Hezb caught in ‘quagmire’

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Hezb caught in ‘quagmire’

Ahmed Al-Jarallah

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times


HASSAN Nasrallah is in a quagmire. If, according to his own statements, Nasrallah knew Israel would attack Lebanon between September and November, if he was aware the Zionist enemy was ready for war and if he had received this information, which even the Pentagon and CIA could not receive, why did he give Israel an opportunity to launch the war before time by kidnapping two of its soldiers? Nasrallah has called for the beginning of a second phase of this war.

In what he calls “Beyond Haifa,” Nasrallah says his fighters will begin rocket attacks deeper into Israel, south of Haifa. We wonder if Nasrallah took any time to review his achievements in the first phase of the war against the enemy before thinking about the next. So far his only achievements have been causing the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing of innocent Lebanese. If he begins the second phase the only result will be wiping out of whatever remains of Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing of the rest of the Lebanese.

Dictatorial decisions taken by a single man like Nasrallah, who gets instructions from foreign countries, will always lead to sorrow. The ongoing war in Lebanon is a clash between Israel and the United States on the one side, and Iran and Syria on the other. Although each party in the war wants to demonstrate its power in Lebanon, none of them wants its role to be recognized.

In a message to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, Chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council Akbar Rafsanjani has expressed his country’s support to Saudi Arabia’s proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. This indicates Tehran has started worrying it may lose the war and wants to retreat. However, Nasrallah seems not to have received this information. So if he goes ahead with his so-called “Beyond Haifa” mission, he will be left alone.

The ceasefire proposed by Saudi Arabia is its own idea and not dictated by anybody else. After realizing its inevitable defeat, the Iran-Syria combine has changed its mind on the war and decided to support the Saudi proposal. Nasrallah won’t be able to cover his mistakes by appearing on TV channels and claiming to possess unreasonable information, which cannot be proved by anybody. Nasrallah’s claims give the impression that he has some spy satellites flying over the United States and Israel.

Nasrallah’s dictatorship will sink like those of Saddam Hussein and other regimes, which did not know their true ability. Egyptians suffered under the dictatorship of the late Gamal Abdul Nasser who led them to war in 1967. The late Egyptian President believed Arab power can defeat Israel. However, the result was different as Arabs were handed out a humiliating defeat. Nasrallah, who is being remote-controlled by Iran and Syria, believes he is in the mold of many Arab leaders. But the fact is he is playing with fire.

e-mail: ahmedjarallah@hotmail.com
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=1254

What say you?

 

[parihaka]

I say Assad has seriously underestimated the resolve of the west post 9/11, or else he is quite mad.
Nasrallah, like all proxies, is simply doing what he is told and presumably profiting in whatever coin his master bought him with.

 

[sigatoka]

1. I say Assad has seriously underestimated the resolve of the west post 9/11, or else he is quite mad.

2. Nasrallah, like all proxies, is simply doing what he is told and presumably profiting in whatever coin his master bought him with.

1. Assad is simply doing what is best given that his military can not confront Israel directly.

2. Your usage (and abuse) of the word proxies and masters is so wide that Israel also could be considered a proxy of U.S.

 

[parihaka]

2. Your usage (and abuse) of the word proxies and masters is so wide that Israel also could be considered a proxy of U.S.

Of course it is. I'm speaking pragmatically. You view this affair personally. I view it as yet another move in the great game. My intent here is not to abuse your or others personal views but to state my assessment of what is going on.

 

[parihaka]

1. Assad is simply doing what is best given that his military can not confront Israel directly.
.

If it is any consolation I think Assad is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. I just think he needs to consider his future options very carefully.

 

[sigatoka]

If it is any consolation I think Assad is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. I just think he needs to consider his future options very carefully.

Assad is doing what is best (from his POV), that is helping Hezbollah which is keeping the pressure on Israel and committing to war if Israel invades Syria.

From Syria's point of view, the very best thing has occured. Israel is stuck in a pointlessly costly conflict and the Lebanese govt. dominated by anti-syrian elements has been severly weakened. (for the very reason that their pro-U.S. stance couldnt protect Lebanon).

It is unlikely that Israel will escalate and invade Syria (for Syria is not Lebanon with 300,000 soldiers under arms) which will only increase the moentary cost to Israel. It will not invade Syria because that will require a general mobilisation which is extremely costly to the Israeli economy. (the economy stutters because these people are no longer contributing to economic production. Israel requires people who are working in the economy to pack up and fight)

It will not invade Syria because it has still not reached the Litani river. It deosnt make sense to escalate further when it is struggling with meeting its basic objectives.

 

[parihaka]

Assad is doing what is best (from his POV), that is helping Hezbollah which is keeping the pressure on Israel and committing to war if Israel invades Syria.

From Syria's point of view, the very best thing has occured. Israel is stuck in a pointlessly costly conflict and the Lebanese govt. dominated by anti-syrian elements has been severly weakened. (for the very reason that their pro-U.S. stance couldnt protect Lebanon).

It is unlikely that Israel will escalate and invade Syria (for Syria is not Lebanon with 300,000 soldiers under arms) which will only increase the moentary cost to Israel. It will not invade Syria because that will require a general mobilisation which is extremely costly to the Israeli economy. (the economy stutters because these people are no longer contributing to economic production. Israel requires people who are working in the economy to pack up and fight)

It will not invade Syria because it has still not reached the Litani river. It deosnt make sense to escalate further when it is struggling with meeting its basic objectives.

Apart from what Israel is prepared to do if necessary (the economy be damned, they don't see this as a game the way the Arabs do) I agree.
But the French/American force that will be based in South Lebanon within the next 20 days will be an entirely different kettle of fish.
One month ago what would you have rated the chances of what is basically a NATO force in drag, at least 30,000 but more likely 40,000 strong, armed to the teeth and based in the South of Lebanon? See what I mean about Assad needing to make some careful choices?

 

[sigatoka]

1. Apart from what Israel is prepared to do if necessary (the economy be damned, they don't see this as a game the way the Arabs do) I agree.


2. But the French/American force that will be based in South Lebanon within the next 20 days will be an entirely different kettle of fish.
One month ago what would you have rated the chances of what is basically a NATO force in drag, at least 30,000 but more likely 40,000 strong, armed to the teeth and based in the South of Lebanon? See what I mean about Assad needing to make some careful choices?

1. The economy is important, the reason the Lebanese incursion was initiated was because they believed they could do it at very low cost without very few troops and therefore not requiring mobilization. They have miscalcualted, the resistance is stiffer than they expected.


2. 30-40,000 troops? What drugs are you on? How many troops has NATO sent to Afgh? How many to Iraq?

They will be lucky to get 20,000 troops and no, they wont be armed to the teeth as you suggest. They will have APC's and so forth but not hundreds of battle tanks and helicopter gunships as you suggest.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Assad is being ****.

He should think of Syria.

(How come D u m B is ****)

 

[Officer of Engineers]

They will be lucky to get 20,000 troops and no, they wont be armed to the teeth as you suggest. They will have APC's and so forth but not hundreds of battle tanks and helicopter gunships as you suggest.

That is the dumbest thing you've ever written. Take a look at I/SFOR and KFOR! You really pretend to know alot more than you know.

 

[sigatoka]

That is the dumbest thing you've ever written. Take a look at I/SFOR and KFOR! You really pretend to know alot more than you know.

I know that Officer, but i humbly ask how many NATO troops are there in Afgh. and Iraq? France could deploy 10, 000 troops and Germany, Italy and Spain could give a few thousand more. (Britian and U.S. is too heavily committed in Iraq and Afgh.)

Doing the Maths it is difficult to get a number greater than 20,000, where will the extra 15,000 troops come from (to get to the 35,000 figure?).