-made armored personnel carriers, identical to the type the US has provided the LAF, participated in a Hezbollah military parade in Syria.
Indeed, barely a week goes by without new evidence of the LAF's subservient position to Hezbollah. This week, for instance, 150 LAF cadets toured Hezbollah's
military museum with Lt.-Col. Ali Ismail, who serves as the head of the LAF's intelligence directorate in Nabatiya.
As for Iran, it is hard to know how it would respond. There is a low likelihood that Iran would strike Israel directly with ballistic missiles in the
event of a war with Hezbollah. Iran views Hezbollah's missiles as a means to deter Israel from attacking Iran - not the other way around.
Iran's most likely immediate response to a war would be to deploy its foreign militia to Hezbollah's side in Lebanon. Last month, Hezbollah chief Hassan
Nasrallah publicly asked Iran to send him foreign fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Iran.
Nasrallah's request, and the likelihood that Iran will grant it in short order, are another reason why war will eventually happen. Israel shouldn't stand
around while Iran sends thousands of fighters to Lebanon to join the next war against it.
As for the Saudis and Egyptians and their allies, they have been clear that they view Iran and Hezbollah as a greater threat than Israel. Indeed, last
year they declared Hezbollah a terrorist group. In 2006, they supported Israel until it began getting bogged down.
In a future war, if Israel is able to quickly deliver a serious blow against Hezbollah, the Sunnis would likely applaud it. So it boils down to capacity.
If the IDF can conduct a quick, effective operation against Hezbollah that would destroy, degrade or neutralize a large portion of its missile arsenal
and its missile assembly plants, then the benefits of moving forward, in my opinion, outweigh the costs.
PLEASE VISIT MY WIFES WEBSITE. SHE RUNS "YOUNG LIVING" WHICH PROVIDES ALL NATURAL OILS THAT CAN BE USED INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INCLUDING A DEFUSER WHICH PUTS AN AMAZING ODOR IN THE AIR. THIS PRODUCT IS SO AMAZING AND KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET YEARS OF ENJOYMENT FROM IT. GOTO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGLIVING.ORG/CDROSES
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.