Jul 24 2006

Hezbollah All Alone II

Published by at 11:04 am under All General Discussions,Hezbollah

As I posted last week, Hezbollah is all alone and will have to fend for itself. The latest indications are in a series of articles and commentary out today that highlight how badly Hezbollah (and possibly Syria and Iran) misjudged the possible responses to kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and the ensuing battle between Hezbollah forces and the Israeli IDF. First we see from how Hezbollah cannot even convince their northern units to move south to shore up the battered southern units. And even if they could convince people to come die for their foolishness, the Israeli forces have made resupply nearly impossible:

Hizbullah is organized along military lines, with regional commands in southern, northern and central Lebanon. The unit in the south, called the “Katyusha Unit” by the IDF, consists of some 1,000 fighters who have been responsible for most of the rocket attacks on communities north of Acre and Amiad.

The unit has been able to recruit reserves, but MI has noticed that it has run into difficulty convincing members of the terror group who reside in northern Lebanon to travel south to participate in the fighting.

Once the unit exhausts the missiles currently in its possession, it will, MI believes, have difficulty acquiring more, since most of the roads and supply routes have been destroyed by the IDF. Several Syrian and Iranian attempts to send supplies to Hizbullah have been thwarted by the IDF.

Unfortunately for Syria they apparently have been caught trying to shore up the Hezbollah forces with new supplies. This complicancy has resulted in Syria being isolated from the rest of the world, left to pay the price for being a terrorist enabling state. The Arab countries in the region are no more willing to die for Hezbollah foolishness than the northern Hezbollah units. From the same news report we get this conclusion from the Israeli Military Intelligence

MI believes that Hizbullah has been dealt a “critical blow” to its image in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world. Lebanese leaders blame Nasrallah for provoking Israel and “bringing a disaster upon their country,” MI believes.

Which dovetails nicely with observations by Peter Brookes over at RCP on the isolation of Syria from upcoming talks. Seems Syria’s Arab neighbors are in no mood to deal with the duplicitous Syrians who publically call for an end to the conflict while attempting to sustain it with supplies:

As a major diplomatic offensive begins with the surprise visit of Secretary of State Condi Rice to Beirut this morning, Syria is feeling increasingly isolated. And with good reason. Not only are other Arab states putting pressure on Damascus to rein in Hizballah, but the word this morning is that Syria will not be invited to attend this Wednesday’s Rome conference on Lebanon.

But while Syria’s position seems to be softening, Damascus is, in actuality, desperate. It is becomes increasingly marginalized in this Middle East crisis by both the United States and other Arab nations, and may have little to no say in resolving the current Lebanese conflict. This would be a serious blow to Damascus’ interests-and more painfully, its ego.

To some all of this may be a surprise or unexpected, even unwanted. In my mind this was going to happen sooner or later, somewhere. The Jihadists, by their very nature, are dead enders. They wish for the appoclyptic battle of good and evil where they can demonstrate their fullest commitment by giving their lives to the cause. They have been consistent in one thing: they keep ratchetting up the stakes at each move.

The more there is discussion of ‘negotiation’ the more violent they become. Iran and Syria are the last main bastions of Islamo Fascism and they are desparate to change to the current path in the region: the one of Democracy. All the Jihadists’ efforts right now are in Lebanon, Iraq, Afgahnistan and Pakistan. Three of these are freshly born democracies and the last is a major ally of the US in the war on terror. These are the places where instability has the best chance of creating an opportunity for the Jihadists. But if they lose they will also be dealt a critical blow to their cause. It is an ‘all in’ game for these people. So I am not surprised that Hezbollah and Iran have no interest in defusing this conflict. Unless they win something they cannot afford to stop. They have had complete control to stop this since they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. It is indeed telling they have not availed themselves of the easy out as their forces are destroyed. It speaks volumes to the mindset on their side of this epic battle.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Hezbollah All Alone II”

  1. Rich says:

    AJ, great analysis. The question is whether Syria takes the out or continues its present course. Let’s face it, their only opportunity for victory is the election of Democrats in the US.

  2. clarice says:

    Don’t forget, Syria is a basket case which has been living off of what it steals from Lebanon..It has, in fact, killed off its golden goose.

  3. Diplomacy and the Hounds of Hell, Part VII…

    Condi Rice is in Beirut, a surprise stop in her Middle East diplomacy tour that will next visit Jerusalem. This stop has mostly symbolic significance. The Lebanese are incapable of fighting Hizbullah, let alone Israel, so they need outside support….

  4. clarice says:

    An interesting taped interview with the Lebanese head of Hezbollah in which he says he told the Lebanese govt that he would kidnap Israeli soldiers, and which he expresses surprise at the Israeli, Arab and world community reaction. Again, this underscores my thought that this was a poorly conceived action and a strategic mistake.

  5. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    Excellent point. These groups have historically availed themselves of cease fires in order to re-arm and re-group. Syria has been working on this for several days but Israel will not be duped this time. Most telling is the lack off support Hizballah, Hamas and Syria are getting from Arab neighbors. This is the kiss of death for terror groups who depend upon Middle Eastern Islamic states for hearth and home.

  6. ivehadit says:

    More strategery…from the master poker player.

  7. crosspatch says:

    I believe I might have stumbled upon the real reason for Hezbollah’s offensive. I was reading this story at Time. It is supposed to be about how Iranians are not buying the government propaganda about the war with Hezbollah. But buried deep inside the article is this gem:

    The thorny nuclear negotiations with the West are likely to become even trickier. The delay in efforts to enforce a cease-fire in Lebanon is inflaming divisions within the Iranian regime on how to respond to the U.S.-backed package of incentives offered to Tehran in June. Before the crisis erupted, the momentum seemed to favor advocates of a pragmatic, positive response. But now the radicals are using the U.S.-backed Israeli campaign in Lebanon to push their case for a tough line. As an adviser to a senior conservative ayatullah puts it, “This has strengthened the hand of those who argue, ‘If this happened to us, the only thing that would save us is a nuclear deterrent.'”

    These “radicals” that are now using the crises to push for a harder line on the nuclear issue are probably the same “radicals” that got the ball rolling in Lebanon to begin with. Rather than being used to distract Western attention from the nuclear issue, what if this was being used in order to get a harder line in domestic Iranian politics. Maybe the hardliners were losing in the consensus on the nuclear issue. Maybe the hardliners needed this war to bolster their position and use it to convince the more moderate factions to support them. Maybe that is the reason President Smelly Pants wanted to wait until August 22. Maybe it is all about domestic Iranian politics.

  8. crosspatch says:

    By the way, the Persians invented chess.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    among the many places credited via a Google search, India and China are most common. Couldn’t find ref to Persia related to Chess. Where did you find it?
    From Google:
    This story about the King is most likely not true. But it is true that there was an ancient Indian game called Chaturanga and it is beleived that modern Chess is a variant that evolved from it. However some scholars argue that China is the true birthplace of Chess. So we may never know the real answer.

  10. For Enforcement says:

    Whoops, further searching revealed this. So it may be anyone’s choice.

    It is also believed that the Persians created a more modern version of the game after the Indians, called Chatrang (Shatranj).

    The earliest literature reference to chess is found in the Middle Persian book Karnamak-i Artaxshir-i Papakan, which was written in the between 3rd to 6th century AD.

  11. crosspatch says:

    My point wasn’t so important as to who actually invented the game as to get across the notion that it is traditionally played in that culture to a greater extent that it is here. Playing a lot of chess tends to develop certain process of thought such as making moves now that are not obvious until later, thinking several moves ahead, using moves in one place to influence the board in another place, etc. The more a culture plays chess, the more their political life resembles the game. Americans play checkers and it shows.