Thoughts on the latest Middle East war
I'm waiting for a computer to run some tests, and have been reading the news in the meantime. It seems there's a new war in the Middle East, this one between Israel and Hizbollah/Lebanon (kinda). And maybe Syria. And maybe Iran. It's all very foggy right now.
Back in the peaceful days of the 1990's, I remember thinking that future wars would be much clearer and easier to follow, with all the modern conveniences of news reporting, the Internet, etc. But clearly that is not so: war is just as confusing now as it has ever been.
The thing about war as a part of the international-relations chess game is that it always changes the stakes dramatically. It's actually in the interest of the great powers to NOT have a war, in case they lose. Besides, wars are expensive. It's better to avoid conflict and merely rattle the sabres, using the political capital gained in the last successful war at the diplomatic table. On the other hand, if you're a small, generally insignificant country or organization, a successful war is the way to make everyone else sit up and take notice of you. It's just playground politics writ large: nobody pays attention to the scrawny kid until he manages to beat someone, especially one of the big kids.
Nevertheless, wars have to happen every once in awhile, usually because someone overplays their cards, and someone else calls their bluff. Israel has called Hizbollah's bluff. The major powers will either back Israel or do nothing: the United States has no liking for Hizbollah and wants to end the terror chain of Iran to Syria to Hizbollah, while the EU and Russia (who, by virtue of not having won a war in a while, are becoming less and less "major") also know that Hizbollah is ultimately a creature of Iran and would quietly like to see Israel put an end to Hizbollah.
I think Iran and Syria have miscalculated (someone always does when a war starts). They didn't expect Israel to respond this aggressively, and they probably didn't expect the West to back Israel (not denouncing Israel counts as "backing" for Europe). I think Israel will destroy Hizbollah while Lebanon tries to stay out of the way as much as possible. Syria will bluster but really can't do much. The wild card is Iran, which likewise isn't as strong as it wants everyone to think. But Iran has done a great deal of bragging, and it stands to lose a lot of face if (when) Israel wins. This could easily cause Iran to do something stupid, although exactly what is not clear.
I don't see this widening into a wider conflict, however. Right now it only involves Israel and Hizbollah, and Lebanon. It could spread to Syria and if does, Iran might feel forced to get involved. But I don't think any of the other Arab states will support either Syria or Iran, mostly because they don't want to, although they might say they do. They all know they can't beat Israel, even together, and besides, there's a great deal of American military power in the region right now.
So I expect that Israel will destroy Hizbollah and then leave southern Lebanon to the Lebanese Army (with whom the Israelis get along with pretty well). Syria will bluster but not actually do anything. Iran, though...who knows what Iran will do? Whether the war remains limited depends mostly on Iran's next move.
Back in the peaceful days of the 1990's, I remember thinking that future wars would be much clearer and easier to follow, with all the modern conveniences of news reporting, the Internet, etc. But clearly that is not so: war is just as confusing now as it has ever been.
The thing about war as a part of the international-relations chess game is that it always changes the stakes dramatically. It's actually in the interest of the great powers to NOT have a war, in case they lose. Besides, wars are expensive. It's better to avoid conflict and merely rattle the sabres, using the political capital gained in the last successful war at the diplomatic table. On the other hand, if you're a small, generally insignificant country or organization, a successful war is the way to make everyone else sit up and take notice of you. It's just playground politics writ large: nobody pays attention to the scrawny kid until he manages to beat someone, especially one of the big kids.
Nevertheless, wars have to happen every once in awhile, usually because someone overplays their cards, and someone else calls their bluff. Israel has called Hizbollah's bluff. The major powers will either back Israel or do nothing: the United States has no liking for Hizbollah and wants to end the terror chain of Iran to Syria to Hizbollah, while the EU and Russia (who, by virtue of not having won a war in a while, are becoming less and less "major") also know that Hizbollah is ultimately a creature of Iran and would quietly like to see Israel put an end to Hizbollah.
I think Iran and Syria have miscalculated (someone always does when a war starts). They didn't expect Israel to respond this aggressively, and they probably didn't expect the West to back Israel (not denouncing Israel counts as "backing" for Europe). I think Israel will destroy Hizbollah while Lebanon tries to stay out of the way as much as possible. Syria will bluster but really can't do much. The wild card is Iran, which likewise isn't as strong as it wants everyone to think. But Iran has done a great deal of bragging, and it stands to lose a lot of face if (when) Israel wins. This could easily cause Iran to do something stupid, although exactly what is not clear.
I don't see this widening into a wider conflict, however. Right now it only involves Israel and Hizbollah, and Lebanon. It could spread to Syria and if does, Iran might feel forced to get involved. But I don't think any of the other Arab states will support either Syria or Iran, mostly because they don't want to, although they might say they do. They all know they can't beat Israel, even together, and besides, there's a great deal of American military power in the region right now.
So I expect that Israel will destroy Hizbollah and then leave southern Lebanon to the Lebanese Army (with whom the Israelis get along with pretty well). Syria will bluster but not actually do anything. Iran, though...who knows what Iran will do? Whether the war remains limited depends mostly on Iran's next move.
Good analysis, A.
Israel's decision to play nice by withdrawing from Gaza and tolerating Hamas's election in Palestine got it nowhere, and only encouraged Iran/Hezbollah to test the untested Ehud Olmert. Israel can't afford not to play the "bad guy" when it comes to Palestine and its neighbors. As you say, every sign of weakness will only encourage weaker enemies to see how deep Israel's weakness actually goes. As has been frequently stated (and, until recently, little reported), Israel's enemies want to see Israel "erased from the map." Only a corresponding strength on Israel's part will keep its enemies at bay.
Posted by
philip |
July 15, 2006 9:34 AM
I agree with philip.
There is some scary elements in this conflict that Anthony did not address. His analysis is the most likely scenario. However, there is a will for a wider conflict among many in Syria, Iran, and even Jordan (not the government). Iran is waiting for Israel to cross a very subjective line where they lose any moral authority. (e.g. Israel bombs Syria's government and Syria is forced into war). Iran wants to kill all of the Jews. We should not forget that.
And the Persians are good at Chess.
Madness!
Posted by
jake allen |
July 16, 2006 10:52 PM
The Iranian government has not been quiet regarding its desire to annilihate Israel. The question is, do they have any way to actually accomplish that? They have no conventional way to attack Israel, either from the air or on the ground (sea-borne forces being irrelevant), not with any chance of success, anyway. They've been working hard on missles and nuclear technology, but since they're using North Korean weapons systems, I'm skeptical that a) they have missles and b) that those missles would actually reach Israel. Actually destroying Israel via missles would require a nuclear payload, which they most likely don't have. Even if they did have both missles and nuclear warheads, they don't have the skill to control the missles such that they would land on the target. This is why Iran has been backing Hezbollah and Syria: war by proxy.
The countries in the region that have missles, nuclear weapons, and technical know-how are China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, and I don't think Iran has good enough relations with any of them to be getting missles and nuclear warheads from them.
Posted by
A-Train |
July 17, 2006 6:07 PM
It's my understanding from AP reports, etc., that the weapons being used by Hezbollah to attack Israeli cities and ships are of Iranian and Syrian origin, and in some cases, those that are firing the missiles are Iranians themselves. Hezbollah constitutes Iran's front line with Israel.
And we're not talking "wipe Israel off the map" in a matter of minutes in the literal sense. We're talking, "if Israel gave up Gaza, then why not the West Bank? Why not the Golan Heights? why not more . . ." These folks aren't content to wait to wage war with Israel until they've got nukes. They'll take whatever they can get (or whatever Israel will give them), as their present offensive shows. As you say in your main post, they've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
Posted by
philip |
July 17, 2006 8:13 PM