Lind: If Israel Bombed Iran
US Army in Iraq Could be Lost
Iran's PressTv is alleging that its building in Gaza took Israeli fire, wounding two of its employees. An Israeli spokesman denied that the building had been targeted.
Iranian preachers had stirred up crowds over Gaza, and such incidents have the potential to provoke more severe tensions.
On the other hand, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has intervened to stop Iranian suicide bombers from leaving the country and heading toward Palestine / Israel. Hard line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had called for such practical action against Israel, but the Supreme Jurisprudent foresaw that this step would risk widening the war and stopped them. Rumors of a rift between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have proliferated for some time, but this is the first time they have been clearly visible in public on a major policy initiative.
In fact, Iran seems to be restraining Hizbullah in Lebanon, as well. This article speculates that the Iranians do not want to derail the possibility of better relations with the US under Obama.
This restraint, however, depends on Israel not directly attacking Iran. William Lind argues that if Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party gets elected on Feb. 10, he may well bomb Iran. In that case, Lind says, Iran might well have the tools to cut the US military off from its supplies that come up from the Persian Gulf through the Shiite south of Iraq, allowing it to be effectively killed.
It may be in part to forestall an escalation of attacks on US troops in Iraq, as called for by junior Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr again on Friday as 2000 of his followers rallied in Baghdad, that Gen. David Petraeus has underlined that there are important realms for US/Iran cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Petraeus sounds as though he is already in an Obama administration; can you imagine W. saying something so sensible? Gen. Petraeus is wisely holding out an important incentive to the Iranians, many of whom would very much like to improve relations with the US.
The situation is dangerous as long as Israel continues its attack on Gaza. Lower level hotheads in Hizbullah could set off a conflagration. Iranian would-be suicide bombers could disobey and elude Khamenei and find a way to create a provocation that would lead to Israeli reprisals. So far, however, the Iranians and their Arab colleagues (with the exception of Hamas) are showing great caution.
/End
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/10/2009 12:26:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
The Israelis have of a whole list of demands they want in exchange of ending the Gaza assault. The fantasy they have is that the Arabs and the rest of the world would enforce a wholly disarmed and economically dysfunctional Gaza.
The rest of the world, except the US, sees the Gaza invasion as a hot potato. The Gazans have taken all what Israel could throw at them and they are more interested in the pay-back rather than capitulation.
The Israelis have largely avoided house to house fighting because of the high price in casualties. We all know that, but they seem to be using the threat of going into Gaza city to get concessions!
The Egyptians have now formally refused to act as their policeman against the Gazan, or even to allow US troops to be stationed on the Gaza-Egypt borders, which would cost the regime dearly.
Hamas has already paid in blood for the fighting, and is in full control. They can see the whole world turning against Israel, so they have absolutely no incentive to "surrender" as the Israelis are fantasizing.
Their bluff has already been called and they will soon declare victory and leave (gingerly rather at high speed.)
Sorry, Juan, I do not like your new layout, especially when I click 'continued posts' and get noting.
Antiwar.com doesn't imply such a rift between Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. "Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced today that he would ban Iranians from leaving the country to carry out suicide attacks against Israel. The ban is an attempt to silence calls by Iran’s far right to take a direct role in confronting Israel on its attacks on the Gaza Strip. Earlier this week it was reported that student groups had solicited over 70,000 volunteers to participate in suicide bombings against Israel in response to the war on Gaza. The volunteer drives were a response to a statement in which Khamenei declared that anyone killed defending the people of Gaza would be considered a martyr. The volunteer drive started off slow, but swelled after Israel began its ground invasion to include an enormous number who sought permission from President Ahmadinejad to head for Israel. Ahmadinejad was under growing pressure to grant the request, though Khamenei’s ban suggests his comments were not intended to organize the people of Iran to go to Israel to fight in the war. He did however say that Iran would assist Hamas in other ways." (‘Iran Bans Activists From Fighting Israel’ http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/08/iran-bans-activists-from-fighting-israel/ January 8, 2009).
QUOTE
Lower level hotheads in Hizb-Allah could set off a conflagration (...) So far, however, the Iranians and their Arab colleagues (with the exception of Hamas) are showing great caution.
ENDQUOTE
So if I understand you well Arabs and Iranians to be considered cautious and not hot-headed have to sit in front their TV and watch a genocide unfolding and do nothing... ditto for Hamas but in this case they are the one that would be rounded and killed isn't it ?
Hamas can hardly exercise caution at the moment, can they? However, they have put out sensible peace feelers, while the trio of clowns in charge of Israel are bickering amongst each other.
Juan, I have been arguing and writing for some years now that the overstretched US deployment in Iraq is the best guarantee Iran has against a US military attack against them. And of course if Israel attacks, it is clear to everyone that it went through US-controlled airspace, used US-supplied aircraft, and otherwise benefits from its close strategic alliance with the US.
Also, just simply look at the vulnerability of the US military's supply lines. W. Lind is certainly not the first to notice this!
Also, re Hizbullah, a couple quick points. Hizbullah's leadership itself is convinced for now of the need for restraint on the front with Israel. For two (linked) reasons: so it can continue to rebuild the communities and infrastructure devastated in 2006, and to continue to act-- as they want to-- as a non-trivial capability for deterring large-scale Israeli military aggression. For now, their decision has been against activating their front with Israel. Not an easy decision, but a quite evident one... for now.
Finally, you write about "hotheads in Hizbullah." Hizbullah has no hotheads. They have the most disciplined and effective command structures anywhere in the region. They have popular pressures, yes. And they have their relations with the numerous extremely hard-pressed Palestinian in S. lebanon to consider. Thus far, they have attempted to deal with those pressures through what you might call-- non-judgmentally-- "circuses". Which they're very good at. (Along with "bread.") The circuses in question have been mass demonstrations, lamentations, sermons from HN, etc. Meanwhile, Hamas's security people in S. Lebanon have been working hard to try to police the ceasefire of August 2006. And they'll continue doing that... till they don't.
Meanwhile, your readers might be interested to read some of the many posts I've been putting onto Just World News about Gaza throughout this war. You haven't linked to any of my posts recently. Why not? Maybe you don't have JWN on your RSS feed?
I don't think the future of Middle East war depends on Lebanese or Iranian hotheads. Nor, in my opinion, does it depend on Netanyahu. Lebanese and Iranian hotheads only matter if Israel wants them to matter. Whether Israel wants them to matter depends primarily, I think, on the US, not on who is in power in Israel, where all parties seem firmly committed to a war policy, possibly even to a policy of ethnic cleansing and expansion. As for the US, it seems unlikely that Obama will stray very far from Bush's policies. His cabinet is full to the brim with hardcore types. Dennis Ross, the new UN rep., Clinton and others have worked hand in hand with the Neocons.
Petraeus' change of direction seems very slight - his comments about Iran are really quite vicious, and if anything, he seems eager to claim some sort of "victory", in classic W style. Slight but signifigant, in that he seems to be attributing possible future problems not to Iranian officialdom, but to rogue elements in Iran. In the past, the urge seemed to be to push blame up the official ladder in Iran, not vice versa. But this is a point from which Petraeus and the US can easily pivot back in the other direction, so I'm not sure that it's signifigant. Petraeus continues to see the situation only from a very narrow perspective of (presumed) US interests and interpretations, still casting Iran as the heavy in some Hollywood movie. As for Afghanistan, it's good that Petraeus notes that Afghanistan is different from Iran - after 8 years of Bush not knowing Shia from Sunni, that's a step forward. But I think we need to have much higher expectations than that, in terms of the ability to take note of critical distinctions. Here again, it's not a good sign that Obama himself has shown an inability or unwillingness to view Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Pakistan without any nuance. This inability or unwillingness, seems to be borne out in the construction of his cabinet.
In the end, I think that if there is any useful difference between Obama and W, it is that Obama does not seem to be quite as rigid as W. But this is not a good thing in itself. So far, most of his flexibility has been in the direction of right wing demands. On top of that, he has consistently warned against criticism from the left, seeming to resent any expectations his popular supporters might have, painting his own popular supporters as ideologues. The irony of this is rich, since his cabinet is made up mostly of idealogues who call themselves pragmatists. I think we sometimes forget that Kissinger considered himself a pragmatist - what a virulent form of pragmatism that was, and he apparently continues to have more influence in the Halls of Government than any "ideologues" of the "left" can hope to have.
So I think we need to take very seriously our role as active and concerned and aware citizens. I think that we must be, if anything, more vigilant. Lind almost apologizes for his Cassandra harpings about Iran. I think he should take the opposite tack; it may well be that the ceaseless public concern about signs of possible impending attack on Iran have played a decisive role in preventing an attack. If that's true, I don't think we should expect the role of public awareness and vigilance to become less important in an Obama administration.
Israel has taken a lot of public heat, even here in the US, over its actions in Gaza. I believe that the solidly hardline pro-Israel front in Congress is deceptive: from J Street to Main Street, from the Arab street to the European street, outrage has been growing, it seems. Were this not the case, what are the chances that Israel would be bombing Lebanon right now? I think it's probable that they would be.
If the public takes its eye off the ball during the Obama 'honeymoon', what are the chances that Israel would widen the campaign then? According to reports, the US is sending massive re-armaments to Israel over the next month. For what? We should not take such developements lightly, or fear being called 'Cassandras' if we note them and respond with urgency. If we are tempted to fear the Cassandra label, let us remember the 1000 bunkerbusters consigned to Israel in September. Some Cassandras warned that this deal seemed to be a very ill omen. They were right.
So let us continue to demand a real change of direction from Obama, as loudly and as forcefully as we can. We can be sure that he is hearing many voices interested in onesided perspectives on international situations, lines in the sand, ultimatums and so on. I think we can expect him to continue to resist the 'siren call' of the left (where the left really refers to the marginalized majority of the country, which has had it with warlike adventuring).
Let us keep our eyes on the ball. Much depends on what we the people do, because Obama's attitudes and agenda are likely to be far more decisive in the Middle East than Netanyahu's or Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran 'hotheads'. Let's get a little hot ourselves, and stay that way, for peace. Let this be the last Gaza, Lebanon, Fallujah, Iraq invasion...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/washington/09petraeus.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print
January 9, 2009
Major Push Is Needed to Save Afghanistan, General Says
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Gen. David H. Petraeus said that the country would require a sustained commitment from the United States and other nations, but declined to suggest a time frame.
[This is supposed to be an approach of sane or humane American policy? This is madness, and Obama has been a mad hawk on Afghanistan for months while no one seems to notice.]
Obama wandered through Europe preaching war and more war in Afghanistan, and everyone cheered while I thought the cheers were for madness. We are warring since 2001 in a country poorer than poor, and the plan is now to war there in earnest. Shame, shame, shame.
I have long thought that the invasion of Iraq was a current version of the Athenian invasion of Syracuse; that the real risk of that misadventure was the loss of the conventional army's best people and material if a disastrous situation becomes calamitous and Iran invades Iraq, or shuts off the straights,or the Shias of Kuwait revolt and shut off the supply routes through the gulf states.
I am only partially relieved to know that I am not alone in my fears.
Had to share this. I doubt we'll ever see this info on CNN.
UN: IDF officers admitted there was no gunfire from Gaza school which was shelled
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html
Have you heard any word on this Iranian aid ship?
-snip-
According to the report, it is likely that the ship will dock at the port of Gaza on Saturday.
-snip-
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=81228§ionid=351020202
Two signs that the Israelis are wrapping up their campaign:
1) Declaring victory: the IDF have just said that they reduced the capability of Hamas to launch rockets from 200 a day to 30 (although the 30 figure has been the average from day one!)
2) Threatening with escalation: they have dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets informing the people that the (undefined) third phase is about to start. The only level left is a large scale house-to-house which they do not want. Alerting people to higher level of violence only makes sense if one wants to avoid it. The element of surprise is lost for nothing otherwise.
They have also been repeating openly that the people of Gaza elected terrorists when asked to justify the attacks! They think that the they have already taught the Gazans a lesson, that electing Hamas again will lead to future attacks. Now that is democracy and freedom.
Post a Comment
<< Home