Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

August 22, 2006
Connecting the Battlefields

In the Middle East the battlefields of Lebanon and Iraq are deeply connected.

BLITZER: In today’s "Welcome to the Future" report, is a show- down looming with Iran over its nuclear program? And are Tehran’s missile tests an ominous sign of things to come? CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has the latest — Barbara?

[…]
STARR: Analysts say support for a strike against Iran would be tough. U.S. forces in Iraq would have to be protected from Iranian retaliation. U.S. military assets such as tanker aircraft and ships must be put into position. A U.N. peacekeeping force first must be deployed in Lebanon to protect Israel.
CNN – The Situation Room, August 21, 2006 (emphasis added)

Here some Pentagon folks spilled out what was obvious to smart observers. The Israeli attack on Lebanon, launched when Hizbullah was dumb enough to give some pretense, was part of the plan to attack Iran.

Either Israel would have a decisive victory, as some expected, or a third force would go in to protect Irael from any retaliation through Hisbullah in the case of an attack on Iran.

At first the U.S. and Israel called for NATO troops, but the European NATO members did kill that idea very fast. Who wants to play cannon fodder for Israel, especially under U.S. command?

The French stepped in and Cirac, asshole that he might be, made a smart move. He hinted at promissing lots of troops and after the ceasefire was approved at the UN, he did forget that offer.

The Germans said no too, and Israel refuses to have UN troops from Malaysia and Indonesia on its border. Olmert now tries to recruit in Italy. But the Italians make this unsensitive request for Israel to stop the ongoing shooting first.

Even if some European countries will come up with a paper-force, what this force should do is still open. Without another UN resolution, nobody will really show up and the chances for another resolution are slim.

To get to a new resolution might even require another full fledged fight between Israel and Hizbullah. With the trouble Olmert is already in, he is unlikely to start this soon.

But the coming attack on Iran will require two other issues to be solved.

The administration helpers lately have pointed a lot to Muqtada al Sadr as the key source of violence in Iraq. This is of course nonsense. While al Sadr’s folks in Iraq may be part of the violence, the militia of other Shia fractions, Sciri and Dawa, as well as the various Sunni groups are in the mix too. So why pick on Sadr?

As far as I can tell Muqtada has been the only one in Iraq who bluntly stated that an attack on Iran would be answered by him with calling for all out war on the U.S. troops in Iraq. No other Shia fraction has so far publicly joined this call.

Before an attack on Iran can happen, al Sadr must be neutralized or the U.S. troops in Iraq will be sacrificed for the higher good of a flattened Teheran.

The third obstacle to an attack on Iran is Syria and here the plans are not clear yet. Syria might be bought out of its alliance with Iran by a peace deal that would give them back the Golan heights. But the Israeli government is not yet ready to do such a deal.

The only other chance to neutralize the Syrian rocket force aimed at Israel is through a massive air strike and ground attacks by special forces. But given the sad state of the IDF, the outcome of such a strike is quite doubtful.

All three condition for a strike on Iran, a neutralized Syria, Hizbullah controlled through some third party and al Sadr imprisoned or killed, are not in place and are unlikely to be in place soon.

In this configuration an attack on Iran is still possible, but the costs for the U.S. and for Israel are currently too high.

But things may have changed a year from now and the project itself is definitly not off the table.

Posted by b on August 22, 2006 at 13:13 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Good thinking.
I think more work needs to be done behind the scenes with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as UAE, before they sanction another war in their backyard.
Here’s my solution:
Let’s leave it all for Condi to solve — after all she’s a genius. She can play piano AND speak five different languages, all while running seven corporations and turning the finances of the most important university on the west coast around, at the same time. It’s all easy for her. She should be able to navigate between the neo-cons and the realists before her morning workout at the gym. That leaves her plenty of time to whip those European good-for-nothings into shape before a healthy lunch with W., and then buy off the Syrians, rectify the Israeli military problems, and wake Kofi up from his slumber, before a diplomatic dinner where she reads the Russians and the Chinese the riot act in BOTH Russian AND Chinese (boy is she talented), and then its early to bed, a good day’s work done, early to bed just like W. so she can wake up early and refreshed to solve the next day’s simple problems. Her head hits the pillow. She sighs… Oh, NO! I forgot about the Venezuelans bid for entry to the security council. Well, surely Bolton the Dolton could do something on his own, without me having to solve everything.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 22 2006 13:32 utc | 1

עין תחת עין – זה מעוור את העולם
العين بالعين – يصيب العالم أجمع بالعمى
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 22 2006 14:13 utc | 2

@Malooga
You forgot her morning figure skating practice and helping Paul Tagliabue run the NFL!
I’ve watched the Russian press pretty carefully every time Condi’s been over there….have yet to see her quoted anywhere speaking a word of Russian – excepting one radio interview in Moscow that she botched pretty badly, stating in Russian that she’d soon be running for the US Presidency when she misunderstood the question. And then there’s her doctoral thesis on the role of the Soviet military in Czechoslaovakia that was panned as poorly sourced and full of false conclusions by its reviewer (an historian with expertise in Eastern Europe) for Foreign Affairs Quarterly. I think she was long ago Peter Principled beyond her real skill levels – probably our worst National Security Adviser ever.
Bonus Question: What happens when you assign our Worst-National-Security-Adviser-Ever to our Worst-President-Ever?
Hint: what telephone number would you dial for a police emergency….?

Posted by: McGee | Aug 22 2006 15:04 utc | 3

Re Moqtada: It’s worth noting that the Sadrists, and their various splinter groups, are the Iraqi shia factions that are least closely allied with Iran. There’s little doubt that factions that are pro-Iranian but “cooperating” with the US ( ie Dawa, SCIRI ), will take the Iranian side in any shooting war; so they hardly need to point it out. The problem with trying to neutralise the Sadrists, whether it’s prior to attacking Iran or not, is that you end up with all the shit that igniting a large-scale urban Shia insurgency against the occupation entails; so what you get is what you’re trying to prevent – strategy dreamt up by dummies, executed by dummies and packaged for dummies.
We have after all been in this situation before, back in the spring and summer of 2004, when the Sadrists went on the warpath for a while, took a lot of casualties and regrouped – they’ve learned a few lessons and gotten a lot stronger, both politically and militarily, since then; there was an interesting C4 documentary early this year in which Peter Oborne interviewed a US officer at the military base on the edge of Sadr City ,who effectively revealed that arrest warrant or not, Sadr was untouchable. It’s possible that this may have changed – but there is little evidence to suggest that that’s the case so far.
At any rate, in trying to neutralise Sadr as a precursor, the US might end up digging itself into an even bigger hole, with the Sadrists going back on the warpath and shutting down all those fuel truck convoys coming up from Kuwait. If the Iranians choose to they can easily slip them a few old saggers and some assorted AT weaponry which will allow them to kill humvees from a distance for fun.
Of course, there is really only one precondition for the US attacking Iran, and that is extracting a promise from Iran that it won’t fight back and won’t disrupt the flow of oil in the Gulf and through the Straits of Hormuz. The evidence all points in the opposite direction, and the Iranians are threatening to put up one hell of a battle if it comes down to it.
It’s escaped few people’s notice that in the mini-me version of the US-Iran conflict, the IDF was unsuccessful in achieving its aims against an enemy that had no real strategic cards up its sleeves, that was numerically far, far inferior and without the benefits of any airpower or air defence resources. The US is in an incomparably worse situation than Israel in terms of the disposition of its forces on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere in the region; and Iran has the muscle and the manpower to bleed the US to death – they have several hundred thousand well-equipped, well-fed, well-rested troops who are sharpening their knives and revealing an ever-greater arsenal of sophisticated weaponry to put up against a jaded and degrading force of US troops who are stuck in big bases with large X’s on the rooftops saying bomb here; personally, my reading of the Iranians is that they’ve seen how VULNERABLE the US is in Iraq and Kuwait, and that if it comes down to it, they think they can win, win quickly, and have planned for it – it’s a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

Posted by: dan | Aug 22 2006 15:15 utc | 4

…when Hizbullah was dumb enough to give some pretense…
This statement contradicts the rest of your post. In the strategic environment you outline, there was no way for HA to avoid an Israeli attack. The Israelis would have found some flimsy pretext no matter what, just as they had in 1982. It therefore made sense for HA to force the issue, gain Israeli hostages and prevent the Israelis from controlling the timing of their attack at the same time.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 22 2006 15:57 utc | 5

excellent post b. at first i assumed the invasion was to knock out hizbollah prior to the iran invasion. only later, did it occur to me it was for the purpose of installing a robust force on the border.
GB has a point, if HA knew plans were on the table for an invasion, which in all likelyhood they did, timing the attack would be one way to grab some advantage at what they rightly percieved to be an inevitability.
i’m beginning to appreciate the french more w/every passing day. it seems the global community is willing to call the neocons bluff, let’s hope they are able to outfox them time and again.

Posted by: annie | Aug 22 2006 16:15 utc | 6

@Malooga – early to bed just like W.
Make that: “early to bed with W.”
@Guthman Bey – you may well be right there, though my impression was that Hisbullah was suprised by Israels reaction.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 22 2006 16:18 utc | 7

All excellent points.
The Israeli – Hezbollah War was a preview of the Iranian Campaign and intended to clear out the Northern Border in preparation of opening the 4th and 5th fronts. But, Israel failed totally and spectacularly. In fact it may make Iran overreach giving Bush the trigger to start his bombing campaign.
USA in Iraq may want to take out Muqtada al Sadr before the Iran Campaign but it is typical of their delusional personification of the insurgency. If USA starts bombing their fellow Shiites in Iran, all of Islam will ultimately arise against the evil infidels.
To any rationale individual, the Iran Campaign is now still born. This leads to only one conclusion. The Bush White House, instead of negotiating for withdrawal and settlement of the Palestine issue, intends to go nuclear.

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 22 2006 16:18 utc | 8

That was me at 7.
—
Rumsfeld was said (I think in the last Hersh piece) to be a bit hesitating to attack Iran with the boys stuck in Iraq.
This may well fit to that impression:

Bush has put out a quiet feeler to replace Rumsfeld in recent weeks. He was politely turned down by at least one candidate he personally called. Unknown: is this one of many candidates Bush has sounded out? Is there a Bernacke-style search going on quietly in the background?

Rumsfeld getting fired for not being aggressive enough on Iran?

Posted by: b | Aug 22 2006 16:22 utc | 9

from the linked cnn story….

GARY BERNTSEN, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Imad Mugniyah is the leader of Hezbollah’s terrorist arm. He is the person that has managed operations, which included attacks on U.S. embassies, U.S. embassy annex (ph) in the early 1980’s (INAUDIBLE) 1983, attacks on the Marine barracks in that same year, (INAUDIBLE) 41 Marines died.

so now we have a new bad guy. the name is not too hard to pronounce and he really hates Israel and his eyes glass over when he starts his rant and he killed a bunch of Marines and is really really bad. Man! my knees get all weak and I fear incontinence just reading about him.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 22 2006 16:56 utc | 10

Iran’s Navy Attacks and Boards Romanian Rig in Gulf
Dick Cheney is not going to like this. Iran storms oil rig with ties to Halliburton.
The story is murky, but it seems that the Romanian company has declared a contract invalid and decided to remove the oil rig they had pumping oil in the gulf. Iran is trying to enforce the contract by keeping the rig in place. This is headed for the international court system, but expect the US to try to use this as an excuse for war.
Also see,

Eitan: Ready shelters for Iran attack
Pensioners Minister Rafi Eitan called for the readying of bomb shelters and reinforced rooms countrywide on Tuesday, in advance of a possible conflict with Iran.
The comments were made on the eve of an Iranian announcement regarding the country’s nuclear program. The UN has given Iran until August 31 to comply with a Security Council resolution to cease nuclear development. Iran has indicated that on Tuesday they will reject such calls.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 22 2006 17:27 utc | 11

Yes Dan, and look even Wiki has an entry on him. Won’t he make a dandy suspect for the Hariri assassination, now that they try to blame Hezballah for it!

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 22 2006 17:37 utc | 12

Hezbollah was monitoring Israeli military radio communications.
These guys (US military junta) never stop. Either they are completely shooting blanks because they know the jig is up, or they are definitely going for it and ramping up the propaganda. My vote is on #2.
Sorry for forgetting, Travis McGee. There’s only so much myth I can take in in one day.
b — you outta be ashamed for even thinking that about Condi!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 22 2006 17:47 utc | 13

I used to read the War and Piece blog some, then one day she had a piece where she stated matter of factly that Israel doesn’t torture prisoners. Haven’t been back.

Posted by: ran | Aug 22 2006 17:48 utc | 14

Hmm. I used to like it too. Good to know. Shows how people can be sensible until it comes to Israel.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 22 2006 17:53 utc | 15

The Strain of Reality is Showing
Curious thing, when you’ve spent years spinning and obfuscating, there comes a point where you have absolutely no bearings left. The President is clearly no longer with us. Cheney’s been a lost case ever since he didn’t get his “troops entering Paris” moment. Rumsfeld is, and has probably always been, certifiably looney. And Condi is tone deaf. Bolton is a basket case. Wolfowitz has actually taken his Iraq years off his resume at the World Bank. And Alberto Gonzales, if he only had a smidgen of charisma, would replace the inquisitors as an object of derision, for his delusional obeisance. The Justices appointed by Bush have been travesties, including the non-appointment. Frist will never be First. And the Generals who have gone along with Rumsfeld’s ridiculous notions of how to run a war are being laughed at in military academies around the world. Detroit is falling apart, and there is no such thing as global warming. Meanwhile Diebold is incapable of coming up with anything even reminiscent of a verifiable paper trail for U.S. elections (for machines that are sold abroad, enabled for a verifiable paper trail).
U.S. voters have all gone batshit crazy to be able to accept this.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 22 2006 19:36 utc | 16

Shows how people can be sensible until it comes to Israel.
Nothing more true — and pervasive, talk about the “america first” or the “good german” horse-blinder syndromes. These pale by comparison to the wave of sentiment (for israel) capable of wilting many otherwise left leaning and sensible types, not to mention all the others on the other side. This is quite a valuable freebee present gift from heaven — all gift wrapped up for the neo-con agenda. Too bad it all ultimatly works against the long term interests of israel.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 22 2006 19:47 utc | 17

GB, Dan, while the Bushies might indeed be looking for a new Mr. Evil, Mugniyah is a rather well-known terrorist for long in the focus. Robert Baer used to hunt for him for years and named him the most dangerous terrorist around years ago (the character in Syriana tearing out George Clooney’s characters’ fingernails is based on him).
But when the spin starts, it’s worth to consider that many experts consider the international terror group he leads now fully separated from Hezbollah — for example you can read here:

…the extent of Mughnieh’s current ties with Hezbollah’s political leadership remains in doubt. Several experts on Hezbollah I spoke to believe that Mughnieh now works solely on behalf of Iran.

Also worth to read the Mugniyah-Hezbollah section in this.

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 22 2006 21:18 utc | 18

Just listened to Terry Gross’ (NPR) interview w/ Anthony Shadid of the WP. She’s another nice liberal who goes all crazy about poor little Israel. She must have said three times: “Well, Hezbollah STARTED this war…” Shadid managed to talk for an entire hour without mentioning US plans for the region, or Israel’s goals. It was all a little like being in la la land.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 23 2006 1:55 utc | 19

While al Sadr’s folks in Iraq may be part of the violence, the militia of other Shia fractions, Sciri and Dawa, as well as the various Sunni groups are in the mix too. So why pick on Sadr?

In an otherwise excellent post one factual error. I presume by “Dawa” you mean Hizb al-Da’wa al-Islamiyya – they don’t have a militia. This makes them ……… unusual

Posted by: markfromireland | Aug 23 2006 5:12 utc | 20

I am a long-time sceptic regarding the Iran thing. It doesn’t surprise me Rumsfeld is against it – it is too crazy even for him. dan (Aug 22, 2006 11:15:57 AM) is the first one to draw blood on me. I have been wondering why Hezbollah triggered the war when they did, and what that may portend. If Hezbollah triggered the war because they ‘knew’ it was coming, were ready for it now, had it game-planned to perfection, and kicked Israeli ass; would Iran be thinking the same thing? Will Cheney Co’s huffing and bluffing inadvertently trigger an unimaginably tragic war by mistaken intent?

Posted by: Steve | Aug 23 2006 5:20 utc | 21

I presume by “Dawa” you mean Hizb al-Da’wa al-Islamiyya – they don’t have a militia.
Really?

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 23 2006 9:07 utc | 22

Yes Dodo really. They’re the one bloc within the UIA that does not have a militia.

Posted by: markfromireland | Aug 23 2006 12:59 utc | 23

Both organizations have a military wing but while SCIRI is a conventional militia, Al-Daawa’s is a clandestine force.

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 23 2006 15:32 utc | 24

Dodo you can quote stuff at me from an American partisan political site ’til you’re blue in the face. It doesn’t change the fact that Hizb al-Da’wa al-Islamiyya does not have a militia overt, clandestine, or otherwise. (I’ll note in passing that there isn’t one single citation in there to back up lots of assertions. Well what do you expect from the “loyal opposition” in the colonial empire?)
They disbanded their militia a long time ago. That was part of the deal with al-Najafi, al-Hakim, and al-Fayadh for their imprimatur. They already al-Sistani’s of course, (the fifth Grand Ayatollah (al-Hairi) refused his imprimatur which doesn’t matter all that much as he’s refused it to everoyne.) What they have left is a few bodyguards and people who guard their offices. Just as well really as their milita was pretty pathetic to start with.

Posted by: markfromireland | Aug 24 2006 6:13 utc | 25

About the Israeli raid into Lebanon last Saturday, I had missed this detail :

…in the Lebanese village of Boudai, residents gave graphic accounts yesterday of a commando force, wearing Lebanese Army uniforms and shouting in Arabic, that was chased down by local guerrillas and forced to evacuate by helicopter.
The commandos were from the Sayeret Matkal, the Israeli news media reported, the country’s most elite, legendary and secretive unit, one that carried out, among other operations, the famous Entebbe raid to free hostages held on an airliner.

I suspect those elite commandos must be eager to try out their UNIFIL uniforms, too, on the first available occasion.

Posted by: Alamet | Aug 24 2006 16:11 utc | 26

In his third message delivered roughly around a week after Israel attacked Lebanon, Nasralla described his version of the events that led to the war. (There is a translation of his speech [or interview since he gave a lengthy one to AlJazeera]at Dailykos). He said that he expected some retaliatory action from Israel but this large scale war was a total surprise to him. In that early message or interview he stated that HA has already absorbed the first attack and recovered and is now gaining control of the battle. When the news came to Nasrallah that the operation that led to the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers resulted in addition in the death of 8 and wounding of around 15 other soldiers , he realised that Israel will retaliate with a big operation but still he thought that this will be limited to the known headquarters and strongholds of HA as well as its members but not against all of Lebanon. Accordingly he ordered his men on the forward outposts on the borders to evacuate and retreat slightly to the back and to take defensive positions. Also, he ordered all the ranks of HA up to the fifth level to evacuate their ordinary locals and buildings to previously prepared and concealed hideaways . He also ordered crews working on HA TV station and Radio to evacuate their known headquarters to secret places where they used for transmission throughout the war. This move from Nasralla ensured that they escaped killing by the heavy bombardement and that they kept being safe throughout this war. Nasrallah said that he was surprised by the scale of the Israeli operation . He said that HA knew of military training by the Israeli forces in the previous months of this year but they did not figure out the purpose or the timing of any Israeli attack. He said that after one week and based on the information he already knew and new information that he received he can be sure that the Israeli plan was to attack in October or November and to take HA with surprise with a shock and awe form of bombardment to ensure that HA command and control is devastedas early as possible and to spend the next 2 weeks to annihilate whoever remained of the low ranks of HA. Although the operation that led to the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers was not inteded to foil the Israeli attack but in fact it led exactly to this result . This anticipation on the part of HA of some form of strong response ensured that they were not taken with surprise which was a prerequisite for the success of the Israeli offense . According to Nasralla , Israel was forced to attack ahead of schedule and prematurely before they gathered all the necessary intelligence required for such an operation and thus were taken with surprise rather than surprising HA as originally planned. He said that the original attack was designed to coincide with the elections in the USA or to precede an attack on Iran.

Posted by: hasan | Aug 24 2006 19:48 utc | 27

Back to Main