The Iran-Israel face-off in Lebanon

From Ahmed Quraishi in Beirut
Somewhere between Houla and Adaissa, there is a big lonely Iranian flag staring right in the face of Israel. The flag flutters proudly in the wind, sitting atop a house on a deserted road linking two Lebanese border towns facing Israel.
I heard a lot about how the recent war in southern Lebanon was actually a showdown between Israel and Iran and that Hezbollah was just a pawn. Frankly, I found this hard to believe since every Hezbollah activist my team and I met was Lebanese, not Iranian or Syrian, as Israel claims.
But this changed two days ago when my car was speeding down a lonely road that cut through Lebanon’s hilly border region with Israel. We could clearly see the Israeli territory to our right, lush green Israeli plantations and a Jewish agricultural settlement. Double-storied, well-built abandoned houses were scattered on both sides of the road.
Suddenly, I asked the driver to stop. “Is that an Iranian flag?” I shouted as I got out of the car. Without a doubt, it was the flag of Iran; crispy colours, red and green and white in the middle; a calligraphic design of the word Allah in Arabic was prominently visible in the centre. It was a new flag, not an old one. It was the real thing, not a shoddy imitation. My immediate reaction was, “Man, this takes some guts. This is like rubbing Israel’s nose in the sand.” My television cameraman, Mr. Javed Kazmi, quickly took out his camera and began filming.
I counted at least two Iranian flags hoisted atop abandoned houses in Lebanon’s devastated towns near the border with Israel. In both cases, the flag of Iran was placed on the rooftops of prominently located houses, no shyness here. Whoever placed them made sure the flag was proudly visible to the Israelis. And these flags were nowhere to be seen deeper inside Lebanon. Just on the border with Israel.
But there was one exception. In the night of 14 August, the day Israel and Hezbollah stopped the war, Hezbollah activists made a small victory parade on the seaside in Beirut’s central El Rouche district. The parade passed by a restaurant where our team was having its first meal of the day. The noise generated by the celebrating crowd was so intense that it forced us to come out of the restaurant to see what was happening.
As I came out, I saw a leading car stopping in the middle of the road. Two boys were waving the yellow flag of Hezbollah. Another waved the flag of Lebanon. After a few minutes, a third bearded young man unfolded a third flag. This was a bigger flag. It was the flag of Iran. For TV journalists watching this unfold in the heart of Beirut, we thought this really deserved to be filmed.
So, is Iran trying to show that it is behind everything that happened in Lebanon? I don’t think so. In the Beirut parade, I think it was a case of some overzealous young man trying to prove something. But in the case of those two devastated Lebanese towns on the border with Israel where Iran’s flag was placed where the Israelis could clearly see, I think it was a deliberate act. A message, if you will.
My conclusion is based on the following reasons. Immediately after the U.N.-sanctioned “cessation of hostilities” came into effect in the morning of 14 August, Hezbollah moved fast to win the psychological war. Within six or seven hours after the temporary ceasefire came in effect at 0800 AM local time, the militia activists had placed banners, posters, plaques and signposts across the destroyed areas of south Lebanon and the destroyed southern districts of Beirut that used to house Hezbollah’s offices before the war. And I am not talking about some lousy PR effort. These were fine, professionally made advertisements for a professionally-run militia. Only the most professional of political consulting experts can put up such a splendid, post-war psychological campaign the way Hezbollah did. The credit should go to the militia for a job well done.
So the placing of Iranian flags on Lebanese territory adjacent to Israel can only be a calculated move. The Iranians, and their Hezbollah proxy in Lebanon, know that Israel can use this overt display of power as a proof of Iran’s culpability in the recent war. But apparently the gains from this move far outweighed the dangers.
Iran, whose support for Hezbollah is no secret, is telling Israel and its main ally, the United States, that it knows it might be a target of a military action on the basis of its nuclear program. And since Iran has nothing to lose, it is making it clear it has the guts and power to show the Israelis - right on their border - that Tehran can do something about this situation and with Israel being unable to do anything about it.
The Israelis and the Americans have gotten the message. All future moves in the region will be based on this.

The shock of stalemate



Ikram Sehgal

For the first time in its entire history since 1948, Israel walked away from the battlefield without scoring an outright and convincing victory, and in effect what it was left facing is a stalemate. Israel has never fought a war with numerical superiority, this time the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) fought to a standstill by a force far less in numbers. Totally dominant in weapons and munitions on the ground, Israel's Airforce ruled the skies unhindered, over 10,000 sorties delivering tons of ordnance in the form of precision-guided bombs, and smart missiles along with heavy stuff like "daisy-cutters", etc. 155 mm self-propelled guns constantly pounded Hizbollah positions, with direct tank fire on Hizbollah strong points from Merkawa tanks (MKs 1 & 2 with the regular 105 mm gun and MK 3 with the smooth barrel 120 mm gun). This tremendous concentrated firepower was followed by waves of mechanised infantry, buy they could not dislodge dedicated Hizbollah fighters. This failure shattered a myth built up carefully over the years that the Arabs could not stand up to Israel's military might. The IDF did achieve, through a UN resolution a buffer zone of sorts, UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army moved in between Israel's border and the Litani River in South Lebanon to enforce the ceasefire. One doubts the Hizbollah will allow themselves to be disarmed.

The "Haganah" was created in 1921 to protect settlements (Kibbutzam). The "Irgun" faction led by Menachem Begin, who later became PM, separated to focus on terrorism. Haganah helped British forces put down the great Arab uprising from 1936 to 1939. The Jewish Brigade formed by the British during World War 2 fought in Italy, ultimately about 30,000 Palestinian Jews took part in the war on different fronts. These combat hardened cadres returned to increase the Haganah field strength, its "strike" companies were called the "Palmach". From 1945 to 1948, Haganah drew in soldiers as well as young displaced refugees from Europe (my friend, artilleryman Col David Yarkony joined as an 18-year-old). The Haganah became the IDF at the birth of Israel in May 1948, all other militias were banned. After a brief struggle between the Haganah and the Irgun, the latter was also absorbed into the IDF. Fighting both conventional battles and as unconventional forces, the IDF succeeded in 1948 in defeating the Egyptian and Jordanian Armies, superior both in numbers and weaponry. This was possible only because of the combat experience and motivation inherent in the IDF. The Arab cause was not helped by the excesses of many small Arab irregulars indulging indiscriminately in murder, arson and loot.

By 1956, the first of the three all-out short wars till 1973 meant that the IDF had become a lean, mean, fighting machine, the hard core being the motivated and hardened veterans of the Second World War and of 1948. This value-added combat experience is vitally necessary for any fighting army (as opposed to a peacetime army where other standards apply). The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was well executed, yet it relied heavily on support from the Maronites in the Lebanese Army and the Phalangist Militia. The Sabra and Chatilla massacres took place while the IDF stood by, one feels this marked the start of a downslide, the steady rot to IDF's aura of invincibility peaking in South Lebanon this summer.

Hizbollah absorbed tremendous attrition without breaking and it soon became clear that the IDF's forte "close quarter battle" (CQB), the acid test for any army, had been lost over the years. A village called Bint Jbail, only one to two kilometres from the border was repeatedly taken by the Israelis but could not be held. With things going haywire the IDF Chief, Lt Gen Dan Halutz, an air force officer sent his army deputy, Lt.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, to oversee (not replace) Northern Commander Lt.-Gen Udi Adam. This amounted to a vote of no-confidence against the field commander, bad for the morale of soldiers fighting in the field. A tactical land battle on that scale should only be fought by army officers, from the combat arms, infantry, armour or artillery. A preponderance of Air Force generals in the Command HQs cannot run a land war.

With 50 plus burnt-out armoured vehicles being towed back, at least 200 Israeli dead must have been the minimum count, with multiple more having battlefield injuries. That is a high price to pay for claiming 400-450 Hizbollah dead, mostly by bombs and artillery shells. The Hizbollah suffered grievous losses in key combat commanders and experienced personnel but those who took part in the fighting, a hard-core of 4000-5000, will emerge as battle-inoculated hardened cadres who can be fleshed out by the 10,000 personnel "in reserve" in no time at all. Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah has been careful in going easy on the rhetoric even though he was quick to claim victory. One supposes if you have not lost to Israel, you have won.

Hizbollah used a combination of classic guerrilla tactics, both in urban areas and elsewhere, using the broken ground of (mountains and fields) to good advantage. Armed mainly with AK-47s, anti-tank missiles (AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel and the more modern AT-13 Memis and AT-14 Kornet), and new heavier, more effective rocket- propelled grenades (RPGs), along with anti-tank landmines and hand grenades, the Hizbollah copied the Viet Cong in operating in small groups relying heavily on tunnels to offset their inferior numbers weapons. Over 5,000 Katyusha rockets were fired on northern Israel, extending from Haifa to Nahariya. The longer range Fajr rockets with ranges of 45 km and more were not used, neither were Zelzal -1 & 2 (rockets) and Zelzal 3 (missiles) with longer ranges (beyond Tel Aviv).

While IDF chief Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz did not break the law, when he off-loaded shares in the stock market three hours after two soldiers were kidnapped by Hizbollah, he did break a moral covenant. Along with battlefield blunders, this will probably cost him his job. He is best known for his callous comment that he made when asked how he felt about bombing civilians during the "war of attrition" in 1970-71. His reply was that he felt "only a slight bump on the wing" when he released the bomb. The first principle of selecting battle leaders is that you do not appoint a man without good combat experience. Those who have not heard a shot being fired in anger cover their inferiority complex (to combat-hardened soldiers) by resorting to bluster. There are many in this world who fight "battles" in their imagination, or with their mouth. The five-member commission appointed to investigate Israel's first military debacle in its history, will certainly find many shortcomings.

South Lebanon circa 2006 has ended the 50-year psychological domination that Israel had built up on its Second World War and 1948 veterans. It will search for every opportunity to re-assert its "myth of invincibility", since this is a matter of life and death for Israel as a nation. The ceasefire will not hold, if anything the failure for the Hizbollah to disarm will be used as "casus belli" by Israel. This time around the war will be carefully planned and meticulously executed by the Israelis, the Hizbollah are not likely to sit on their laurels. Expect another war in the future.

__________________
This is the sign of 1 who loves GOD that his chief care z goodness n devotion n his words r mostly in praise n glorification of GOD.

Hostilities in Lebanon and their Adverse Effect on Energy Markets

During the past few weeks, oil prices have flared. The reasons behind this rise are various, such as the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the endemic instability in Iraq, mounting clashes in Nigeria, concerns about the Iranian nuclear program, stronger energy demand from China and India, and the Alaskan oil pipeline shutdown. [See: "Economic Brief: Alaska Pipeline Shutdown and the Rise of Oil Prices"]

The months ahead could bring a further wave of oil price instability if the cease-fire in Lebanon fails to hold. The importance of the Lebanon crisis lies in Iran's role in the conflict, in addition to the increasing popularity of Hezbollah among both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

The Lebanon crisis displays the centrality of Iran in future political arrangements in the region. Iran is one of the principal supporters of Hezbollah, and Hezbollah's ability to withstand an Israeli air and ground assault means that the organization remains an active Iranian proxy. This preserves Iran's capability to "stir the pot" in southern Lebanon, should it decide to do so.

A stronger role for Iran in the Middle East means that Tehran has more cards to play in the region, both in southern Lebanon and through its ability to affect world energy markets. In addition to its significant oil exports, Iran also sits on the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping lane. The blockage of this shipping lane would have a negative effect on global energy markets.

In addition to its influence in southern Lebanon and its threat to use oil as a weapon, Iran has the ability to affect developments in Iraq as a result of its strong links with the Shi'a community there. The government in Tehran also continues to defy the European Union and the United States over its ongoing nuclear research program. These factors demonstrate Iran's more assertive regional role.

The Israel-Lebanon crisis also displayed the existence of strong sympathies among Arab populations toward Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. While many Arab governments look at the Lebanon crisis as an Iranian attempt to bolster its standing in the Middle East, Arab civilians disagree and see the conflict as a valiant effort by the Shi'a group Hezbollah to face down Israel's state-of-the-art military.

Furthermore, while many Sunni militant groups are traditionally hostile to the Shi'a, this current conflict has brought Sunni and Shi'a -- militants and civilians -- into the streets in an outpouring of support for Hezbollah. These disillusioned protestors see a stark contrast between Hezbollah's defiance of Israel and their own governments' cozy relationship with the United States and Israel.

This sympathy could result in greater instability in the Persian Gulf region if it results in these individuals becoming radicalized against their own governments to the extent that they attempt to take up arms against them, a development that will cause domestic instability and rattle international energy markets. Furthermore, while unlikely, a tactical partnership between Shi'a and Sunni radical groups toward the short-term aim of weakening moderate Arab governments could represent an even stronger threat for stability in the region.

These factors, combined with Iran's already stated threat capabilities, demonstrate the adverse effect that renewed hostilities in Lebanon would have on international energy markets.

http://www.pinr.com

__________________
"When Allah leads you to the edge of the cliff, Trust Him Fully, only 1 of 2 things will happen either He will catch you when you fall or He will teach you how to fly"

Israel's position



It is now official, albeit indirectly, that Israel's attack on Lebanon last month was not about the release of its two kidnapped soldiers. Despite the ceasefire, and despite calls for an end to the embargo by much of the world, the latest by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Friday, Israel refuses to end its naval and air blockade of Lebanon. Now Tel Aviv has named its conditions for ending the blockade and they do not include the release of soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. This is most surprising since after all Tel Aviv had always vociferously demanded the release of the two soldiers from the custody of Hizbollah and this was apparently thought to be real objective of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. However, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev announced on Friday that Lebanon's army and the new, stronger international force must take charge of Lebanese ports and frontiers (i.e., including that with Syria) before Israel would end the embargo. In other words, the intention again, from Israel's point of view, is to try to starve Hizbollah of the arms, equipment and other assistance it allegedly receives from the sea and from across the Syrian frontier, and not really to force the organisation to free the two soldiers. "The minute they (the Lebanese and international forces) are there, we will be able to lift (the blockade)," the spokesman added.

Somehow, he makes it sound as if Israel would be doing a good deed that "minute," and not putting an end to a highhanded, illegal action. "In the interim period," he added, "Israel is doing all we can to facilitate the flow of humanitarian support." This is more than a joke, coming from a spokesman of a government which in 33 days killed 1,290 citizens of a sovereign country and destroyed its basic infrastructure. Viewed from a different perspective, what the spokesman has said is also a kind of tacit acknowledgment that Israel failed to achieve what it intended to do in Lebanon. Earlier, its army chief, Lt-Gen Dan Halutz, admitted for the first time on Aug 24 that his army had faced failures and that its mistakes would be examined. This is a dramatic comedown from a man who in the beginning of the war had threatened to bomb Lebanon three decades into the past. There had been great support in Israel for the war in Lebanon, and most Israelis must still be in favour of their government's effort to cut Hizbollah down to size in any way. However, the families of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are not likely to be very happy with what will seem to them the callousness of Israel's latest position.

__________________
This is the sign of 1 who loves GOD that his chief care z goodness n devotion n his words r mostly in praise n glorification of GOD.

THE Israeli Prime Minister's admission of "failures" during the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon on Monday is a change from the usual cockiness that has come to define the Zionist state's establishment. "It is true that not everything worked as we wished. We were not ready. We did not always achieve the aims we hoped for. Not everything worked properly. There were problems and failures," he told a conference in the northern port of Haifa.
How does one interpret his statement about not being ready, just this time? Does he actually believe in it or is he only saving face? Because it is becoming increasingly clear that the Israelis will never become ready. As the Americans are coming to realise in Iraq and now Afghanistan, the newer forms of guerilla warfare can hurt and tire the most imposing of armies. The military pundits call it asymmetrical warfare now, and it inspires more fear than conventional forces could ever hope to. The Israelis should now realise that they've got a very difficult situation on their hands. They can't invade other lands. And they can't even stay where they are. They've got to finally concede to certain Palestinian demands. Even that won't solve the problem, but it will give Israel some breathing space and a bit of time till a final settlement is reached. Ehud Olmert also announced the plan of naming a commission, which will examine the conduct of the government during the war. By "conduct" it is assumed he means military strategy and tactics. The Israelis traditionally are not given to bother much about the humanitarian dimensions of the IDF's operations. But if he does, it'll be a big step.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is on a tour of Lebanon, was booed by a crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans as he toured Haret Hreik, devastated by the war. He met with to Lebanese leadership, including a number of Hezbollah officials. He urged the government, as well as the militias, though not directly naming the Hezbollah, to fully cooperate in the process of disarmament. However, he did say that it was not the UN's job to do the disarming but it was there just to monitor the ceasefire. It is worth mentioning here the absence of advice and directives for the Israelis. Having personally seen the destruction wrought by the IDF, Mr Annan would now have a tough time restraining himself not to sound off against Israel. He needs to do a little bit of that in order to create the mere semblance of an international community where all are subject to the same rules.

__________________
This is the sign of 1 who loves GOD that his chief care z goodness n devotion n his words r mostly in praise n glorification of GOD.