We think the bad guys are winning, but they're not so sure..
Mary Madigan
Via (of all places) the New York Times:
These should be heady days for Iran’s leaders. Hezbollah, widely regarded as its proxy force in Lebanon, continues to rain down rockets on Israel despite 17 days of punishing airstrikes. Hezbollah’s leader is a hero of the Arab world, and Iran is basking in the reflected glory.Iranian experts (who refuse to be identified for their own safety) are fairly open and honest about Hezbollah's strategic value to Iran.Yet this capital is unusually tense. Officials, former officials and analysts say that it is too dangerous even to discuss the crisis. In newspapers, the slightest questioning of support for Hezbollah has been attacked as unpatriotic, pro-Zionist and anti-Islamic.
As the war in Lebanon grinds on, Iranian officials cannot seem to decide whether Iran will emerge stronger — or unexpectedly weakened.
They are increasingly confident of an ideological triumph. But they also believe the war itself has already harmed Hezbollah’s strength as a military deterrent for Iran on the Israeli border...
...Iran’s relationship to Hezbollah is both strategic and ideological. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was viewed by its clerical leaders as a part of a pan-Muslim movement. Linking up with the Shiite Muslims of southern Lebanon was part of Iran’s efforts to spread its ideological influence. But in building up Hezbollah, the ideological motivation fused with a practical desire to put a force on Israel’s northern border.Shiite Iran's strength is being built at the expense of their Sunni rivals:No matter how this conflict is resolved, Iranian officials already see their strategic military strength diminished, said the policy experts, former officials and one official with close ties to the highest levels of government. Even if a cease-fire takes hold, and Hezbollah retains some military ability, a Lebanese public eager for peace may act as a serious check...
...Iran is the only nation in the Muslim world controlled by members of the Shiite sect of Islam, and its push to be a regional leader had raised concerns among the area’s Sunni leadership.Of course, their Sunni rivals aren't really friends of ours either. If the al Qaeda-supporting Sunnis gained power over the Hezbollah-supporting Shiites, what, exactly, would we gain from that? Both sides have used terrorism against us, neither side is an ally. Whichever side wins, we lose.Iran has used the war in Lebanon to try to prove that talk of a Shiite threat is a fiction created by Arab leaders and Americans seeking to maintain power in the hands of American friends in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh.
It has pointed to Israel’s destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure to promote the idea that this war is not against Hezbollah but against all Muslims. And Iran’s leaders have sought to burnish their own image, at the expense of their Sunni rivals...
So how can we ensure that both of our enemies lose?
Michael Totten has said that "Hezbollah is the most effective Arab fighting force in the world", a statement that Iran's leaders seem to agree with. Hezbollah is probably the most effective non-Israeli fighting force in the Middle East. This doesn't mean that Hezbollah is unbeatable. It means that Hezbollah is weak, and most of the non-Israeli forces in the Middle East are weaker. In the land of military mice, the Hezbollah rat is king.
Apparently, Israel has seriously injured the best and the brightest of their opposition, leaving the opposition somewhat defenseless.
...He said that Iran does not have the military ability at home to fight an aggressive offensive war against Israel from so far away. He said its only offensive tool would be a missile, which he said would be of limited effect and accuracy.Right now, our enemies in the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah group are stronger than our enemies in Riyadh - but, since our government is still pretending that the KSA and their ilk are allies, Iran is more vulnerable. If Iran was allowed to appear to be stronger, if it were allowed to become a regional leader, then the entire region, under the illusion of Iranian strength, becomes more vulnerable. With a little patience, we could create a win-win situation for us."If Israel attacked us tomorrow, what are we going to do?" he said.
In this case, Hezbollah and Iran's cheerleaders in the UN and the press would actually be working in our favor. Finally, a way to make them useful.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Lebanese Perspective
- Israel will win
- The fog of war
- game over
- We think the bad guys are winning, but they're not so sure..
- Handicapping the Hezbollah War, continued
- Handicapping the Hizbollah War: Dean explains it all
- the tragedy of moderation
- Israel's "Desperation"
That's just what we want them to think. Bwahahahaha!
And how long term will that be when Lebanese look around, look at how they intentionally dressed as civilians, among civilians, placed civilians in harm's way, and kept it up even as the horrible damages got racked up.
Hezbollah's going to stay the heroes? Perhaps. Or perhaps they're going to wind up with everyone looking at them from the ashes of Hezbollah's great pyrrhic victory and when it's all over say, "You a**holes. Look what you did."
We'll see. It's clear what choice has been made.
It's definitely a machiavellian choice that's been made by both sides. And horrific to watch.
"A disaster for Israel" -- Megan McArdle
vs.
"They're nervous in Iran" (link to the same Times story) -- Michael Totten
The action in Lebanon is a meaningless military victory and a meaningful political defeat.
They will not, of course, be allowed to realize this truth. Tremendous effort will be exerted to hide it from them.
I suspect this is just like political polling in the United States. A pollster can get just about any desired result by carefully selecting the polling sample, the subjects to be polled and the exact wording of the questions.
With different people asking different parties different questions, contradictory results appear.
Whodathunkit?
Which sides are you talking about here?
The Lebanese will have even more reason to be angry with Hezbollah. More from Michael Totten, from an interview with a terrorist:
...And even when the battle with the Israelis is over, he adds menacingly, Hizbullah will have other battles to fight. "The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let's finish with the Israelis and then we will settle scores later."
If the Lebanese are angry about this, it's doubtful that we'll ever hear about it, especially through the easily intimidated press. Hezbollah doesn't want to be loved, they just want to successfully intimidate everyone.
Of course, they don't try to intimidate their benefactors in Iran and Syria. The Lebanese aren't important to them, but their benefactors are.
Since Hezbollah is supported by both Syria and Iran, we can't expect the Lebanese or even the Israelis to fight this battle alone. Hezbollah and their Sunni counterparts are a threat to all of us.
I don't agree completely with Israel's actions, but they have shown us how weak this enemy is, militarily. Iran's army is so weak, they rely on Hezbollah to defend them from attack. Their Sunni counterparts are even weaker. Despie this weakness, they continue to make threats, not just against Israel, but against the US. They are the ultimate paper tiger. If we realize this, we can use it against them.
If we want to successfully dismantle terrorism's infrastructure, we have to note the successes as well as the failures.
Everyone/All: Totten also points to a Guardian piece on how effective and frightening Hezbollah is. Of course, it's the Guardian.
Still it seems what their course has been all along to invite just this kind of response from Israel, hoping they can weather it and then turn on Hezbollah's critics in Lebanon, using it to seize power.
Theirs is certainly a weak bluff. Problem is, democracies are very bad at calling bluffs, because they generally can't accept the visible possibility of a very bad (and hence very unpopular) outcome, or even the appearance of not doing everything to prevent such an outcome. Autocrats do not, of course, have this problem.
By official estimates, Iran is funding Hezbollah to the tune of $100 million per year. That's an incredible amount of money. The bitter irony is that that money is often U.S. dollars, from oil sold on an open market by people who have no legitimate right to control it, and are intent on abusing the power it confers, to our great detriment.
The leaders of Iran need to be made to understand two things: one, the spigots to the source of their power can be turned off (or more accurately, blown off) at our whim; two, they can be held personally responsible for their actions by the high-explosive packed tip of a cruise missile.
If the goal is to punish the Lebanese then the it might be a reasonable to be proportional. You'd punish them perhaps one or two times as much as you have suffered to send a message. If the goal was something else and the Lebanese civilians are just serving the purpose of human sandbags then one should expect a less proportionate response. I don't think the Israelis attacked to punish the Lebanese.
It will finally sink in through some rather thick skulls over there that Israel is running the tempo, Israel is calling the shots and it won't end until Israel wants it to end.
Hezbollah is not getting the usual International Community Cavalry coming over the hill to save them from their own folly. The choices they have are narrowing to these:
(1) Fight and die where they stand.
(2) Surrender unconditionally.
(3) Drop everything and run.
1 and 2 will destroy Hezbollah, one physically destroying them and two morally destroying them and their myth.
Three delays the inevitable. Unless Hezbollah kept much equipment out of the southern areas of Lebanon, they will have to flee without their heavy equipment, only what a man can carry. They would be like the post-Dunkirk BEF - without an English channel between them and their foes, and plenty of local enemies who may decide that the time is ripe to get revenge.
Oh, I don't think Israel is losing and Hezbollah winning just by the length of the campaign.
I responded to Dean's horror in another thread. In this thread he wondered if Hizb'Allah's support is really "through the roof".
We're getting contradictory reports about that. On one hand we have polls showing upwards of 80% of Lebanese support Hizb'Allah. On the other hand we have Totten telling us that a majority of Lebanese hate Hizb'Allah for what its done to their country.
Of course it's possible that some Lebanese hate Hizb'Allah but hate Israel even more, so they'll stand with Hizb'Allah until Israel vacates Lebanon then turn on Hizb'Allah.
So given all the variables, and the fact that the media have their own axes to grind [and may be shading the truth or even lying], how indeed can we tell how much support Hizb'Allah *really* has in Lebanon.
I suspect we won't know for a long time, if ever.
They do that all the time but there is also another factor.
Are you going to go on CNN and call Hezbollah bad? That's collaboration with Israel and we all know where that leads.
You can't know what people who live under murderous, repressive regimes really think.
Israel could easily invade and re-occupy southern Lebanon. They haven't. Why? Why are they taking so long? Why are they keeping Hezbollah in the trenches fighting?
Hezbollah's support is through the roof, and this has translated into what? What material advantage do they get from this? Israel learns it is hated by the muslim world, the international community condemns Israel, and this means what?
Israel already knows that. What is the international community going to do, turn the volume on "Death to Israel" up to 11?
The only outside country that matters is the United States, it is the only one that can get Israel to stop. (If you think Israel is going to listen to France, you need to stop operating heavy machinery, lie down, and put a cool compress on your forehead.)
Hezbollah isn't calling the tempo, they are reacting to Israel now. For instance: Israel called a ceae fire then, oopsy, fire away. Israel made that decision, not Hezbollah. Hezbollah could not influence Israel's decision.
So if Israel is calling the tempo and has the initiative, and if no one outside can or will stop Israel, why isn't Israel plunging into Lebanon? Maybe they don't want to, yet. Maybe they want to reduce Hezbollah's supplies and equipment as much as they can, wear down morale and keep them tired, make Hezbollah realize that they cannot win, and one night, Israel will be there, they will be killed, and there isn't a bloody thing they can do about it.
Make them realize that all of the street demonstrations, all of the firey imams in the mosques mean nothing when it counts. They are truly alone.
And when that happens Iran and Syria will be shown to be the weak horse. They will lose a great deal of face. They will be humiliated. Think that won't reverberate? Oh boy, will that.
Again, my speculations.