January 22, 2004
U.s. Mulling Hizbullah Strikes
From Jane's:
US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld is considering plans to expand the global war on terrorism with multi-pronged attacks against suspected militant bases in countries such as Lebanon and Somalia...
Sending US troops into lawless Somalia would not be new, nor is it likely to cause serious diplomatic waves. Covert US forces have periodically infiltrated the country over the past two years in order to conduct surveillance and even snatch [Al Qaeda] suspects...
However, sending US special forces into Lebanon - and in particular an area like the Bekaa Valley (which is virtually Syrian territory) and where the bulk of Damascus' military forces in Lebanon are deployed - would be an entirely different matter. Deployment of US forces in the area would almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops.
That may well prove to be the objective, since the Bush administration is currently stepping up pressure on the Damascus regime in a bid to force it to cut off all support for radical Palestinian groups which have been targeting Israel during the three-year-old intifada. Washington also wants Syria to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and to withdraw all its forces from Lebanon, a virtual satellite since Syria moved in with tacit US support in 1990 as part of a strategy to end Lebanon's civil war.
The US administration has long considered Damascus as a prime candidate for 'regime-change' (along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and possibly even Saudi Arabia). Syria, once a powerhouse of Arab radicalism that could not be ignored, has been seriously weakened, both militarily and politically. Washington may feel that the time is coming to oust Bashir Al-Assad and the ruling generals. Targeting Syria via Lebanon, the only concrete political influence Damascus has to show following decades of radical diplomacy, could prove to be a means to that end...
Moreover, since the 11 September 2001 attacks, Washington has been keen to prove that Hizbullah has a global reach, and is thus a legitimate target for its war on terrorism. Thus far, US intelligence services have been unable to produce compelling evidence supporting this claim. So instead of launching military strikes, the Bush administration has sought to weaken Hizbullah by putting pressure on Iran, the movement's ideological mentor, and on Syria, which has used the Shia militants as what amounts to a proxy force against Israel over the last 20 years...
Washington's own focus on Hizbullah has intensified amid claims that the movement has links with Al-Qaeda (even though Hizbullah is staunchly Shia, while Al-Qaeda's religious ideology stems from the puritanical Wahhabite sect of Sunni Islam). Whether there is any actual operational alliance between Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda remains highly questionable.
[via Noah Shachtman]
Posted by Michele at January 22, 2004 12:03 PM
| TrackBack
SecState Powell spoke out against Hezbollah earlier this week as well. Trial balloon? Statement of intent? Sabre rattling?
Time will tell.
Posted by: jeffers at January 22, 2004 01:14 PM
Interesting. And potentially a powder keg. Iraq (Hussein at least) was universally feared and despised by the Arab League despite what they might say in public. But Syria has strong ties to Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Iran especially would be in a very precarious position if we were to confront Hesbollah in Lebannon, because they fund and equip Hesbollah. With American troops on 2 of their borders, and their ally Syria with their proxy allies Hesbollah under siege, who knows what Iran might do? They could panic and precipitate a war to try to get a first strike in. Iran's threat is no joke. They could close the Persian Gulf to us via mines and anti-ship missiles. They may have nuclear weapons. There is no question who would win the longterm war, but that could end up being a pyrrahic victory if we take significant losses and see Iraq spiral into madness likely should a regional war break out. We must think this one through.
Posted by: Mark Buehner at January 22, 2004 02:18 PM
And I can't help but wonder if this couldbe related to the reports of Saddam's WMDs being buried in the Bekaa Valley. Condi says there is no evidence. I'm not so sure she'd tell us all right at this moment if there was.
Posted by: Del Simmons at January 22, 2004 04:21 PM
The admin. must be watching something to see what rats scurry where.
Posted by: jones at January 22, 2004 04:38 PM
"Iran’s threat is no joke. They could close
the Persian Gulf to us via mines and anti-ship missiles."
"Close the Gulf" is an optimistic assessment. Primary threat would be between 40 and 100 C-802 antiship missiles, which, although sea skimmers with a small RCS, are relatively slow and vulnerable to airborn early warning systems. Given the small number, any such attack would be unlikely to saturate Aegis platform defenses.
Secondary threat would be Silkworms, slower and easier to detect, but estimates vary widely on the number still in service, from 300 to 1000.
Mines are probably the most realistic threat but there's a political and economic price to pay for their use. One of the key objectives during the Iran-Iraq war was prevention of Iranian oil exports; that Iran was able to prevail in this area is seen as a primary reason for the Iranian victory. "Closing the Gulf" could well amount to a suicide pact for Iran.
Overall, Iran's probably stronger than Iraq under Hussein, meaning it'd take perhaps twice as long to reduce coherent military resistance to zero. At the same time, such an outcome would make dealing with obstructionist Shiites in Iraq quite a different matter than the kid glove balance of power now in effect.
All possibly moot, as Iran shows stronger signs by the day of incipient internal meltdown.
Posted by: jeffers at January 22, 2004 10:58 PM
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)
As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.
We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.
We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.
If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.