Following the recent shameful debacle of the Three Stooges it now looks like the (expected) blame shifting and finger pointing game is in full swing amongst the various components of the USraelian Empire and its Lebanese puppets.
The latest story coming out of the region is that Israel was poised to strike at Hezbollah on May 11 but reneged at the last second. This story was first broken by Franklin Lamb in Counterpunch and it has been confirmed by DEBKAfile, a propagandistic website close to the Israeli “security” establishment. Franklin Lamb’s detailed account is very well written (I have no idea who the men is, but he knows the region and he cleary has first rate access to information). The DEBKA story, in contrast, is full of rather bizarre holes. According to Lamb the plan was to bomb Beirut for 48 hours in support of the Three Stooges and their militias:
The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.
Also presumably disturbing to Israel was the report it received that Hezbollah “had once again in all probability hacked its “secure” military intelligence communications and the fear that the information would be shared with others.
The Hezbollah rout of the militias in West Beirut plus the fear of retaliation on Tel Aviv, ruining 60th anniversary celebrations, forced cancellation of the supportive attack.
Makes sense. I would just add that whether Hezbollah can hack into the Israeli C3I or whether Hezbollah has excellent HUMINT from Israel or its allies makes no fondamental difference here.
In contrast, the DEBKA story is filled with truly silly statements:
US and military sources disclose the arguments Washington marshaled to persuade Israel to go ahead: Hizballah, after its electronic trackers had learned from the Israel army’s communication and telephone networks that not a single troop or tank was on the move, took the calculated risk of transferring more than 5,000 armed men from the South to secure the capture of West Beirut.
This presented a rare moment to take Hizballah by surprise, Washington maintained. The plan outlined in Washington was for the Israeli Air force to bombard Hizballah’s positions in the South, the West and southern Beirut. This would give the pro-government Christian, Sunni and Druze forces the opening for a counter-attack. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut in two columns.
1. The western column would take the Tyre-Sidon-Damour-Beirut coastal highway.
2. The eastern column would press north through Nabatiya, Jezzine, Ain Zchalta and Alei.
First, this account overlooks the fundamental nature of the order of battle of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a deeply localized and decentralized force whose main strength is that is fights locally. Simply put – Hezbollah does not move forces around. Hezbollah has plenty of fighters inside Beirut, more than enough to take on the militias of the Three Stooges. Lastly, moving forces out of the south would leave the entire defensive infrastructue of Hezbollah in the south exposed and defenceless.
Second, Hezbollah does not even have 5’000 fighters in south Lebanon. Its core fighting force is about 1’000 people supported by a large amount of local volunteers. So which was Hezbollah suppose move up to Beirut?
Third, moving 5’000 men along just a couple of highways would have presented the Israeli Air Force with a “dream come true” target, something like what Saddam gave the USAF on the so-called “highway of death” at the end of Desert Storm. Unlike Saddam and his minions, the Hezbollah Shura Council is not composed of a mix stupid self-worshiping egomaniacs and obsequious sycophants. They would never have taken such a stupid decision.
Fourth, the idea of the IDF racing towards Beirut is something too insane even for Olmert to contemplate. The idea of IDF tanks actually *entering* Beirut is beyond crazy. I don’t know what the folks at DEBKA are smoking, but they really should run their stories by some of their military collegues before writing such nonsense.
Fifth, the Isarelis perfectly understand how pitiful, unreliable and otherwise worthless the Three Stooges are and they would never risk their hides to rescue them.
Still, what does all this tell us?
That a USraelian intervention was in the making and that somebody, most likely the Israelis, got cold feet, and with very good reason: according to both stories, Hezbollah could lauch about 600 missiles per day on Isarel in case of war. In other words, Hezollah could literally paralyze from about one third to one half of Israel within a couple of hours following an attack and sustain this offensive for quite a long while (as they did in 2006). While the bone-headed US Neocons might have cooked up such a stupid plan of attack on Hezbollah, I just don’t see the Israeli military agreeing to trying an almost exact repetition of their plan of attack of 2006. The Israelis wisely told them Americans “thank you, but no thank you” and they probably added that if they like that plan so much they should do it themselves. And that might just be in the making right now.
According to UPI (quoting DEBKA) the USS Mount Whitney (see photo) has been placed off the coast of Lebanon:
The U.S. Navy has positioned its advanced communications flagship off the coast of Lebanon ahead of a larger mission, an intelligence report says.
U.S. Navy spokesman Lt. Patrick Foughty said the the USS Mount Whitney, a 620-foot command and control flagship for the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet, is in the region “to support additional communications requirements for our ships already underway,” Israel’s military intelligence reporting service DEBKAfile said Sunday.
The naval destroyer USS Cole and the Nimitz class supercarrier USS Harry Truman patrolled the waters of the Mediterranean near Lebanon last week.
DEBKAfile sites unnamed military observers saying the naval buildup is part of a short, specific U.S. naval operation. Foughty said there are no plans to keep the Mount Whitney near Lebanon for very long.
While the folks at DEBKA can make up some stuff, I don’t think that they would make up an official statement by a USN spokesman. This time, I think that thiw story is for real (and so does UPI).
Anyone familiar with the American combat doctrines can easily predict what this is all about. The Americans believe in the short and overwhelming application of force. In the case of Hezbollah, this would mean doing the following:
1) placing 24/7 combat air patrols over Lebanon and inserting bombing strike groups under this cover to immediately bomb any location with a missile detected either before or after launch.
2) a continuous 24/7 bombing operation over Beirut and the rest of Lebanon aimed destroying as much of the Hezbollah infrastructure as possible.
While this might sound like what the Israelis did in 2006, but it is not: the Americans can put many more aircraft in the Lebanese skies and they can keep them there almost continuously meaning a much shorter reaction and strike time as anything the Israelis could have done.
All this would serve a double purpose: first to protect Israel as best can be during a simultaneous air and missile strike campaign against Iran (Israeli anti ballistic missile capabilities are, in reality, non-existing) and, second, to try to inflict as much damage on Hezbollah as possible.
The Israelis will, I guess, mainly limit themselves to an intelligence support role (they could, if needed, also provide an extraction force for any downed pilots (whether due to fire, or just to mechanical failure).
My guess is that the Americans are planning on a short high-intensity campaign simulteneously taking place over Iran and Lebanon. The goal would be to “send a message” (don’t mess with cowboys) and wreck the Iranian economy as much as possible.
It will most likely begin with a very small and limited couple of strikes on alledged “Quds bases” in Iran to “defend out troops in Iraq” and, as soon as Iran responds, it would be followed up by a massive bombing campaign. Should Hezbollah fire as much as a firecracker across the border, the same would happen in Lebanon.
What is the best possible response of Iran to such a plan?
To ride out the first pinprick attack and do *nothing* at all and let the political fallout of this folly (not to mention the price of crude) put enough pressure on the Americans to “declare victory” and back off. Should that not be enough, a short but massive missile attack on the Green Zone would probably send the Americans in a total panic mode, in particular of followed by a clear warning that the rest of CENTCOM’s high value targets in the region are next.
I am hoping that the Isarelis do quietly recognize that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and that while Iran does present them with a painful headache to deal with, an open shooting war with Iran is simply not in Isarel’s best interest. If the Israelis start dragging their feet or openly revolt at the crazy plans of the Neocons, and if the rest of the planet does not want to pay 200-300 bucks for a baril of crude, this war could still be avoided I suppose.
But now time is really running out. We are now days away from the moment when the ball we get rolling and nobody will be able to stop it any more.
I have to conclude this by issuing a formal warning to my readers:
I estimate that we could be days away from a massive war in the Middle East (this does not mean that the actual visible attack is days away, only that the point of no return is about to be reach at which point the attack becomes inevitable).
UPDATES:
* Of all people, now even Nancy Pelosi is beginning to (demurely) raise the alarm over what is going on. For her to make this kind of statement means she definitely knows that something is going on. Still, she concluded by saying that “nothing was off the table” (except impeaching the Moron, I suppose). In other words, she does not have the courage to oppose anything, but she does not to endorse it either.
* Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, says that Iran will not negotiate with the USA until the USA changes its policy over Iraq. In other words, all negotiations have now been stopped.
* At the Sharm el-Sheikh World Economic Forum Dubya has appealed to all the countries of the region to “confront the enemy of a free Lebanon (…) Hezbollah terrorists, funded by Iran, who recently revealed their true intentions by taking up arms against the Lebanese people”.
How ridiculous that our armed forces have been so completely co-opted by the Jews that we are going to fight their next battle against Hezbollah, because the Jews can’t fight them on their own. What a bunch of pussies, the Israelis!
What’s next? Conscription of American males into the IDF? Will there be forced circumcisions before entering Israel?
How the F%^* is Hezbollah a threat to America? How many more wars do we need to fight for Israel before we say enough? Wasn’t Iraq enough?
More rant: why are no other American military commanders saying “look, this is ridiculous! we aren’t going to war for Israel!” And how about US Congressmen and Senators? Why are they not saying anything against the war? They surely know more than we do, and nothing at all from our Congressmen! I guess it is ok , by them that the Israel firsters are in power.
Don’t you think a war would help John McCain get elected as well, basically extending Bush to 3 terms?
anonymous 2
Saker, do you think a couple of aircraft carriers could compare to the whole IAF? We’re talking about 140 aircraft. The IAF has about a 1000 fixed wings. If the U.S. could build up it forces over 6 months like in 1990-91, then it could have an unmatched force. But a couple of carriers?
The U.S. would almost certainly NOT be able to use NATO bases in southern Europe, and they would be much further away that Israeli bases.
Saker, the zionists won’t back down. Zionist “leaders” are drunk with the power of the US support+weapons and are blinded by their ambition of being the only hegemon in the Levant.
Add this the Saudis, one of the most infamous regimes existing ever. They have enormous economic interests in Lebanon, since the Hariri’s era (a protege of theirs). Wont’s accept “losing them to Iran”. And cannot stand Iran’s empowerement by none other than the USA and her idiot policies.
So this menace won’t go away anytime soon. The probability for an attack -actually very high- will depend on the US calculus over her possibility to win. Let’s hope such caculus are as accurate as they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, it will be the Lebanonese ordinary people -the people, as usual- who lose.
Lebanon will always find itself under death threats. It is too weak a country (both military and socially, due to her tribalism in politics) and is located in too a sensible area, thus subjected to manipulations by various foreign interests.
As soon as Zion exists over there, Lebanon will be in danger. Her only possibility to survive would be rejoining Syria, to which she historically belongs. But, in today’s Lebanon there is not in sight a wise enogh statist to make this move. And Hizbullah, while an important resistance movement, is not politically strong enough to decide on that, in case it ever considered it. I might be wrong, though. But these are my 2 cents.
Lucia
Saker, do you think a couple of aircraft carriers could compare to the whole IAF? We’re talking about 140 aircraft. The IAF has about a 1000 fixed wings. If the U.S. could build up it forces over 6 months like in 1990-91, then it could have an unmatched force. But a couple of carriers?
Good point, I should have been more clear on this: its not just the embarked aviation which will participate, but all USN and USAF assets in the region and worldwide, even from CONUS. Also, number of aircraft is less important than, say, in-flight refuling and other support aircract immediately available. Lastly do think that the US will be able to use European bases, bases in Turkey and the Middle-East.
There is going to be much more hardware in the air than one would think.
USA has interests in Lebanon too. She wants to build up a base on the -former- Nahr el-Bared refugee camp.
Is it a coincidence that the Saudis funded and helped introduce the salafist groups there, so as to have the camp destroyed by the army?. We all know the Palestinians’ lives are expendable for them. Facts have proved it once and again.
A base over there would complete the circle surrounding Iran, the big prize, to have a good chunk of the energy reserves under the american grips, and ensure her deam of “A new american century”
So, lil Lebanon faces difficult times ahead, and wont go any better with the democrats if they’re elected. There’s no big differences between reps and dems in the plutocracy that the US has become.
Many problems worldwide would be instantly solved if the american people did what they have to do some day: the revolution they owe themselves to take their country back for the people.
Lucia
@Lucia: first, its good to see you here! Thanks for dropping by.
You are correct. The Saudis have huge interests with the Lebanese millionaires who support the Three Stooges. Neither they, nor the Zionists, nor the Neocons will “let go” that easily
@anonymous2: you betcha! Electing McCaine would definitely be a highly desirable side effect from a war in the Middle-East. And since that would be tantamount of extending Dubya to a 3rd term, its a Neocon’s wet dream.
That’s insane, Saker.
So this is the Iran Lite ™ option – America bombing Lebanon (which was ALSO part of the “Clean Break” paper, alongside Iraq, Iran and Syria).
But I for one cannot see the US being allowed to be this stupid.
We are stuck in Iraq and there is no cassus belli at all for us to go bombing Lebanon on behalf of Israel.
Not even a fake, atrocious make up one.
One war for Israel is quite all right, thank you AIPAC, Lieberman and the sold out congressmen!
A goy- problem is, there is no process, no forum for deliberation left in the US. Facts on the ground, something that can be unilaterally executed, and the hot war that follows, will make effective war opposition impossible. Like in WWII, when America First was instantly silenced by Pearl Harbor. There IS no “America decided” anymore. Simply put, the right of an American President to instantly commit US forces to some undertaking for which the supporting cooked up excuses for a basically bipartisan supportive media are ready. Only in a long war slog would opposition forces be significant, and the point is to damage Iran and Syria and Hezbolah so they will be diminished for decade. Looking over a shoulder at decisions made to go to war is not worth spit. Even today, with the Iraq WMD – nuke stories really absurd, all the press says, “well thats water under some bridge, why go there, what do we do now” Expect the same about an attack on Iran. Who would vote for impeachment? What then? Back in ’91, there really was a debate about the Gulf War, and only passed by 6 votes in the Senate. The neocons learned a lesson, its much easier to paper over history to cover a military action undertaken in haste than it is to get permission. The press, the smiling face of Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer won’t ask the “whose war” question. That’s the nucleus of the issue, and they won’t go there, so any bizarre false history will do just fine. Maybe the NCRI can arrange some kind of false flag attack. That’l-do fine.
This lady will not impeach anybody for attacking Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668665810&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sate
llite?cid=1210668665810&pagename=
JPost%2FJPArticle%
2FShowFull
former but
folded url. Don’t know how to use the tags to make it in one piece, click able.