War in The Middle East

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

For what it's worth and if it interests you, this is President Ahmadinejad's blog.

http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

Fox news is sending hordes of it's loyal viewers to keep the poll fair and balanced.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Assad: Hizballah defeated the Israeli army

In a speech Tuesday, the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad remarked that Israeli troops had failed to reach the Litani River in a month whereas in 1982 they were in Beirut after a week. He also said: The Arabs have received nothing or very little for peace, therefore Damascus supports “resistance” because resistance is the way to peace. Monday night, the Syrian president told Egyptian visitors: They said peace was the only way but now, after seeing how Hizballah fought, I see an option. “Syrian hands will liberate Golan.” The Syrian ruler also warned the Siniora government in Beirut: It’s time to go, he said. DEBKAfile adds: There is deep concern in Washington for the life of Fouad Siniora. It is feared that if he refuses to go, he may be the victim of a murder conspiracy by Hizballah and Syrian intelligence as a means of trashing UN Security Council resolution 1701 and any chance of ending hostilities in Lebanon.

Nasrallah is transferring his entire fighting force from northern Lebanon to the South

Swelling numbers of returning Hizballah fighters with their families are jamming the roads south – also blocking the deployment of the 15,000-strong Lebanese force ordered by UN SC resolution 1701 to take over the South and disarm Hizballah. The Hizballah are moving back into their still undamaged bunkers and fortified civilian dwellings opposite the Israeli border. Therefore, while thousands of displaced people in Israel and Lebanon head back to their ravaged homes, DEBKAfile’s military sources report trepidation about the durability of the ceasefire which Israel declared Monday morning. Everyone is talking about the inevitability of a second round. Hours after the ceasefire went into effect Monday morning, 6 Hizballah fighters were shot dead in three incidents with Israeli troops.

Israeli forces inside Lebanon will hold their positions until a strengthened international force and the Lebanese army take over. The discharge of reservists called up for the war begins at the end of the week although the Lebanese defense minister promised to move his men into position by then only north of the Litani. Northern Israelis towns and farms face immense reconstruction and recovery projects after Hizballah’s 33-day rocket blitz.
After night fell, Hizballah staged victory celebrations in Beirut, while its leader, Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed a “historic and strategic victory” over Israel. Hizballah fighters in uniform directed the traffic in Beirut and took up police duties. Nasrallah also promised his men would help repair destroyed villages in the south.

Lebanon: We won''t disarm Hezbollah

A compromise agreement now being hammered out between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government would allow the Shi'ite guerillas to keep hidden weapons in south Lebanon, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported on Tuesday. While Hezbollah would need to keep the weapons it possesses south of the Litani River hidden, an agreement for areas north of the river would be "left to a long term solution," the paper reported.

If the proposed compromise is accepted Tuesday by the Lebanese government, it would violate the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ending the war in Lebanon. The resolution rules that the Lebanese army and UNIFIL may be the only armed forces in the territory between the Litani River south to the Israeli border. This compromise is also a violation of the "one weapon" principle that appears in Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's Seven Points Plan. Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that the region had changed "because of the achievements of the resistance [Hezbollah]."

The Israel Defense Forces, which had poured 30,000 troops into the south to fight Hezbollah guerrillas, plans to start handing over some pockets of territory to UN troops in a day or two, Israeli officials and Western diplomats said. Israel's expedited timetable for withdrawing reflects concerns that its forces on the ground are easy targets for Hizbollah attack. "They want a fast exit in one to two weeks," said a Western diplomat briefed by the IDF. Overnight, IDF troops left the southern Christian town of Marj Ayoun, Lebanese security sources said. They also left the nearby town of Qlaiah and the village of Ghandouriyeh, scene of ferocious battles over the weekend.

Many Israeli combat soldiers take a pretty dim view of their superiors and elected leaders

Their views were freely expressed as the first groups exited Lebanon Monday with great relief after a ceasefire went into force

DEBKAfile summarizes some of their comments:

- The rear command did not know what was going on in the field.

- Some of their orders were suicidal. There were cases of officers and men agreeing to ignore such orders.

- Some of the tanks were ten years old and were confronted with an enemy armed with the most sophisticated, up-to-date equipment.

- Our training prior to being sent into battle was not adapted to the conditions we found in Lebanon.

- Their officers called Hizballah fighters terrorists or even primitive. This was a misleading misnomer. They are highly-trained, professional soldiers.

- Although we were better, Hizballah fought like lions.

- We had no food or water.

- Our entry into battle in Lebanon was belated.

- The troops were short of accurate intelligence.

- We were not prepared for combat against camouflaged bunkers.

- We had no information on the Hizballah’s anti-tank missile techniques.

Most Israelis (52%) believe the army operation in Lebanon was not a success; 44% thought it was

According to a Globes-Smith poll Monday, Aug. 13, 58% thought Israel achieved only a small part or none of its goals (compared with 16% 11 days ago). If elections were held now, both ruling parties - the prime minister’s Kadima and the defense minister’s Labor would plunge to 20 (compared with 29 now) and 12 (compared with 19) out of 120 Knesset seats. Sixty percent of the two parties’ supporters would defect and be floating voters.

IDF General Staff sources: Halutz cannot escape resignation

Senior sources in the Israel Defense Forces General Staff and field officers who took part in the war in Lebanon said on Tuesday that Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, who went to his bank branch and sold an NIS 120,000 investment portfolio only three hours after two soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah on the northern border, cannot escape resignation. The sources say there is a clear ethical flaw in the chief of staff's behavior during the hours when soldiers were killed in Lebanon and others were attempting to rescue wounded. Halutz should resign the moment the military completes its pullout from south Lebanon, they said. At this stage, it does not appear that Halutz intends to resign of his own accord.

Yet Another God Day For Allah

[Davo88]

Re: War in The Middle East

The Turkish leadership might soon agree to send troops to southern Lebanon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sassounian/sending-turkish-troops-to_b_26899.html

[Fedayeen]

Re: War in The Middle East

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4775823.stm

[ARK]

Re: War in The Middle East

German FM cancels Syria trip in wake of Assad speech

Peretz: We must create conditions for talks with Syria

By Eli Ashkenazi, Haaretz Corresponent, Haaretz Service, and The Associated Press

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Tuesday that a resumption of talks with Syria was still possible, a day after a cease-fire brought to an end the month-long conflict with the Syrian-backed Hezbollah organization in Lebanon.

"Every war creates an opportunity for a new political process. and I am sure that our enemies understand today they cannot defeat us by force," Peretz said.

"We must hold a dialogue with Lebanon, and we should create the conditions for dialogue also with Syria," he added.

In Washington, the Bush administration dismissed Iranian and Syrian claims of victory as shameful blustering.

"It is terrible that the president of Iran is trying to take advantage of this tragedy," David Welch, a senior State Department official, said.

"Iran and Syria are trying to pile on popular emotion and anger at a time of tragedy for their own selfish advantage."

Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday hailed Hezbollah's "achievements" in the conflict, and warned Israeli leaders to give up on their "follies and arrogance" and work for peace.

Germany's foreign minister canceled a trip to Syria on Tuesday in protest over Assad's speech.

Assad said that the United States' plan for a "new Middle East" has collapsed after what he described as Hezbollah's successes in fighting against Israel, and warned Israel to seek peace or risk defeat in the future.

"The Middle East they [the Americans] aspire to ... has become an illusion," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said early on in the conflict that any settlement should be durable and lead to a "new Middle East" where extremists have no influence.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had planned to fly to Damascus from the Jordanian capital, Amman, in a round of talks aimed at resolving the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Steinmeier called Assad's speech a "negative contribution that is not in any way justified in view of the current challenges and opportunities in the Middle East."

"Syria can gain back the confidence of the international community it has lost with positive and constructive action - and on that basis pursue its legitimate interests," he said.

"The speech today... goes in the opposite direction."

Assad, speaking to a journalists' association, said the region had changed "because of the achievements of the resistance [Hezbollah]."

"Israel has been trying for decades to gain acceptance in the region. What Israel should know is that every generation has more hatred toward it than the generation before," Assad said.

"Hatred is not a good word. We do not hate and we do not encourage hatred. But Israel did not leave room in our region except for hatred."

"We tell them [Israelis] that after tasting humiliation in the latest battles, your weapons are not going to protect you - not your planes, or missiles or even your nuclear bombs... The future generations in the Arab world will find a way to defeat Israel," Assad said.

"They [Israel] should know that they are before a historic crossroads. Either they move toward peace and the return of [Arab] rights or they move in the direction of continued instability until one generation decides the matter," he said.

Assad defended Hezbollah and criticized a UN cease-fire resolution for holding the militant group responsible for the violence.

"Israel is the one who is responsible," he said. He added that Israel's supporters in Lebanon - an allusion to the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority in Beirut - also bear responsibility.

"The resistance is necessary as much as it is natural and legitimate," he said.

The fighting in Lebanon had been planned by Israel for some time, Assad said, but the endeavor failed. He said the war revealed the limitations of Israel's military power.

"The result was more failure for Israel, its allies and masters," Assad said.

In a 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Israeli forces surrounded Beirut within seven days of invading, he said. "After five weeks it [Israel] was still struggling to occupy a few hundred meters."

"From a military perspective, it [the battle] was decided in favor of the resistance [Hezbollah]. Israel has been defeated from the beginning," Assad said. "They [Israelis] have become a subject of ridicule."

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking in northern Israel shortly after the Syrian president's remarks, said Syria must "understand that Lebanon is taking off, or is at least meant to take off, in a different direction without them."

She said Syria would no longer be able to influence Lebanon through such groups like Hezbollah.

"There is international agreement regarding the role Syria played until today and the change it has to make in order to be accepted by the international community and to play a more positive role," Livni said.

Assad also lashed out at Arab regimes, without naming them, who have criticized Hezbollah for the kidnap of two IDF soldiers, which sparked the war.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - all allies of the United States - criticized Hezbollah's actions at the start of the conflict.

"We do not ask anyone to fight with us or for us ... But he should at least not adopt the enemy's views," Assad said.

Syria has been sharply criticized by Washington, and U.S. officials have called on Damascus and its ally Iran to withdraw support for Hezbollah. Syria has rejected such demands.

The Syrian leader said U.S. participation was needed for a peace settlement in the Middle East, but he said peace cannot be achieved under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"This is an administration that adopts the principle of
pre-emptive war that is absolutely contradictory to the principle of peace," he said. "Consequently, we don't expect peace soon or in the foreseeable future."

Midway through Assad's speech, members of the audience who said they were Lebanese stood up loudly thanked Assad.

"Without the support of our sister country Syria, we would not be able to achieve what we have achieved," one woman screamed.

The audience then broke into applause and shouts of "With our blood, with our soul, we redeem you, Oh Bashar!"

'God's promise'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Hezbollah emerged the winner in Lebanon and called the battles "God's promise."

"God's promises have come true," Ahmadinejad told a huge crowd waving Hezbollah banners and Iranian flags. "On one side, it's corrupt powers of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionist .... with modern bombs and planes. And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God."

Iran and Syria are Hezbollah's main sponsors.

A hard-line Iranian cleric, citing Hezbollah's success in fireing rockets against Israel during the war, warned Israel on Tuesday that Iran's 2,000-kilometer missiles would strike Tel Aviv if Israel "makes an iota of aggression against Iran," state-run television reported.


ps: today and last night there was a celebration in the streets of Tehran,it was like they had won the war. you could see people with flags of hezbollah and photos of Nassrallah everywhere , especially on the cars with horns blaring, people were giving away pastries, public transport was free and a lot of fireworks in the sky.

[TomServo]

Re: War in The Middle East

Eurasia Daily Monitor: "Azerbaijanis take sides in Israeli-Lebanese war"

The ongoing military operations between Israel and Lebanon have sparked popular protests and heated debates in Azerbaijan

Although a predominantly Muslim country, Azerbaijan prides itself on being a secular country and having strong ties with Israel and the United States. Nevertheless, the high rate of poverty and the influence of foreign radical Islamic groups have resulted in the establishment and gradual growth of Islamic groups in the country.

Right after the launch of the war in Lebanon, the Azerbaijani Islamic Organization for the Freedom of Religion attempted to stage protest marches in front of the Israeli and U.S. Embassies in Baku. Similar action was taken in front of the UN office in Baku. Local police managed to disperse the crowd of about 200 people, yet this did not discourage the group's members from attempting a second rally. This time, several people were arrested.

The group is headed by Ilgar Ibrahimli, a well-known Shia imam from the Juma mosque, who made news three years ago for advocating on behalf of the opposition candidate in the presidential election and subsequently being evicted from the mosque for using religion in politics. Since then, Ibrahimli has been a loud critic of the Azerbaijani authorities and on several occasion has organized mass rallies to protest the Danish cartoons against the prophet Mohammad, U.S. anti-terror operations, and the presence of Azerbaijani military personnel in Iraq.

On another occasion, the residents of Nardaran, a village about 19 miles northwest of Baku, staged a protest meeting in the village’s central square to criticize Israeli policy in the Middle East. Protestors used slogans such as "Stop aggression! Bush and Israel are full of blood!" Nardaran is one of the most conservative areas in the country, where all women cover their heads and the street signs are in Arabic. Clashes erupted between police forces and the residents of the village in 2002, and since then Nardaran has remained an Islamic stronghold on the outskirts of Baku.

Not all voices in the country, however, offer such emotional shows of support for Muslim solidarity with Lebanon. Several Azerbaijani newspapers, such as Azadliq, Echo, and Zerkalo, have questioned the need to support Lebanon due to the close links between Azerbaijan's archrival Armenia and official Beirut. In fact, Lebanon has recognized the 1915 Armenian genocide thanks to the lobbying efforts of the Armenian diaspora in Lebanon, while Israel has refused to acknowledge the event for many decades.

"How can ASALA [the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, which targets Turkish diplomats and citizens] and Hezbollah co-exist in one town?" exclaims the popular news portal Day.az, referring to the fact that ASALA is headquartered in Beirut and gets a significant amount of funding from Lebanon.

Similarly, some political experts and analysts believe that Azerbaijan should not take an open stance in the Israeli-Lebanese war due to the strategic importance of Israel to Azerbaijan. Both nations have a long history of warm relations, and there are some 8,900 xxxs in Azerbaijan. Israel can serve as a vitally needed voice for Azerbaijan in the United States and Europe by explaining Azerbaijani national interests to foreign policy leaders. Israel's military and economic expertise could also be very useful for Azerbaijan’s rapidly growing economy.

For these very reasons the Azerbaijani ruling elite has taken a very cautious approach toward the latest conflict. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry has issued a very mild statement about the Israeli-Lebanese war and President Ilham Aliyev decided not to travel to Malaysia to participate in the August 3 emergency session of the heads of state of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Instead, the lower profile prime minister, Arthur Rasizadeh, was sent to the event.

Similarly, Sheikh Allahshukur Pashazade, head of Muslim clergy in the country, has been criticizing Arab unity since his return from a conference in Tehran, and has reminded the Azerbaijani public that not all Islamic nations have supported Azerbaijan in the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Instead of loud diplomatic statements and openly taking sides, Azerbaijan has so far preferred to send humanitarian assistance to the suffering people of Lebanon. With images of victims, especially children, broadcast on television daily, the people of Azerbaijan are not likely to remain indifferent. Yet the more pragmatic analysts in Azerbaijan believe that Israel is more important to secular Azerbaijan than is Lebanon.

http://www.today.az/news/politics/28981.html

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

Atleast one person has mentioned in this thread that the reason for Israel's attack had to do with oil. I just came across this article, and although it raises some interesting points concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and future pipelines to Israel and Israeli re-export of Caspian oil back to central-Asia/Asia, it does not really address the issue it sets out to. Can anyone help out? Am I missing something?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

The Battle Of Hattin (1187 AD)

The Battle of Hattin was fought on July 4, 1187 in Northern Palestine. It was a major historic battle where Saladin's forces utterly defeated the Christian armies of Guy de Lusignan. The historic battle was started when Saladin attacked Tiberias with the intention of drawing out the Christian forces in open battle. As a result of Saladins attack on Tiberias, Frankish forces attempted to counter attack Saladins forces. The Franks wanted to deliver a major blow to the Muslim forces in the region for once and for all. Some thirty thousand men, the finest that could mustered in the region at the time, set off to do battle. Unknown to them, the Muslim army under Saladin had prepared an ambush. In the ensuing battle the majority of the Frankish soldiers were killed, survivors taken prisoner. The Crusades were never able to regain their stature after that historic defeat. Thereafter, Saladin marched all the way inot Jerusalem.

Assad: Hizballah defeated the Israeli army

In a speech Tuesday, the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad remarked that Israeli troops had failed to reach the Litani River in a month whereas in 1982 they were in Beirut after a week. He also said: The Arabs have received nothing or very little for peace, therefore Damascus supports “resistance” because resistance is the way to peace. Monday night, the Syrian president told Egyptian visitors: They said peace was the only way but now, after seeing how Hizballah fought, I see an option. “Syrian hands will liberate Golan.” The Syrian ruler also warned the Siniora government in Beirut: It’s time to go, he said. DEBKAfile adds: There is deep concern in Washington for the life of Fouad Siniora. It is feared that if he refuses to go, he may be the victim of a murder conspiracy by Hizballah and Syrian intelligence as a means of trashing UN Security Council resolution 1701 and any chance of ending hostilities in Lebanon.

Nasrallah is transferring his entire fighting force from northern Lebanon to the South

Swelling numbers of returning Hizballah fighters with their families are jamming the roads south – also blocking the deployment of the 15,000-strong Lebanese force ordered by UN SC resolution 1701 to take over the South and disarm Hizballah. The Hizballah are moving back into their still undamaged bunkers and fortified civilian dwellings opposite the Israeli border. Therefore, while thousands of displaced people in Israel and Lebanon head back to their ravaged homes, DEBKAfile’s military sources report trepidation about the durability of the ceasefire which Israel declared Monday morning. Everyone is talking about the inevitability of a second round. Hours after the ceasefire went into effect Monday morning, 6 Hizballah fighters were shot dead in three incidents with Israeli troops.

Israeli forces inside Lebanon will hold their positions until a strengthened international force and the Lebanese army take over. The discharge of reservists called up for the war begins at the end of the week although the Lebanese defense minister promised to move his men into position by then only north of the Litani. Northern Israelis towns and farms face immense reconstruction and recovery projects after Hizballah’s 33-day rocket blitz.
After night fell, Hizballah staged victory celebrations in Beirut, while its leader, Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed a “historic and strategic victory” over Israel. Hizballah fighters in uniform directed the traffic in Beirut and took up police duties. Nasrallah also promised his men would help repair destroyed villages in the south.

Lebanon: We won''t disarm Hezbollah

A compromise agreement now being hammered out between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government would allow the Shi'ite guerillas to keep hidden weapons in south Lebanon, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported on Tuesday. While Hezbollah would need to keep the weapons it possesses south of the Litani River hidden, an agreement for areas north of the river would be "left to a long term solution," the paper reported.

If the proposed compromise is accepted Tuesday by the Lebanese government, it would violate the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ending the war in Lebanon. The resolution rules that the Lebanese army and UNIFIL may be the only armed forces in the territory between the Litani River south to the Israeli border. This compromise is also a violation of the "one weapon" principle that appears in Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's Seven Points Plan. Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that the region had changed "because of the achievements of the resistance [Hezbollah]."

The Israel Defense Forces, which had poured 30,000 troops into the south to fight Hezbollah guerrillas, plans to start handing over some pockets of territory to UN troops in a day or two, Israeli officials and Western diplomats said. Israel's expedited timetable for withdrawing reflects concerns that its forces on the ground are easy targets for Hizbollah attack. "They want a fast exit in one to two weeks," said a Western diplomat briefed by the IDF. Overnight, IDF troops left the southern Christian town of Marj Ayoun, Lebanese security sources said. They also left the nearby town of Qlaiah and the village of Ghandouriyeh, scene of ferocious battles over the weekend.

Many Israeli combat soldiers take a pretty dim view of their superiors and elected leaders

Their views were freely expressed as the first groups exited Lebanon Monday with great relief after a ceasefire went into force

DEBKAfile summarizes some of their comments:

- The rear command did not know what was going on in the field.

- Some of their orders were suicidal. There were cases of officers and men agreeing to ignore such orders.

- Some of the tanks were ten years old and were confronted with an enemy armed with the most sophisticated, up-to-date equipment.

- Our training prior to being sent into battle was not adapted to the conditions we found in Lebanon.

- Their officers called Hizballah fighters terrorists or even primitive. This was a misleading misnomer. They are highly-trained, professional soldiers.

- Although we were better, Hizballah fought like lions.

- We had no food or water.

- Our entry into battle in Lebanon was belated.

- The troops were short of accurate intelligence.

- We were not prepared for combat against camouflaged bunkers.

- We had no information on the Hizballah’s anti-tank missile techniques.

Most Israelis (52%) believe the army operation in Lebanon was not a success; 44% thought it was

According to a Globes-Smith poll Monday, Aug. 13, 58% thought Israel achieved only a small part or none of its goals (compared with 16% 11 days ago). If elections were held now, both ruling parties - the prime minister’s Kadima and the defense minister’s Labor would plunge to 20 (compared with 29 now) and 12 (compared with 19) out of 120 Knesset seats. Sixty percent of the two parties’ supporters would defect and be floating voters.

IDF General Staff sources: Halutz cannot escape resignation

Senior sources in the Israel Defense Forces General Staff and field officers who took part in the war in Lebanon said on Tuesday that Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, who went to his bank branch and sold an NIS 120,000 investment portfolio only three hours after two soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah on the northern border, cannot escape resignation. The sources say there is a clear ethical flaw in the chief of staff's behavior during the hours when soldiers were killed in Lebanon and others were attempting to rescue wounded. Halutz should resign the moment the military completes its pullout from south Lebanon, they said. At this stage, it does not appear that Halutz intends to resign of his own accord.

We have just seen the IDF suffer a a major militray defeat, I hope all the anti-zionists here can savor this historic moment. Unlike the utter and complete defeat of the Crusading Franks during the battle of Hattin, the defeat that the IDF suffered recently is more of a strategic one and a symbolic one.

However, I have no doubt that this Hizbollah victory will be a strategic turning point in the region. The after effects of this war will be felt for many years to come. Tel Aviv will be taking the next several years to assess what went wrong, and they will also begin a full scale media propaganda blitz in the west. And the Hizbollah, on their part, will take next few years to fine tune their anti-armor arsenal and perhaps begin to incorporate anti-aircraft weapons into their military units as well. As I called it at the start if the conflict, this war only served the strategic interests of Iran and Syrian. And with the Hizbollah victory, the poitical status of Damascus and Tehran has risen dramatically.

This Hizbollah victory may not have been in the grand scale of the historic battle of Hattin, nonetheless, the clear victory of the Hizbollah over the IDF showed the cowerdly Arab population in the region that with proper training, funding and ideology, a regional superpower can be tamed by a much smaller force. The Hizbollah also showed Tel Aviv and Washington DC that their long term plans for the region will get no where as long as Hizbollah, Syria and Iran are a united front.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

Examining Iran’s ties to Hezbollah

Just how much influence does the Islamic Republic wield over Hezbollah?

By William O. Beeman

The conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah had hardly begun when the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters began blaming Iran for the conflagration. On July 25, Henry Crumpton, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, told a reporter that Iran is “clearly directing a lot of Hezbollah actions. Hezbollah asks their permission to do things, especially if it has broader international implications.” Meanwhile, in the July 24 Weekly Standard, William Kristol called Hezbollah’s fighting an “act of Iranian aggression” and suggested “we might consider countering [it] … with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.”

However, giving Iran another tongue lashing, or worse, deciding to attack it, will do nothing to stop the violence in the region. Not only is there no evidence that Iran had a role in instigating this round of violence, the possibility itself is unlikely.

Iran’s control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come “from Iran” to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it’s private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah’s charitable activities. Nor are the amounts crucial to Hezbollah’s survival; even the high estimate frequently cited in the press—$200 million per annum—is a fraction of Hezbollah’s operating funds. However, the most important reason for not targeting Iran for the continued fighting in Lebanon is that this conflict is antithetical to Iran’s interests.

Neoconservatives clearly have another agenda in attacking Iran besides stopping Hezbollah. By blaming Iran for this latest flare-up, neoconservatives are following their decade-long program to encourage a military attack against the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s support for Hezbollah

The broad assertion that Iran supports Hezbollah is verifiable, but it is important to understand what the nature of this support is, and the extent to which Iran is able to influence the actions of this Shi’ite Lebanese group.

Since 90 percent of Iran’s population is Shi’ite, its citizens had an undeniable interest in the fate of its co-religionists in Lebanon following the Revolution of 1978-79. Like Iranians, the Lebanese Shi’ite community was under oppression both from Sunnis and Maronites. Moreover, Palestinian refugees, settled in Lebanon without consultation with the Shi’ite community, served as a drain on weak local economic resources and drew fire from Israel. The Shi’ites felt helpless and frustrated. The successful revolution in Iran was enormously inspirational to them. While the Iranian central government was weak and scattered after the Revolution, semi-independent charitable organizations, called bonyad (literally, “foundation”) sponsored by individual Shi’ite clerics began to help the fledgling Hezbollah organization establish itself as a defense force to protect the Shi’ite community. This was simply not state support. Given the semi-independent corporate nature of Shi’ite clerics, especially in the early days of Iran’s revolution, when internal power struggles were endemic, there was little the Khomeini government could do to curtail these operations.

Now, after nearly two decades, this ad hoc export of Iranian revolutionary ideology may have succeeded too well. Whereas today the bulk of the Iranian population has at least some doubts about their government, Hezbollah maintains a stronger commitment to the symbolic legacy of the Iranian Revolution than Iranians, according to Georgetown University professor Daniel Byman. In a 2003 Foreign Affairs article, Byman pointed out that, “[Iran] lacks the means to force a significant change in the [Hezbollah] movement and its goals. It has no real presence on the ground in Lebanon and a call to disarm or cease resistance would likely cause Hezbollah’s leadership, or at least its most militant elements, simply to sever ties with Tehran’s leadership.”

In short, Hezbollah has now taken on a life of its own. Even if all Iranian financial and logistic support were cut off, Hezbollah would not only continue, it would thrive.

Hezbollah has achieved this independence by becoming as much a social welfare and political organization as a militant resistance organization. In a 2004 speech, Dwight J. Simpson, a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University, reported that it had “12 elected parliamentary members…[and] many Hezbollah members hold elected positions within local governments.” At that time, the group had already built five hospitals and was building more. It operated 25 primarily secular schools, and provided subsidies to shopkeepers.

The source for their money, Simpson reported, is zakat—the charitable “tithe” required of all Muslims. The Shi’ites, having seen their co-religionists in Iraq succeed in initial elections there in 2005, had hopes that they too would assume the power in Lebanon that accorded with their status as the nation’s largest community, approximately 40 percent of the population. The growth of Hezbollah’s charitable operations increased non-state-level financial support for the organization not only from Iran, but from the rest of the Shi’ite world, since formalized charity is a religious duty. As this charitable activity increased, Hezbollah was on the road to ceasing its activities as a terrorist group and gradually assuming the role of a political organization. Even in its current engagement with Israel, its “terrorist” activities have been reframed as national defense, especially as Hezbollah began to use conventional military forces and weapons.

Many of these weapons, it is claimed, have been acquired from Iran over the years, but even this is not fully verified. The rockets used by Hezbollah have been tentatively identified as Katushya rockets, of the form manufactured by Iran, and known as Fajr-3 and Fajr-5. But the United States has not been able to identify that these rockets are absolutely Iranian.

Moreover, although it is certainly possible that branches of Iran’s Islamic guard may be operating in Lebanon without the full knowledge of the central government of Iran, no country has yet been able to verify their presence in the current conflict, and rumors that they have aided in the firing of the rockets have been vehemently denied by Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Given the loose and ambiguous nature of the Iranian government’s control over support for Hezbollah, claims by U.S. officials that Iran has an organized state-level support system for such activities are clearly exaggerated.

Added to all of this is the fact that the Lebanese violence does not serve Iran’s political purposes. The verbal attacks of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Israel would cause it to be targeted if Israel were ever involved in a wider conflict with the Islamic world. Although Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has claimed that Iran instigated this attack to draw attention away from criticism of its nuclear development program, this scenario seems far-fetched. Indeed, Iran’s strategic situation has certainly been worsened by this fighting. Kenneth Katzman, senior Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service, recently told Voice of America: “Iran is viewed, widely viewed, as at least complicit in what is going on, supporting Hezbollah. And that is likely to make some of the fence-sitters, I guess Russia and China perhaps, take a dimmer view of Iranian intentions and perhaps be more amenable to U.S. and other arguments that Iran is playing a destabilizing role in the region and needs to be confronted by the [U.N. Security] Council.”
Beyond state support

Why would the United States repeat such unfounded assertions with such incessant regularity as if they were established fact? Aside from their continuity with 27 years of ongoing attacks against Iran, such assertions accord with a longstanding U.S. foreign policy myth that believes terrorism cannot exist without state support. If a state is needed to explain the continued existence of groups like Hezbollah, then Iran is an ideal candidate. Ergo, the connection must exist. Such claims serve to bolster the central, but fallacious, political doctrine for the Bush administration that the Global War on Terrorism really exists.

The alternative is to understand that terrorism is fundamentally community-based. Sub-state groups with grievances that they feel cannot be addressed in any other way resort to terrorism as a way of increasing attention to their plight and pressuring those whom they perceive to be oppressing them. Though they may welcome external financial support, the impetus and motivation for terrorist groups’ actions is not dependent on it. Indeed, the more pressure they are subjected to, the stronger their collective will to resist increases.

When this dynamic is understood, the problems of addressing terrorism also come into focus. Rather than looking for global fantasy structures such as al-Qaeda and their state supporters, the international community needs to employ methods to address the needs of sub-state groups, while simultaneously working to curtail their activities as conditions improve. For the Shi’ites in Lebanon, it may be far too late to employ such a strategy.
William O. Beeman is Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies at Brown University. His most recent book is The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2790/