I agree that one reason for Israel’s 2006 rampage in Lebanon was the mistaken hope it would demonstrate Israeli total domination and control of the battlefield. The murderous rampage in Gaza was primarily driven by domestic political concerns related to the elections.

To me, the utter imbecility of US policy in Afghanistan arises from the simple fact that the very presence of American troops causes more unrest (and worse) than it dampens down. The US is the wrong country to be taking such a high profile in Afghanistan, and sadly this is a fact Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates seem incapable of conprehending.

Afghanistan also illustrates the tendency of colonisers to create the impression that they believe their own propaganda. This is best illustrated by the fatuous claim that the people losing the ‘war’ in Afghanistan, us, must stay there to teach the people who are winning, Afghans, how to defend themselves. Needless to say, this training is expensive, irrational and fruitless. Similarities between the Afghanistan and Vietnam triumphs of enthusiasm over commonsense outnumber differences by 3 or 4 to 1.

There is simply no recent (~~30 years) precedent for either Israel or America attacking a target with its conventional and unconventional defenses intact – let alone a record of success in so doing. From a political standpoint, neither can afford to fight an optional war as if it were a cause worth dying for – whereas the targets don’t have the luxury of an alternative perception. For them, it’s do or die.

I agree with you, obviously, that Hezbollah would not attack Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon (and Hezbollah) first.

Joe Klein, in his Time-CNN piece July 15th, asserted that if Israel attacked Iran, Hezbollah would “certainly” attack Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia! Astounding rubbish! Hezbollah has made clear it IS NOT the enemy of the US.

Klein says the US has been foolish enough to bring the Israelis into the planning for a possible attack on Iran. Sheer idiocy by CENTCOM. But not such a surprise, given that David Petraeus was in charge of CENTCOM.

Well, it’s lucky for the Lebanese that RSH isn’t Nasrallah.
Hezbollah is a defensive force. The notion that it would launch an unprovoked attack on Israel because Israel attacked Iran, or any other reason, is the fanciful and uninformed product of Israeli group-think. Beirut is a sitting duck for the IOF Air Force and the Lebanese would be very reluctant to forgive them for inviting Israel’s Goths and Vandals to bomb it again.

London-based energy think tank, Energy Market Consultants (EMC), has released a report which has predicted that by upgrading some of its refineries, Islamic Iran not only will be able to meet its domestic gasoline needs but by 2015, it will be able to begin exporting some of its refined products.

http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/israeli-crippling-sanctions-are-not-going-to-work-after-all/

Excellent points. I think Hezbollah will stick to its stated programme of not attacking Israel unless Israel attacks first, not least because this is the position the Lebanese PM relies on when he says Lebanon needs a strong Hezbollah for protection against another Israeli mauling of the entire country.

I too very much doubt Hamas would attack Israel, unless Israel launches another insane rampage.

While I can see the strategic thinking in which Iran would not retaliate for an Israeli attack, I think it is certain or virtually certain Iran would launch a counter-attack.

I continue to doubt Israel would attack Lebanon and Iran at the same time. I think Israel was considering attacking Iran back in 2006, but wanted to get rid of the “threat” posed by Hezbollah, and that this is the reason the flimsy pretext was used to launch the insane smashing of Lebanon. Fortunately, the effort to destroy Hezbollah quickly failed.

I agree with both statements – but not unconditionally. As I said, Nasrallah would be foolish to believe that if Israel attacks Iran, it will not attack Hizballah (and perhaps Syria) at the same time.

An attack by Israel on Iran – even just a one-time minimal attack on a couple of nuclear facilities – is a game changer. It will invite a serious Iranian retaliation, unless the Iranians are extremely calm and the damage is so minimal as to enable them to use the attack as a PR move against Israel. Much more likely is that such an attack would ignite a fire storm in the region.

Because of this, Israel has to cover all its strategic bases. It CANNOT assume that Hizballah won’t retaliate. The odds therefore are that Israel WILL attack Hizballah either before or during an attack on Iran.

Therefore Hizballah has to take that into account. The question is whether Nasrallah will see an attack on Iran as an attack on an important ally, and therefore will he score points with the Arab street by initiating an attack on Israel in retaliation. and whether that calculation overrides the opposite problem of being blamed in Lebanon for initiating an attack on Israel which will result in hardship for Lebanese.

Also there is the issue of initiative. As I said, Nasrallah must assume that Israel will attack Hizballah before or during an attack on Iran because ISRAEL must assume that Hizballah will attack Israel. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that won’t go away absent Israel declaring that if it attacks Iran, it will not attack Hizballah first. If Israel declared that – and if Nasrallah believed it – then Israel could attack Iran with some reason to believe that Hizballah might not attack Israel in retaliation.

I leave Hamas out of it because they have more to lose than anybody and attacking Israel just because of an attack on Iran would be risky, especially if Hizballah doesn’t automatically retaliate. That would leave Gaza in a pickle. So I believe Hamas will NOT attack Israel in retaliation for an attack on Iran UNLESS Israel attacks Gaza at the same time OR Hizballah makes a deal with Hamas to retaliate.

My expectation is that, unless Israel intends a minimal attack on Iran – just a pin prick to get Iran to retaliate and drag the US into it, Israel will go for broke in an attack on Iran. By that I mean Israel will try to roll up all its enemies in one go. Israel will attack Hizballah and probably Syria as well – because to take out Hizballah, Israel will have to occupy the Bekaa Valley – which will entail Israel either fighting its way up Lebanon against Hizballah’s determined opposition, OR swinging around through Syria – which entails a conflict with Syria. So Israel will do it all – they will attack Syria, degrade its military, then launch an attack on Hizballah in Lebanon. This will occur DURING its aerial attack on Iran which will be conducted as a separate contained operation.

My expectation is that the end result will be Israel being attacked by Iranian missiles, while Hizballah blunts the IDF’s advance into Lebanon, and the remnants of the Syrian army conduct harassing attacks on Israel’s rear as the IDF tries to get into the Bekaa Valley. The end result will be a stalemate, just like the 2006 war. And the consequences will be that Syria’s attitude will be much hardened and far more likely to be supporting Hizballah in Lebanon. Indeed. once Israel has withdrew back to its borders, Syria is likely to re-occupy Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israel will have been hit by 20-30.000 Hizballah missiles killing hundreds of Israeli civilians, lost a significant number of IAF jets to the new Hizballah and Syrian man portable AA missiles, taken one to two thousand IDF casualties – and gotten nothing in return.

All that will be overshadowed by the US Iran war, however.