The past week saw two extremely important events take place simultaneously: the US occupation forces had to stop their offensive against the Sadrists in Baghdad and the complete collapse of the pro-US/Israeli regime in Lebanon. In the latter case it now appears that Hezbollah literally *owns* Lebanon and that the puppet regime of Siniora, Hariri and Jumblatt only was left alive because Hassan Nasrallah decided to deal with them on a political rather than military level, a very wise strategic decision indeed.
LEBANON:
There can be no doubt left at all that the Lebanese Army has no desire whatsoever to taken on Hezbollah and that, in fact, Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army are now openly working hand-in-hand. This was particularly well illustrated by the fact that the Army did not fire one single shot towards Hezbollah operators and that Hezbollah was more than happy to hand over the buildings and militiamen from the various pro-government factions to the Lebanese Army.
It appears that the US taxpayer has spent over 1.3 billion dollars to train and equip a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese Army. That just goes to show, yet again, that the US intelligence community is the single most inept, incompetent and ignorant intelligence community on the planet (well, maybe Tuvalu’s or Butan ‘s are even worse, but they are also much cheaper for sure).
Hezbollah reportedly captured and disarmed over 800 militiamen from “Future” movement of Hariri. No doubt, Hezbollah intelligence carefully interrogated them and made of full list of these militiamen. One can only imagine the number of US and Israeli spying networks which were uncovered and eliminated over the past week.
Lastly, since it has now become clear that the Lebanese Army is either unwilling or unable to taken on Hezbollah (probably a combination of both, really) and that it is in fact closely coordinating its actions with Hezbollah the entire US-Israeli face-saving plan to stop the 2006 war is now publicly unraveling. If the Lebanese Army has not fired a single shot against Hezbollah while Hezbollah was capturing most of Beirut and placing top government leaders into de-facto house arrest (guarded by the very same Lebanese Army, I would add) even though the government was hollering for the Army to do something, then it is rather obvious that the Lebanese Army would do nothing in the south of the country without Hezbollah’s approval.
The Hezbollah Shura Council has decided to deal with the Siniora puppet government by political rather then military means even though it could have easily crushed it had it wanted to do so. This is fully consistent with Hezbollah’s long-time pledge not to turn its guns on its fellow-Lebanese. This week, Hezbollah was forced to defend itself as the decision to take down its communications network was truly an ‘existential threat’ to the movement and, I would argue, for all of Lebanon (because it would cripple the command and control capabilities of the only force capable of protecting the country in case of Israeli attack). Still, Hezbollah showed an amazing amount of restraint and its willingness to turn over to the Army all the territory it conquered in heavy combat shows an amazing degree of discipline and political savvy (of course, it also shows that Hezbollah knows that it can take it all back, if needed, even faster than the last time around). In other words, Hezbollah added a PR triumph to its military victory.
IRAQ:
It appears that the US occupation forces have called off their anti-Sadrist campaign in Beghdad, at least for the time being. So far, there is very little information available on what exactly happened and, in particular, who mediated the end of this operation and whether it was the CENTCOM or the Maliki government who took the decision to call it off. One needs to remember here that the Maliki government has, at times, taken decisions which have greatly irritated the American occupation forces and though Maliki and his regime are clearly collaborators they do carefully hedge their bets. I would not exclude the possibility that a great deal of pressure was exercised on Maliki by the Iranians and by al-Hakim. An alternative explanation for this sudden change of plans could be that the Americans finally came to their senses and realized that the carnage they were causing in Sadr City would yield nothing besides yet another PR disaster. Whatever the case, the anti-Sadr campaign was suddenly called off without any real explanations.
Sadr has proven over and over again that he is a survivor and that even when the Americans openly attack him he comes out unscathed – and even stronger – every time. Having survived the US campaign in Najaf in 2004, the recent operation against his forces in Basra and now the siege of Sadr City, Moqtada al-Sadr’s popularity will only rise further. In contrast, Maliki’s government is openly loathed by pretty much all sectors of the Iraqi society.
Even Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is now in hot political waters and Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly openly lashed out at him for his passivity during the siege of Sadr City:
BAGHDAD (AFP) — An aide to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr lashed out on Friday at Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for keeping silent over clashes that have killed hundreds in Baghdad.
“We are surprised by the silence in Najaf where the highest Shiite religious authority is based,” Sheikh Sattar Battat said, referring to Sistani. “For 50 days Sadr City is being bombed … Children, women and old people are being killed by all kinds of US weapons, and Najaf remains silent,” he told the faithful at the weekly Friday prayers in Sadr City, Sadr’s stronghold.
Battat said the Sadr movement has not seen any “reaction or fatwa (religious decree) from Najaf” criticising the government assault on Shiite fighters in Sadr City. “For us this means that Najaf accepts the massacre in Sadr City,” a sprawling slum district that has been the site of fierce clashes between US forces and Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia since late March.
Assuming that Battat was speaking on Sadr’s behalf, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then this declaration my herald a new era in Sadr-Sistani relations in which the latter will have to stop the careful exercise in ‘silent fence-sitting’ which he has been engaged in ever since he forced the US occupation forces to agree to a direct popular elections in 2004-2005.
It is too early to draw any further conclusions about the situation in Iraq, too little is really known about what exactly just happened. What is clear is that the two opening battles in the anti-Shia war the US and Israel have launched have not at all gone according to plans. Will that be enough to stop the entire campaign? I doubt it.
Clearly, the Imperial war on the Shia has suffered two major setbacks this week. The outcome in Lebanon, in particular, is nothing short of a strategic disaster for the USraelian Empire (the outcome in Iraq is less catastrophic, but still rather disturbing for the Neocons). To put it bluntly, the “Cedar Revolution” is over, the entire “Lebanese campaign” is lost and Hezbollah comes out stronger than ever before: Lebanon is now completely under Hezbollah’s control and clique of overweight CIA/Mossad stooges which used to run Lebanon in the past has lost all its power and credibility. Sure, they still have many millions of dollars to throw around, but that is unlikely to do the trick: the Empire might be dumping them, probably concluding – correctly – that they are useless.
The fact is that neither France, nor the USA, not even Israel have done *anything* to help their puppets in Beirut. The Empire just looked the other way while Hezbollah operators were taking over West Beirut encircling the mansions of Hariri and Jumblatt. In the bad old days, the Israelis would send their jet fighters to break the sound barrier over Beirut while the French and Americans would prepare their stormtroopers for a possible operation. This time, nothing like that happened at all (the Israelis did not even bother concealing their disgust with their Lebanese puppets).
Still, we need to keep in mind the “blame Iran for everything” delusion which is so central to the Neocon and Zionist worldview. Heck, they even blamed Iran for the abject debacle of Fatah in Gaza! Likewise, there were attempts by Neocons to blame Iran for “arming the Taliban”, nevermind that the Taliban and the Iranians are moral enemies. While Iran clearly had nothing at all to do with Gaza or Afghanistan, Iran is, beyond any dispute, a key player in both Iraq and Lebanon. There is mounting evidence that the Iranians are, in fact, supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and it is not secret at all the Iran and Hezbollah are very closely allied with each other. Thus, while *blaming* Iran for the outcomes in Iraq and Lebanon makes no sense, it is far more credible as a propaganda line as it has at least some basis in facts.
This is why I do not think that the Imperial defeats of last week will stop the assault on Iran. Quite to the contrary, I am afraid that it will only energize the Iran-bashing Zionists and their Neocon brethren in the USA to “finally take care of the Ayatollahs”.
Furthermore, a war with Iran, even if it proves disastrous, is objectively to the advantage of McCain and Hillary, both rabid Neocons and Zionists, and who can only get elected in a fearful, flag-waving America. Thus pressing ahead with the assault on Iran is a win/win strategy for the Zionists and the Neocons. That such a strategy will prove disastrous for Israel and the USA will not stop them at all.
The Saker
(PS: sorry for this very rapidly written analysis. I am very pressed for time and I cannot do better than that right now)
VS,
If everything had gone as planned–Sadr’s militia crumbled and Hezbollah was defeated by Harriri and Jumblatt–would that have emboldened the neocons even more?
Nasrallah has no need to finish off the 3 stooges (Siniora, Hariri, Jumblatt.) I believe the next elections are a year away and the opposition is poised to win them handily.
The 2006 war has given Hizb such street cred that most of the pro government militias broke at first contact. It was such a stupid idea that has failed before (witness Mohammed Dhahlan and Abbas vs Hamas or Maliki vs Sadr in Basra) that my inner conspiracy theorist is looking for some hidden diabolical scheme.
Also I notice a change in how the western press reports on the issue. Sure there are accusations of a Hizbollah “coup” and so on, but there is also this from Time;
“The outcome of the Lebanese political crisis may have been inevitable. On Friday Hizballah—the only force ever to defeat the Israeli army — defeated forces loyal to the American-backed Lebanese government. Still, few expected that the Iranian-backed militia would triumph so quickly and so easily.”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739098,00.html
I have never seen a reference in the MSM to an Israeli defeat in ’06.
i am starting to think that iran will be attacked because it is an election year and obama has a strong chance of winning. iran might be attacked to create ‘facts on the ground’ and a ‘new middle east’ before obama takes the presidency.
@anonymous #2: I have to tell you honestly that I don’t have Obama figured out. One one hand, he is as much snivelling bitch to the Israel Lobby as the other two, but on the other hand he might just be trying to do what it takes to get elected. So far, I can’t tell.
The Neocons clearly hate him, and even the absolute worst of his advisors (Zbig) is not a Neocon but much more of a old-guard Anglo Imperialist.
Could Obama be trying to play by “their rules while trying to get to the White House and take the country back? Possibly.
I am totally disgusted by the way he turned on his pastor, Wright, and by the way Obama tries to appease AIPAC, but I have to admit that he might be trying to do what it takes to get into the White House. The Neocons clearly hate him, which is a good sign, and they want either McCain or Hillary in power. So creating a situation on the ground which would guarantee their election makes perfectly good sense. Could they start an war with Iran just tgo get their man/woman in the White House? You bet! Definitely.
As to war with Iran, last August I was on a flight from Dubai to Frankfurt and had a window seat. Looking below I could see tankers traversing the Gulf and it looked like a two lane highway with bumper to bumper traffic. On the Iranian side it looked like hilly high ground from whence they could fire simple Hizbollah style katyushas into the shipping lanes till the cows came home and no amount of bombing could stop them.
I’m no military expert but my guess is that the carotid artery of the global economy seems to pass by the point of Iran’s dagger.
With that in mind, I don’t see how a tripling of gas prices virtually overnight is going to be of much help for McCain this November. Just recall the pro war mood in Israel at the beginning of the summer war and how it collapsed when it was clear no easy victory was at hand. My guess is that any rally ’round the flag moment would be short lived.
I don’t mean to diminish the risk of war with Iran, but if they didn’t attack when oil was 70$ a barrel why would they do it when its at 130$?
Lysander,
Do you think the neocons care how much Americans suffer? They don’t care if it reaches $500 a barrel. The military will get its oil. And Israel will get its war…paid for in American blood and treasure.
I don’t think the Neocons care, but I do think that any kind of “october surprise” attack on Iran will doom whatever chances McCain has to win in November and may eliminate any influence they may have in another administration.
That said, they may not care. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateralists etc.
Lyndon Johnson ran in 1964 as the anti war candidate and look how that turned out. Woodrow Wilson did the same in 1916 even though he likely had every intention of entering WWI.
I hope and pray Obama will be different, but I plan on writing in Ron Paul in November.
My guess however, is that there are too many big money players who can’t afford the kind of war the Neocons want and will block it. But that is just my guess.
Probably no one knows what will happen. It is likely that there remains a struggle between the pro-war and anti-war parties among the elite that actually have power here in the States. What is actually going on–domestically or abroad–is really not that well reported. We the public always seem to be the last to know. And of course, we never really know why, just some bullshit justification. It really makes me wonder what is really true about our own past if the present is so foggy and shrouded in secrecy.
An attack on Iran will have the initial effect that all high intensity conflicts have. in the short run the US will rally toward the armed effort. If the attack comes close enough to the election, there will be the usual media blackout on critical coverage until the slogging part begins. While the fireworks are fresh, McCain will be the beneficiary. I know lots of McCain supporters who watch the spectacle that accompanies high intensity conflict and it will be political suicide for anybody to council restraint, retreat, or any kind of national reflection on what is really going on here.
“There is mounting evidence that the Iranians are, in fact, supporting Moqtada al-Sadr”
Is there? My understanding has always been that Sadr and the Iranians did not have much time for each other, what with Sadr being an Arab nationalist, albeit a Shia Arab nationalist.
Regarding Obama, I do not share even your cautious optimism. it reminds me somewhat of AngryArab’s description of academics who say they have to toe the AIPAC line to get tenure, then once they have tenure they invent another excuse for their servility. I just don’t see Obama as being any different: like most politicians he will say – and do – anything to get, and stay in, power.
@Irish Eyes: well, here is what I base my statement on:
1. Moqtada does spend a lot of time in Iran, mostly in Qom (the real spiritual center of Iran and one of the two Shia holy cities)
2. It is no secret that the combats in Basra were stopped thanks to the mediation of the commander of the Pasdaran (who himself is directly subordinated to the Supreme Leader)
3. There seem to be some truth to the US accusations that Iran is, indeed, arming and training elements of the Mehdi Army.
4. Hezbollah, which is under the spiritual leadership of the Supreme Leader, openly supports the Sadrists.
5. Iran did end up refusing any talks with Maliki and the occupation forces while Sadr City was bombed. That was reported. And this leads me to believe that Iran, again, put even more pressure on Maliki and the occupation forces behind the scenes.
6. Last, but not least, how could anybody in his right mind support Maliki anyway?! I have come to the conclusion that the Iranians are by far the smartest and most sophisticated players in the Middle-East. Thus, I just can’t imagine that they would really support Maliki.
As for Obama, I really did not mean to express any optimism about him at all. I just think that he *possibly* could be an unknown, whereas McCain and Hillary are AIPAC puppets beyond any possible doubts, that all.
Cheers!