TOW and Dragon. Among other things, I was trained as a wire-guided missile systems repairman (MOS 27E20) when I was in the Army.
Uh, guess what?
Iran to supply Hezbollah with surface-to-air missiles
Let’s see… Hezbollah is trained by Iran, funded by Iran, and supplied weapons from Iran. At what point do we just admit that Hezbollah is in fact Iran, operating at arms length through hijacking another country?
And at what point do Iran’s actions constitute a casus belli for Israeli retaliation? How can this war possibly end while the real puppetmasters in Tehran are pulling the strings with apparent impugnity?
I don’t want to see a war with Iran, because it could be absolutely devastating. But it’s hard to see how this all ends without Iran being slapped down hard. They are no doubt responsible for a lot of the trouble in Iraq
Agh. Posted early. Anyway, they’re responsible for a lot of the trouble in Iraq by fueling sectarian tension, and now they’ve managed to help Lebanon erupt in flames. In the meantime, they are working to help North Korea improve its missile technology, and working furiously on building nuclear weapons. And I have no doubt that they’ll sneer at the latest UN resolution calling for the dismantling of their nuclear program.
Iran has become the biggest threat to world peace - and that situation cannot last.
It will obviously last as long as The World™ is willing to give Iran a pass and do nothing…or endlessly procrastinate, hem and haw, and generally be put off another day…and another…and another. I think most countries are burying their heads in the sand and hoping the whole things goes away, if they just talk long enough.
And the US? Well, we are stupidly up to our neck in Iraq for the forseeable future with a rather large percentage of our deployable military tied down. Talk about stepping on your crank with the ole golf shoes!
Maybe the Europeans will decide to do something forceful since we have pretty much dealt ourselfs out of this round…
:dubious:
-XT
They’re not though. I have no doubt whatsoever that Iran has a LOT of pull with Lebanon’s Hizbullah. Afterall the leadership ( or at least Nasrallah’s radical faction ) now claims Iran’s Khamen’ei as their source of religious emulation.
But it would be a mistake to regard them as merely puppets. It would be simpler if they were, but everything I have read has noted that they are quite independent, particularly after 1989. While the shifting of control to Nasrallah’s faction after 1992 indicated a tilt back towards Tehran, it has never appeared to be a vassal relationship. Whatever homilies they mouth, most of Hizbullah’s interersts appear to be far more local. They are a Lebanese entity, first and foremost. Casting them purely as Iran’s stalking horse underestimates both their own pull in Lebanese society and the purely local motivations that could lead them to disregard any directives from Tehran. Such as countervailing local influences like the Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah, no fan of certain segments of Khomeinian religious doctrine.
- Tamerlane
Well… Obviously they aren’t literally Iranian soldiers. Many of the people now fighting are native Lebanese members of Hezbollah. Clearly they have their own agenda, including wanting political power in Lebanon for the same reason other groups want political power.
However, they could not exist without Iran. Iran is funneling millions of dollars worth of weapons and supplies into Lebanon through Hezbollah. Iran trains them, Iran arms them, Iran gives them religious leadership, and Iran has immense pull. They are not unlike some of the resistance groups the U.S. funded during the Second World War - fighting for their own reasons, but still essentially American front line troops. They would go where the Americans told them to go, not least because they trusted that their interests and America’s coincided at that time. I think that’s the same with Hezbollah. If it truly sees Iranian interests and their own as being closely aligned, they’ll do Iran’s bidding simply because they trust Iran and need Iran.
Right. And now the discussion is centering around ‘how far the U.S. will let Israel go’.
Israel’s interest and America’s interests actually diverge quite a bit in this current conflict, but there is no doubt that the U.S. has enormous influence on Israel. The difference, however, is that Israel is a state with a democratically elected government and ultimately responsible to its own voters. Hezbollah is under no such constraints.
Of course they are. The constraints are structured a little differently, but they certainly exist. If Hezbollah loses the support of its constituency (i.e., Lebanese Shi’ites), it will no longer have a source of recruits, will no longer receive shelter from the surrounding community, etc, and will quite quickly cease to be a significant organization. It would go the way of the “Real IRA” - continuing to be an annoyance, but gaining no traction in the community.
Right. Because Guerrilla groups have never used fear and coercion to control the local population…
Hey, I said that the constraints were structured differently. Hezbollah cannot survive without support from Shi’ite Lebanese, regardless of how they garner that support. But do you have any evidence that Hezbollah is supported primarily out of fear and coercion? It’s my understanding that they’re heavily involved in delivering basic services to their constituency, and that they are supported largely because Shi’ite Lebanese see them as a legitimate organization seeking to protect their interests.
Actually, I didn’t mean to suggest that at all. Hezbollah clearly has the support of the Shiite population. My point was that they aren’t constrained as much by needing that support as a democracy might be. For instance, whether the people in South Lebanon like Hezbollah firing rockets out of the neighborhoods or not, there’s nothing they can do about it. Hezbollah is entirely unconstrained by the desires of the people living in the war zone.
Another example: The insurgency in Iraq has had the support of various communities, but that hasn’t stopped them from maintaining ‘order’ in areas they controlled through brutal tactics that substituted fear for enthusiam when the need arose.
But this just isn’t true. They are certainly not AS constrained by their civilians are the IDF is by its civilians, but that doesn’t mean they’re entirely unconstrained. Hezbollah would be no more successful operating without significant support from its constituents than the Real IRA is. Losing that support would render it politically irrelevant, and that constrains the behaviour of Hezbollah leadership.
Right. Because guerrilla groups are typically the product of the local population. Where the hell do you think they come from, anyway?
Maybe someone does,t want the war to get bigger.
Maybe the world is finally seeing what kind of murderers Hezbollah are.
Human Right Watch says Hezbollah commits war-crimes:
I have my doubts about that optimistic assessment. If you read through that cite, you will note that HRW also claims Israel is committing war crimes.
My emphasis.
They claim (I think it was in another statement by them) to have proof that Israel is firing indiscriminately into civilian areas, or firing at targets with no military value…but I’d like to know how they are making this determination, given the confused situation, with Hezbollah mixing among the civilians, storing their weapons and munitions in civilian buildings, and firing rockets near civilian facilities.
It will be interesting to see what proof they have that Israel is being indiscriminate with their fire in such a situation…because the only real proof that would be meaningful would have to come from an high level inside source in Israel authorizing such. Giving us anecdotal stories of people in Lebanon would not constitute proof of indiscriminate fire…after all, even if we accept civilian anecdotes at face value, even if they claim there were no military targets in the area, etc etc, Israel plausably could claim they thought they were attacking legitimate military targets. Or that their weapons systems failed to hit the correct target. And this is plausable because of how Hezbollah has chosen to attack Israel and to prosecute their war against them…from the midst of their own civilian population.
Interesting that HRW would make accusations of war crimes against Israel for indiscriminate fire. I will await with bated breath their proofs that Israel is intentionally and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians…
(I also await with same bated breath the outrage and anger towards Hezbollah for ACTUALLY committing war crimes, and the hue and cry not only from The World™ but from every member of this board, prepared to condemn Hezbollah for its crimes in no uncertain terms. Note: Though my breath is bated, and my heart hopeful, I won’t be holding said breath. 
)
-XT
See my post in the other thread, Xtisme
Yeah, I thought the SDMB members - of all people - would be the ones who’d support the underdog.
Israël, in this case.
But I’ve been wrong before. shrugs shoulders
That’s a pretty broad definition of war crimes they’re using. By that standard, every side of every war fought this century has routinely engaged in war crimes. Which is not to say that targetting civilians with area effect weapons (or failing to ensure civilians aren’t in the area, which amounts to much the same thing from the civilians’ perspective) is a good thing, or to be encouraged, or anything like that, but just that it’s so commonplace that I have a hard time being outraged. Disappointed would be more accurate. Saddened.
gum, how the heck is Israel the underdog in a fight between the IDF and Hezbollah, or between Israel and Lebanon generally? Anyways, I’m not on anyone’s “side”. I want for there to be lasting peace, and imho for that to happen Israel has to stop reacting like this when they’re baited with the intention of provoking them into alienating yet another generation of Arab children. The various militant guerilla groups need Israel to react aggressively like this, so that they can say to their people, “Look, without us to fight them, the Israelis would kill you all.” Never mind that Israel is only attacking because those self-same guerillas provoked them, that will be overlooked in the propaganda. So when ever there’s the least danger of the militants losing influence, they poke at Israel a bit, and Israel invariably reponds exactly the way the militants want. That is why I’m unhappy with the Israelis. Because they stupidly walk into the same trap over and over and over and over again in the name of self-defense, not recognizing that they’re doing exactly what their enemies want them to. So now they’ll occupy south Lebanon again for a while, and it’ll go about as well as it did last time, and eventually they’ll pull out, again, and what then? Then Hezbollah trumpets how it has successfully driven the Israeli aggressor from Lebanon. That is why I don’t approve of Israel’s response to the raid on the patrol. Because their response guarantees that Hezbollah will reap a propaganda victory.
And yet, because I wish that Israel act in its own long-term interests instead of the doing the easy self-defeating thing, I get labelled as being anti-Israel. Gah. Why do I bother.
The problem is, it’s a situation where there simply is no best answer.
If Israel were to let the attacks continue, the Arab street would be celebrating how a ‘resistance organization’ showed how weak Israel was; that Israel could be attacked but would be totally impotent to respond. We saw much the same rhetoric and public reaction to Israel withdrawing from Gaza, for example. And that sort of public perception does indeed lead to more attacks.
If Israel initiated a targeted campaign to kill Hezbollah bigwigs via explosive in their cell phones or some such, we’d have the international community coming down on Israel for ‘illegal extrajudicial assasinations.’ Pundits all over would be blaming Israel for continuing “the cycle of violence” whenever the bigwigs deaths’ gave Hezbollah a rhetorical justification for launching more attacks. And with each funeral there would be a groundswell of support for whichever dearly departed murderer was being put into the ground.
Indeed, we’re now seeing people talk about how Hezbollah was on the way out, if only Israel hadn’t foolishly fallen into their trap. And yet, just a few months ago, Lebanon’s government and defense ministry were cooperating to have rockets and other weapons delivered to Hezbollah. A few months ago there were quotes from high the Lebanese government about how Hezbollah was not a militia, and thus wouldn’t be disbanded, and was instead an official ‘resistance organization’ authorized to bear arms and use them against Israel.
Yes, there was opposition, but I see no real evidence that Hezbollah would’ve been disarmed any time soon if Israel had done nothing. Or that Iran/Syria/Lebanon wouldn’t have been able to fund/arm another proxy force if Hezbollah didn’t do as well as hoped.
Just curious as I keep asking this question of folks, but what course of action would you advise as being in Israel’s best interest?