Israel: We Will Pull Out After 3 Weeks... What do you think?

[DrDel]

Israel is keepkng the World at bay by saying their attacks will only last a few weeks and they do not wish to occupy Lebanon despite their ground forces moving in as we speak.

[Brian Rucker]

There should be an "I don't know" option. I can't imagine even domestic Israeli popular support for a long term occupation given how that worked last time around. That said, without a long term occupation Hizbollah will just reconstitute and do it all over again.

Strikes me that this whole thing wasn't very well thought out which would make sense if my theory that this was just supposed to be the new Israeli leader trying to show the world he's not a wimp and, instead, discovering long range missiles threatening Northern Israel. So, suddenly, something has to be done.

This doesn't seem to have any real chance for a positive outcome long term for Israel. No win situation. They drive off Hizbullah and then...?

[Incendiary Lemon]

This doesn't seem to have any real chance for a positive outcome long term for Israel. No win situation. They drive off Hizbullah and then...?

Yeah... there isn't a military solution to this.

[Mister Widget]

If they wanted a land where Jews could live safely and peacefully forever after, they sure picked a shitty place for it.

[Coca Cola Zero]

If they wanted a land where Jews could live safely and peacefully forever after, they sure picked a shitty place for it.

but... but... God gave them that land....


Fuckin' God. Always stirring up shit for a laugh.

[noun]

I need an "I don't know" option as well. I keep wondering if we're watching the gestation of World War Three here. The world is a different place than it was when they invaded Lebanon back in 1982. With the US presently fighting in two countries already, I wonder if the remaining countries are debating if it's time for a repeat of the Arab-Israeli war.

[arctangent]

but... but... God gave them that land....


Fuckin' God. Always stirring up shit for a laugh.

God has a strange sense of humor, for sure.

[Brian Rucker]

Maybe this is wishful thinking but I suspect most of the World War III talk is coming from people who want this to be WWIII. I don't see many folks fretting over the fact WWIII could be starting. Either they're saying it's a fact so we need to bomb Syria and Iran, neocons and far right conservatives, or they're saying, no, it's not WWIII - period. The latter camp includes most journalists and experts.

We have no allies interested in fighting this war besides Israel. And the middle east isn't entirely on the same page either given the divisions between Sunni and Shiia. And another, often overlooked, split between Sunni governments and their anti-Israeli street who seem increasingly supportive of Hezbollah's resistance to Israel despite their governments attempts to keep a lid on things.

We don't have enough military to really fight another war with Iran. Technically, yes, we could get boots on the ground but with North Korea and, god knows, maybe even China eyeing Taiwan if we get yet more distracted - that doesn't seem like a smooth move. You'd probably have another wave of generals retiring and telling us, finally, what they think of this fucked up administration's policies.

The only way this escallates to the point that Europeans might get involved would be if Iran attacks the oil supply in Saudi Arabia or closes down the strait of Hormuz. And why would they do that? The current tensions in the middle east are jacking up oil prices and who benefits? Iran! Why would they kneecap themselves right now? All they have to do is sit back and watch the U.S. continuing to flounder in Iraq and suffer setbacks in Afghanistan while they rake in the cash.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Duration's not really the principal concern right now. They did it, it's fucked up, and it would be nice if someone could step in and stop them -- as in, stop them now, before anybody has to worry about how far they plan to take it, or how long they plan to keep this shit up. I nominate China, this century's defender of the free world.

[Brian Rucker]

And then what? Again, we have a problem. Hizbollah just sits there, claims victory, and does it all over again - kidnappings, raids and rocket attacks. Either you need the Lebanese army down there patrolling the border, about 1/3 to 1/2 of whom are sympathetic to Hizbollah anyhow, or you need an international force. And who would be insane enough to send troops into that situation? China? I know you're joking (though it's a sad byproduct of Bush's policies that has China becoming a more attactive partner to many countries than us).

Since we're being silly, I say we create a new state and transplant the Gurkhas. There you go. Folks with no real interest in either side politically and mad tough enough to keep both gangs off their lawn.

But seriously, I do agree with you. I just don't see this being a pat answer either. This situation is pretty grim any way you look at it.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Maybe this is wishful thinking but I suspect most of the World War III talk is coming from people who want this to be WWIII. I don't see many folks fretting over the fact WWIII could be starting. Either they're saying it's a fact so we need to bomb Syria and Iran, neocons and far right conservatives, or they're saying, no, it's not WWIII - period. The latter camp includes most journalists and experts.
Seems like an accurate assessment to me. So far I've seen little indication that Syria or Iran will be drawn into the conflict. A wider occupation of Lebanon probably wouldn't change that, it'd just mean Syria and Iran would take a more ctive role in supporting Hezbollah. However, it seems unlikely to me that Israel will try to occupy Lebanon for a variety of reasons, chief among them perhaps that it seems like the US doesn't want it to happen.

And who would be insane enough to send troops into that situation?
The French seem to be willing to contribute.

[arctangent]

The only way this escallates to the point that Europeans might get involved would be if Iran attacks the oil supply in Saudi Arabia or closes down the strait of Hormuz. And why would they do that? The current tensions in the middle east are jacking up oil prices and who benefits? Iran! Why would they kneecap themselves right now? All they have to do is sit back and watch the U.S. continuing to flounder in Iraq and suffer setbacks in Afghanistan while they rake in the cash.

Iran is suffering from high oil prices: they don't have enough refining capability and import gasoline. Worse, there is a fuel subsidy, paid for by the government, which results in gas costing 40 cents a gallon in Iran. Iran is losing millions in gas smuggling to neighboring countries.

http://story.middleeaststar.com/p.x/ct/9/id/4faf375b8760afa1/cid/940f2bfd509e743b/

[Brian Rucker]

That is interesting. Unfortunately the original NYT article is subscription only but it sounds right from what I could see. Still, they are making enough money to subsidize gasoline costs for the whole country though that doesn't sound sustainable.

I suspect someone from the outside will be more than happy to help them build more refining capacity though for better access to the oil. But the fact this is even an issue was news to me. Thanks.

[Duality]

If anything were to set off the WWIII scenario, I don't think it would be Israeli-occupied Lebanon, but more Syria. I'm seeing on the news this morning that they're threatening to deploy troops if Israel "gets too close". But how close is "too close" for Syria? Are they as militarily boneheaded and itchy as Israel seems to be?

[Brian Rucker]

I think, and it's been reported, that rhetoric seems mainly aimed at Arab popular opinion. Syria can't really go it alone against Israel and they know it. What they seem to be primarily interested in is promoting the notion of a ceasefire.

[noun]

It all depends on Iran. Are they confident enough that world opinion is so against the US and that we're so overextended militarily that they can publicly back Syria and encourage a majority of Middle East countries to unite against Israel?

[Lizard_King]

It all depends on Iran. Are they confident enough that world opinion is so against the US and that we're so overextended militarily that they can publicly back Syria and encourage a majority of Middle East countries to unite against Israel?
Have you totally ignored the sequence of events leading to this? Iran and Syria will be on their own if they try to upscale this, and their strongest hand by far is in drawing at the status quo.

[noun]

Iran and Syria will be on their own if they try to upscale this

What are you basing this on?

[Lizard_King]

What are you basing this on?
As others have noted earlier, Iran has become the biggest threat to stability in the region since Saddam Hussein was taken down. The usual suspects have issued their condemnation of Israel's actions, but in a very nuanced manner (for them) that suggests they are not taken with Hezbollah starting shit and certainly don't appreciate Iran's possible involvement in prolonging the crisis. I would think that combined with Iran's nuclear ambitions would make the others fools for pretending they don't have some beef...it's just the complexity of Middle Eastern relations that forces more subtlety onto their reproaches.

[noun]

But - China and Russia would prefer to have an Iran on their side then another rogue power destablizing the region just because they can. And it doesn't help that this administration keeps talking shit about Iran.

Is Iran pissed off and scared enough to convince Russia and China to bolster their defenses so Iran can restablize the region, their way? Until very recently, the answer would have been "hell no". But with the US presently deconstructing things over there... I'm no longer so sure.

[Lizard_King]

But - China and Russia would prefer to have an Iran on their side then another rogue power destablizing the region just because they can. And it doesn't help that this administration keeps talking shit about Iran.

Is Iran pissed off and scared enough to convince Russia and China to bolster their defenses so Iran can restablize the region, their way? Until very recently, the answer would have been "hell no". But with the US presently deconstructing things over there... I'm no longer so sure.
First of all, I think there is a limit to how much anthropomorphizing a country and its interests/influence can be used productively. Sure, it's useful shorthand, but it can turn very complex discussions into overly simple ones.

I'm not sure what China and Russia would prefer. I think they like the status quo just fine, and would be displeased to see it escalate. I'm basing that on their very neutral approach to Iraq, for instance. None of that has or is going to prevent them from selling all but the most extreme technologies to Iran. Either way, the primary factor in what Iran does is what Iran wants. At times they will go to great lengths to reassert that, to the point where they ironically give up some of their latitude by allowing reverse psychology to push them.

Iranian leadership seems to grasp quite well that nationalism is the only thing that can fill the growing fanaticism gap in its population, and that it is worth cultivating. Their control of Hezbollah is extremely uneven, in that I can believe the kidnapping happened without them, but the continuation of that stance contains their approval. I think they see Israel losing more the longer this lasts, and are willing to encourage Hez in that direction. If they had the inclination to go overt on this, I am pretty sure they understand catching the US in the crossfire is not going to be pretty for anyone. Syria hasn't made an original decision in decades, so that is why I think they are on the same page as Iran in that respect.