This may not be as nice and neat as described here. Hizbullah may actually be using newer technology, which followed the path US-Israel-China-Iran-Hizbullah. The Israelis have been more than happy to sell the Chinese weapons and technology based on original US designs.
Wasn’t it Lenin who said “the capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them?”

Posted by: Aigin | Aug 11 2006 19:07 utc | 3

Hizbullah may actually be using newer technology, which followed the path US-Israel-China-Iran-Hizbullah.
The attack on the Israeli war-ship near Beirut was by a weapon that has followed that way. But TOW’s are old weapons by today’s “modern” standards. Anyhow, if HA has more than a few of them, the Israeli will get quite a beating.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 19:16 utc | 5

One thing’s for sure, the last thing the IDF expected or is prepared for is an infantry war in southern Lebanon, but thats where its going. And it wont be pretty.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 11 2006 19:30 utc | 7

Malloga,
“We always create our own enemies. Otherwise we might have no one to fight.”
From a 1986 LA Times article:

The Reagan Administration, using an Israeli-operated supply line set up through highly secret negotiations with the regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, last year began supplying U.S.-made missiles and weapons parts to Iran in exchange for Iran’s aid in freeing Americans held hostage in Lebanon, government sources said Wednesday.
The arrangement, in which the Tehran government received planeloads of military equipment critical to Iran in its lengthy war against Iraq, led to freedom for three hostages held by pro-Iranian extremists and, until this week, appeared to promise further releases, sources said.

Of course, we were also arming the Iraqis at the same time.
Talk about a daily double – Reagan created two enemies from the very same war.

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 11 2006 19:41 utc | 9

In the summer of 1985 the Israeli Government suggested to the Reagan administration that weapons be sold to Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held in Lebanon. The motion was opposed by both the Secretaries of State and Defence, who declared that such an arms-for-hostages deal was against the U.S. public policy of not dealing with governments which supported international terrorism. They also argued that this would breach both the Arms Export Control Act and the U.S. arms embargo that had been placed against Iran after the attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran 1979. The opposition to this motion had little effect and in the summer of 1985 the President authorised Israel to advance with the salessales. Although the agreement stated that Iran would ensure the release of all the hostages, only Reverend Benjamin Weir returned, despite the 504 TOW anti-tank missiles supplied in August and September 1985.
tinyurl.com/29n3g

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 11 2006 19:59 utc | 11

As I’ve mentioned before, the story starts way before that.
Iraq and Iran were both prosperous, educated, mederate states — sort of like today’s Brazil — except they had oil, and far less disparity of wealth. The US couldn’t countenance such independence. It was Kissenger’s plan, conceived in the mid-seventies, and publicly and shamelessly promoted, to set them against each other and mutually self-destruct. It took him years to secure buy-in and enact the plan, and decades to see the results.
When one is interesting in controlling the world lives do not matter. In any event, if you kill enough people the intellectual class is sure to shower you with accolades for your “humanitarianism.”

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 20:13 utc | 13

Kissinger is one of history”s monsters; but he will pass away peacefully of old age, safely tucked into bed.
Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Dick Cheney. David Addington, Don Rumsfeld: it’s like the worst acid flashback you can imagine.
El Mozote casts a long, long shadow, doesn’t it?
Nixon and Kissenger used the bank accounts of US corporations to funnel money to the military conspirators in Chile. Remember September 11, 1973, (the other 9/11), and the subsequent headline in Paul Krassner’s publication, The Realist:
“ITT’s All Over For Allende”

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 11 2006 21:34 utc | 15

Yes, Copeland, I remember.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 21:54 utc | 17

After President Allende was killed and his government overthrown by the Junta, a murder spree was initiated by the new authority in Chile.
Rob Bosquez, an actor who also staged Alejandro Sieveking’s play, The Praying Mantis, in Texas recently, provided his audience with this background in his Director’s Notes:
“Thousands of citizens who spoke out against the regime including Chile’s finest poets, actors, and intellectuals were rounded up in Santiago’s national stadium. Here they were tortured, brutalized and slaughtered. One of Chile’s best known singers and guitar players, Victor Jara was kidnapped and brought there. In a bloody display of the new power, in the country that was the homeland of Pablo Neruda, the hands that composed some of Chile’s most beautiful melodies, were hacked off with machetes in a symbolic act before a crowd of thousands who were soon executed as well.
Conservative estimates put the initial death toll of the Santiago stadium killings at around 4,000.”

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 11 2006 22:01 utc | 19

The TOW missile is the weapon that chased the Israelis out of Lebanon the first time (in the 1982-2000 occupation), much as the Stinger was the killer app against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Hezbollah gunners became so skilled at using the TOW against Israeli fixed targets (fortified lookout posts, mostly) that they could actually guide the missiles through the gun slits from a mile away. The IDF lost dozens of people this way, and it appears that Hezbollah’s aim has only gotten better since then.

Posted by: Hank Scorpio | Aug 11 2006 22:57 utc | 21

Well it may be a little early to break out the champagne, but today is shaping up to be VZ day (victory over zionism).
The Independent reports:
UN Security Council agrees resolution on ceasefire

The UN Security Council last night agreed to adopt a resolution calling for a “full cessation of hostilities” between Israel and Hizbollah fighters in southern Lebanon even as Israeli forces began expanding their ground offensive inside Lebanese territory.
The breakthrough in New York came as France and the United States overcame differences on a resolution that envisages a swift deployment of Lebanese army troops to the south and the beefing up of the UN force already there, called UNIFIL, with troops from Western nations. . . .”

The best bit:

“. . . Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told President George Bush in a phone call last night, minutes before the vote, that he would recommend accepting the text to his cabinet tomorrow. US officials said the Lebanese government was also ready to respect the resolution. . .”

So Israel may get 2 or 3 days to wrestle with HB and unfortunately the opportunity for 2 or 3 more days slaughtering Arabs but there opportunity to wantonly kill the Arabs to the north of them selves has just been severely and likely permanently curtailed.
In return the Lebanese freedom fighters get pretty much everything they wanted militarily and politically which should hopefully allow them to address Lebanon’s humanitarian needs much more effectively than ever before. This because the failed invasion and ethnic cleansing campaign has served to unite all the factions in Lebanon into one cohesive entity with a greater goal than their own partisan needs, that is the aims and objectives of Lebanon, the nation state.
Israel gets or will get the political demise of Ehud Olmert whose legacy is likely to be a continual turnover of leaders of equal stature.
Well it’s really Sharon the war crim’s legacy. Strongman leaders have this nasty habit of eliminating ‘up and comers’ as a potential threat. That means an unexpected loss of power,Such as Sharon’s karma catching up with him via a stroke, is nearly always chaotic.
The political leadership of Israel the apartheid state is going to be ‘in flux’ for quite some time.
And USuk gets to demand it’s peripatetic population take on the demeanor of the much despised (in their eyes) bag lady as they stand in line coming out of their 1st class lounges of airports around the world clutching their most prized possession in see thru baggies.
There can be little doubt that the charade being enacted out in airports around the world is a desperate attempt by the “Gang Of Shits” to distract from the total defeat that this UN resolution signifies.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 12 2006 0:45 utc | 23

@Night Owl:

I must be dreaming. Israel accepting defeat, pulling back, and not killing more innocent people?

Oh, wait, that’s right, there’s always the Palestinians. Maybe this is for real after all.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 12 2006 1:19 utc | 25

– full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,
does that mean hizbollah becomes part of the lebanese army?

Posted by: annie | Aug 12 2006 1:50 utc | 27

Olmert is recommending to the cabinet that it be accepted. It has not been accepted yet. Israel may be merely buying time until the shipment of fancy bombs arrives from the US.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 12 2006 1:53 utc | 29

Ah Debs, it’s rare to find someone with as deep a mastery of geopolitics and sheer humanit as you outside the US government.

Posted by: citizen k | Aug 12 2006 1:59 utc | 31

Ensley, if all the ordnance Israel has already killed indiscriminately with hasn’t helped, what’s one more shipment going to do?
It’s kind of like the grand finale of a fireworks display.
Israel knows it can’t win anymore, but that won’t stop them from leveling as much of Lebanon as they can just for spite. Or maybe Hizbollah will pop up and lob ‘just one’ missile at Tel Aviv for the Gipper. It’s a feel-good kind of thing, like Lieberman attacking his former fellow Democrats just for spite because he lost the primary.
Then again I can be wrong. After reading the newspaper headline that Olmert and Pat Robertson are praying together for victory, maybe we’ll all get ringside tickets for the Rapture.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 12 2006 2:29 utc | 33

@Hank Scorpio:
Thanks. Any more weapons insights?
@ #22:
Back when Kissenger was in power the neo-neocons were just starting out. Many were Democrats. Kissenger taught at Harvard, bastion of so-called Realist thinking. U of Chicago and Stamford were more friendly to the Neo-con ideology.
Of course, Brent (Mr. Apoplexy these days) Scowcroft, Poppy’s NSA, was a Kissenger Associate.
About the only Kissenger protege of note to make the sex change to neo-conservatism is Peter Rodman, a relatively minor figure (PNAC founder, National Review editor).
You see, the Realists, like Kissenger, preferred engaging with people. Unfortunately, engagement often meant death for those who were unlucky enough to find themselves so “engaged.”
To quote Kissenger, in reference to Copeland’s poigniant post, #19:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

The Neo-cons, on the other hand, were adamantly opposed to engagement. Unfortunately, this meant that they often had trouble finding the right people to liquidate. They solved this problem by bringing a notable Realist, and prime Kissenger protege, back into the picture: Paul Bremer.
Bremer took a challenging task, the occupation of Iraq, and made it worse as quickly as possible. First, he engaged the services of another old Realist — John Negroponte. Negroponte engaged what was called the “El Salvador” option, named for the country that had so many people killed by US backed death squads that even the commercial class decided to flee — which is how we ended up with Kos backing Realist candidates for office in America. Anyway, the El Salvador option consisted of “engaging” paid killers of both sects and having the Shi’ites kill Sunnis, and visa versa, which is how we got to where we are now in Iraq.
The Neo-cons, facing unexpected challenges to their “cakewalk,” engaged Realists to help them; the Realists made things immeasurably worse, and the Neo-cons are left holding the bag.
A pretty engaging story, don’t you think? Or as Kissenger once said, “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
I’d like to end this edifying little tale with a snippet from Rightwatch , on the IRC website:

“It is hard to believe, but many liberals and progressives in the United States are beginning to feel a bit wistful about Henry Kissinger, a man they accuse of being behind some of the greatest atrocities and human rights abuses committed during the cold war–in Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor, … .
Despite his support for the war on terror and the unilateral use of U.S. military power, Kissinger’s brand of realpolitik is now seen as a potential antidote to the neoconservative-driven imperial thrust of the Bush administration (witness, too, the huge sigh of relief that emanated from such outlets as the New York Times when James Baker made it back into the Bush fold in December 2003 as the president’s personal global envoy).
Wrote John Feffer, author of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis, in Tompaine.com (November 24, 2003):
“I have a shameful confession to make. I’m beginning to get nostalgic for Henry Kissinger. … I yearn for a dose of Kissinger’s brand of pragmatism to be administered to the current group in power in Washington. … Am I romanticizing Henry Kissinger? He unconditionally backs the war on terrorism and the maintenance of unilateral U.S. power. He supports more pragmatic alternatives sometimes for the worst reasons, such as his own personal gain. And yet–and this reflects the sorry state of diplomatic affairs in the United States–Kissinger’s voice remains comparatively sensible. If the 2004 elections bring pragmatists back to Washington, I’ll give two cheers for realpolitik. Hip, hip… and then I’ll immediately return to my critical ways. I’ll dust off my copy of The Price of Power. I’ll rant and rave about how pragmatists in the Clinton mold are putting power over principles. In the meantime, though, I’ll pine for Henry.””

***********
In the song, “La luna siempre es muy linda (The moon is always very pretty),” Victor Jara sang:

Al pobre tanto lo asustan
para que trage todos sus dolores
para que su miseria la cubra de imágenes.
La luna siempre es muy linda
y el sol muere cada tarde…
They frighten the poor so much
so that they will swallow their suffering
so that they will cover their misery with the images of saints.
the moon is always very pretty
and the sun dies each evening…

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 12 2006 2:48 utc | 35

It’s kind of like the grand finale of a fireworks display.
Actually, Israel has not leveled central Beirut, with its casinos and brothels, the mini-Hariri empire, nor most of the Sunni and Druze areas.
They ARE concerned about the government falling, the Lebanese one, that is. The Israeli one will not fall if the fighting stops, but would if the fighting continues two more desultory weeks. The Israeli military is due for a mighty shakeup.
I tend to agree with As’ad that Hezbollah has made some questionable political decisions — at least as far as Lebanon is concerned, not the greater war — which leads one to infer that a certain amount of shot-calling is coming from Iran.
This MAY be the end of round one.
In most fights, the fighters use the first round to feel the other out. Tragically, round two promises to be bloodier.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 12 2006 3:05 utc | 37

Malooga,
I don’t have any facts, but I think you make a very good and troubling point about round one. Something is fishy – all this death and destruction of infrastructure by Israel and then Israel just walks away. I hope I am wrong but I think this is a breather so the U.S./Israel doesn’t look too bad in world opinion. Too many questions left unanswered like: When will a prisoner exchange take place, after Israel leaves Lebanon? Also, who expects Hizbaluah to relinquish arms unless they control the government of Lebanon. I see more death and destruction in the future …hey remember the political propaganda line about Iraq stabilization: “The next thirty days are critical!”

Posted by: Rick Happ | Aug 12 2006 3:55 utc | 39

here’s a relevant excerpt from trento’s book, prelude ot terror: the rogue cia and the legacy of america’s private intelligence network, on the 1985 TOW deal.

The admiration of Israel by the neocons was shared by Ted Shackley. One of Shackley’s friends and business associates was Michael Leeden, a State Department terrorism expert and consultant to the Reagan National Security Council. Ledeen had strong ties to Israel. Israeli Intelligence, in turn, had strong ties to Iranian middleman Manucher Ghorbanifar. Even after Ghorbanifar failed a polygraph test the CIA administered, Ledeen persuaded Casey to trust the middleman, who he once described to CIA Intelligence Chief Charles Allen as “great fun.” Lawrence Walsh, the Iran-Contra special prosecutor, wrote in his book Firewall: “Leeden was more than a messenger. He had pressed McFarlane to open discussions with (Shimon) Peres and had become the Washington spokesman for the Israeli arms merchants and Ghorbanifar.”
It was Leeden who would use Shackley – and his influence with Bush – to orchestrate what would become the arms-for-hostages scheme with Israel as a partner. Leeden was a certified good guy to the private intelligence network. He had lobbied hard against the prosecution of Tom Clines and Richard Secord over EATSCO. In 1984, Ledeen and Shackley became partners in dragging the administration into the Iran-Contra scandal.
Bush counted on Shackley to keep the door open to the Iranian government. On a trip to Los Angeles in June 1984, Shackley used Novzar Razmara, a former SAVAK agent who had worked for him, to introduce him to Manucher Hashemi, and old SAVAK general who was visiting from London, where he lived in exile. Hashemi quickly got the impression that Shackley had a very close connection to Vice President Bush and was advising the government to Iran. Hashemi told Shackley that while he had few contacts in post-revolutionary Iran, he would try to accomodate him. Five months later, Hashemi arranged a meeting in Hamburg, Germany.
On November 19, 1984, Shackley met Hashemi at the Four Seasons Hotel in Hamburg, and Hashemi introduced him to Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former SAVAK agent and arms dealer. Ghorbanifar opened the three days of negotiations with Shackley by suggesting that the United States trade some TOW (tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) anti-tank missiles for some Soviet military equipment captured by Iran from Iraq. He then suggested that four hostages captured by terrorists in Lebanon could be traded through Iran in exchange for cash. Because one of these hostages was Shackley’s old friend and colleague William Buckley, the Station Chief of the Beirut CIA office, Ghorbanifar got Shackley’s serious attention. Shackley would later deny that he told Hashemi or Ghorbanifar that he was in Hamburg in any official capacity. But Shackely did not deny that he wrote an urgent memo about his multiple meetings with Ghorbanifar, which he distributed to the State Department and the vice president’s office.
Before he left Germany, Shackley met with CIA officials at Franfurt Base, who informed him that Ghornabifar had a history of failing Agency polygraph tests and fabricating information. According to William Corson, “None of it mattered to Shackley. He proceeded to recommend he be used as a conduit to the Iranian regime. He did it because Israeli Intelligence had suggested it.”
Shackley’s reputation and influence with Bush overcame Agency objections to Ghorbanifar. Shackley’s memo was delivered to Lt. Gen. Vernon Walters at the State Department. Michael Ledeen later said that, in May 1985, he asked for and recieved a copy of the memo and gave it to Oliver North, without, he claimed, ever reading it himself. The result, despite the CIA’s reluctance to deal with Ghorbanifar, was that Israel, acting as an intermediary, actually provided TOW missiles to Iran. However, William Buckley’s life was not spared in exhange. Buckley died after being tortured by SAVAMA, the new Islamic Iranian government’s intelligence service. Before he died, Buckley gave up the names of hundreds of CIA agents around the world. [pp.283-85]

going back a bit, i found the following both interesting and ironic

The cozy relationship between Iran and Israel had reached its peak under the shah in 1977, when Iran had agreed to finance sophisticated weapons systems with Israel. Under the auspices of General Toufanian, Iran had provided Israel huge amounts of foreign exchange and large land areas on which to test new weapons systems. One of those weapons systems was a surface-to-surface missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. The Israeli nuclear program, which had already produced a dozen nuclear weapons by 1977, was being partially funded by Iranian petrodollars, according to an Iranian mullah who worked for [one of the General’s deputies, Ahmed] Heidari and wishes to remain confidential.
Just before the shah fell, Toufanian authorized the last $200 million in oil money to be paid to Israel. However, at the Shah’s bidding, he had operated the program so secretly, that when the revolution took over, they could find no detailed records of the joint projects. It was not the short-term monetary loss that concerned the Israelis, but the loss of their twenty-year relationship with Iran, their only major trading partner in the region. The Israelis felt that they had to find a new way to get along with the new regime. A friendly relationship with Iran was the cornerstone of their entire foreign policy. [pp.198-99]

Posted by: b real | Aug 12 2006 4:15 utc | 41

Debs, there’s one problem with your analysis. The Lebanese are in a position where they don’t have to eat one nanogram of shit right now, and I suspect they won’t.
Nasrallah will figuratively (and maybe literally if provided with a copy of the resolution) crumple it up and throw it away. All the weasel words about “offensive military operations,” or claiming 12 July was Time Zero have got to go. All Israeli troops in Lebanon have got to go; that will be a sine qua non.
If Israel wants to keep pounding on blasting caps while killing its soldiers, that’s their privilege. If Israel wants to see Islamists in Cairo, Amman, and Riyadh, with a broken IDF to protect them, by all means they should continue on the course they’re on.

Posted by: Brian J. | Aug 12 2006 4:27 utc | 43

Annie, I am with you on this one. A perfectly good country, and a competitor to Israel in financial and tourism markets, was destroyed. Seculars were sidelined and zealots strenghthend. Mission accomplished! Do you guys ever wonder why despite all the hub hub about democracy and tolerance its the secular regiems which fall prey to the bombs? Its because its all about economics, not about religion or secularism. Wahabis are friends, baathists are enemies, Al-Qaeda is the mortal enemy, but Iraqis are dead, so and so forth. Of course, Hizb is never going to tell anybody what the real game is, it deminishes them. So expect another round of this in the near future because now that Hizb has been “installed” as the de facto Lebanese govt Isreal will have plenty of excuses to bomb the crap out of Lebanese towns whenever it desires. Lebanon will never again take the road to economic prosperity like it did last time. What a freaking shame.
Max

Posted by: Max Andersen | Aug 12 2006 5:31 utc | 45

b real, in his book Robert Fisk says that Iran and Israel were friendly back in the 80s, that supports your quote.
The quoted reference also implies that US Vice President George Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush, President No. 41) during arms-for-hostages which began during the Carter Administration, leading to the Reagan Administration, was actually the motive force behind Reagan. So then Cheney isn’t the first VP to wield such power he is just the first one we heard about. This all took place in the context of the Iran Iraq war, which was give-or-take a decade long, with millions dead. Hussein used poison gas several times, and one battlefield was in the south, a seaport.
It’s also when the Iranians came close to Baghdad and Hussein poured fuel into the marshes where Fisk said they were infiltrating, and lit it on fire. Then he put electric wires into the water, resulting in the death of fish, plants and the native dwellers, the Marsh Arabs I think. Sometime later he must have drained the delta where these marshes were because I understand they are gone. Seems like the motivation was to remove a stealthy approach zone to Baghdad.
I think I’ll read some more of The Great War For Civilization and try to remember some of the background facts.

Posted by: jonku | Aug 12 2006 9:17 utc | 47