Clearing the path for US war on Iran

[bemildred]

WASHINGTON - Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shi'ite organization's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective - the weakening of Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.

In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the US administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program - the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

One leading expert on Israeli national-defense policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the US administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, says administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

Asia Times

[bemildred]

1. After Lebanon, there's Iran

MONTEREY, CALIF. - When the war in Lebanon ends, the US will have to piece together a whole new strategy for dealing with Iran – especially its nuclear program. The Israeli- Hizbullah war has boldly ratcheted up Iran's regional stature at the same time it has depleted US influence and prestige.

From the outset, the Lebanese conflict was about more than just Hizbullah. Jerusalem and Washington were quick to point the finger of blame for the conflict at Iran, and it was with Iran in mind that
Israel unleashed the full force of its air power in Lebanon. The US, too, saw shock and awe in Beirut as an opportunity to convince Tehran of the West's determination to bring it into compliance on the nuclear issue.

Tehran cleary received the message and viewed the US-backed Israeli war on Hizbullah as the first stage of a war on Iran. But Tehran also used the occasion to send a message of its own to Washington. While dutifully denying a direct role in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Tehran nevertheless heaped praise on Hizbullah, hoping that its engagement with Israel might dampen enthusiasm for a military attack on Iran. To further drive this point home, Hizbullah surprised Israel and the US by successfully testing a number of Iranian-made advanced weapons systems.

Iran's ties to Hizbullah run deep. It was Iranian clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders who first organized Hizbullah in the 1980s. Since then, Tehran has bankrolled and armed Hizbullah's war machine. Many among the current leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have served tours of duty at Hizbullah's headquarters in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Over the past two decades, Hizbullah has evolved into a Lebanese political force, but it continues to rely on Iranian support to sustain its military capabilities.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060809/cm_csm/ynasr

[bemildred]

2. Has Israel Rescued Iran?

Ironically, Israel's claim that Iran is the key to the threat that Hezbollah poses, and President Bush's endorsement of this with saber-rattling warnings to Iran, may have raised the stakes so high that the option of a limited air strike against Iran is precluded. And a ground invasion of Iran would require the reinstatement of a draft in the United States, which is not a viable political option. Has Israel actually saved Iran from a US military threat? AsksRichard W. Bulliet.


Ever since his “Axis of Evil” speech, President Bush has been rattling his saber over Iran's purported nuclear weapons program. Now he has gone farther and endorsed Israel's claim that Iran is the key to the Hezbollah rocket threat across the Lebanese border. Though intended to make President Ahmadinejad fearful, this elevation of the rhetoric of Iranian villainy may have put an American attack on Iran completely out of reach.

Someday we may know why Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but events have rendered this irrelevant. Israel intends to uproot Hezbollah and cut its funding and arms pipelines through Damascus and Tehran. For this it needs help, not just in prolonging the hostilities in Lebanon, but also in confronting Iran. President Bush's predecessors consistently demanded that Iran stop supporting Israel's enemies. They made this a condition for entering into talks with Tehran. Unlike his predecessors, however, President Bush is facing a real war in Lebanon. When he says that Israel's security problem in Lebanon won't be solved so long as Iran continues its wicked ways, he verges on declaring an ultimatum.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=17224

[bemildred]

3. The End of the Beginning

US forces ready to destroy 10,000 targets in the Middle East in a few hours.

US forces are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in the Middle East in a few hours. US readiness for more war is just one indicator that the present war is likely to spread and intensify in the coming months.

Unnoticed amidst coverage of the war, Iran has rejected a UN resolution demanding it halt uranium enrichment. Condoleezza Rice anticipates that on the nuclear issue: "when the Iranians get past this August 31 deadline, I think they're going to see sanctions from the international system that are going to start to make life pretty miserable." Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, stated back in April that the decisive point in Iran's development of nuclear arms would come in months.

Both the Iranian and US governments regard the fighting in Lebanon and Israel as related to their own conflict. President Bush made the end of Iranian and Syrian support of Hizbullah a condition of any ceasefire, though he has since softened his stance at the UN. Condoleezza Rice remarked that "we do know that this is more than just Hizbullah in Lebanon. This is an extension of Iranian power through a proxy war."

US Intelligence Chief, John Negroponte, told the US Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this year that Iran regarded Hizbullah as "a critical regime safeguard by deterring US and Israeli attacks". With Hezbollah already at war, this "safeguard" is in the process of being removed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PLE20060809&articleId=2930

[soleft]

4. Thanks for posting these

Scary but necessary reading

[bemildred]

6. My pleasure.

I find it useful to see the competing points of view.

[AlamoDemoc]

5. I still think this war is all about oil

In addition, in-between are cought with the Palestinian refugees living in southeastern Lebanon who the Israelis want not to return without future mndate from the UN or future negotiations with future Palestinian "administration" over Gaza , or West Bank.


What does Israel want?

"The only way that Israel can maintain its dominance in the region is by becoming a main-player in the oil-trade. Otherwise it will continue to be dependent on the United States to strengthen its military and defend its interests. Israel’s determination to “stand on its own 2 feet” is outlined in the neocon plan for “rebuilding Zionism” in the 21st century; “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The document is the blueprint for redrawing the map of the Middle East and eliminating rivals to Israeli power. Most of the attention has been focused on the parts of the paper which presage the attacks on Iraq, Lebanon and Syria; including this ominous passage:

“Securing the Northern Border:

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syria is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove to be insufficient, string at select targets in Syria proper.” (“A Clean Break”; Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser)

Clearly, this is the basic schema for US/Israeli aggression in the region. What has been overlooked, however, is Israel’s determination to “break away” from its traditional dependence on American support. As stated in the text: "

“Securing the Northern Border:


Israel, Oil and the "planned demolition" of Lebanon

By Mike Whitney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14406.htm

[megatherium]

9. If our goal is oil, then setting the entire Middle East on fire

is probably not the best way of going about securing our oil supply.

I think Isreal/Hezbollah/Lebanon is about the strong belief in Israel that this war is about Israel's survival as a nation. A war that to us seems discretionary or unnecessarily destructive is seen by Israelis across their political spectrum as necessary. See the article in yesterday's NY Times: "Left or Right, Israelis Are Pro-War" (I don't think I have a good link for that, but the link from yesterday is still there under 'World News'.) I find this disturbing that few Israelis see this war as discretionary, and even more disturbing that the only real political issue in Israel over the war is whether the Israeli government has prosecuted the war effectively.

[Dhalgren]

7. Good gods, bemildred! You have been working this morning!

This is excellent work! This is the kind of grouping together of reports that make for a clearer understanding of the situation. Of course I am totally confused by everything going on in Lebanon; these juxtaposed articles, however, are beginning to show me a light. There is method to the Israeli madness - a despicable method, but there it is...

K&R!

[bemildred]

8. It's always much messier than we are lead to believe ... nt

[katty]

10. clearing the path, indeed-right to Syria and Iran's door-obvious

[ShortnFiery]

11. Good luck to them for snagging the necessary "cannon fodder"

to go in after The Executive Branch's beloved surgical air strikes. :grr: :nuke: :grr:

[varun]

12. Bombing is all US can do.

Cant even control a small country like Iraq. Forget Iran and the rest of middle east. And imagine what the world's 1.5 billion muslims will do to US embassies in their countries...