FDD

Iran, Hizballah Making Moves to Topple Lebanon, Expert Says

Recent quotation from CNSNews article by Julie Stahl reads:

The recent Democratic takeover of the U.S. Congress emboldened Syria, Iran and Hizballah (Iran's proxy) because they view it as the defeat of President Bush, said Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The rest is here

Hezbollah's Offensive in Lebanon Has Begun (WP)

Published in World Defense Review

According to sources and contacts – as well as statements made in Lebanon over the past few weeks – all analysis indicates that Hezbollah is on the verge of an all out offensive in Lebanon to crumble the "March 14" Seniora Government and to seize strategic control in the country.

Following are few points deserving attention (a more comprehensive analysis will follow later):

1. As predicted since July 12, (and posted on the Counterterrorism Blog), the aim of Hezbollah's summer war with Israel, was to provoke a "strike-back" at the Lebanese Government and reshape the balance of power in Lebanon to the advantage of the Teheran-Damascus axis. Nasrallah and his allies across the sectarian divide aimed at shifting the issue of disarming Hezbollah and militias (according to UNSCR 1559) to crumbling the government, which is supposed to implement this disarming process.

2. By mid-October, Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies had begun a political counter offensive aiming at "enlarging" the Seniora cabinet, as a way to paralyzing it further from the inside. The political discussions took longer than anticipated by Hezbollah. Hence, a decision was made in Tehran (and subsequently in Damascus ) to move forward.

Walid Phares in War Stories with Oliver North

War Stories with Oliver North, Fox News Sun., October 15, 2006

FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares joins Vice President Cheney, Former Director of the CIA and FDD Distinguished Advisor James Woolsey, Bernard Lewis and other experts in the field. In this special report Oliver North explores what every person should know about jihad. In proven "War Stories" tradition, this episode brings historical context to today's events.

To watch the video click on: Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four.

Walid Phares Media Roundup (WP)

Walid Phares on VOA about the worldwide hunt for terrorists. In New York Post comments on Iran and Syria; Ahmadinejad in United Nations; State of affairs in Iraq and other issues.  In Family Security Matters, on U.S. homeland security:is it penetrated and threatened? In the American Chronicle Phares is quoted on the conflict in Darfur. On CTV Canada Phares, talks about the video obtained by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper showing two of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attack laughing and joking together more than 18 months before the attacks. For video click here

Walid Phares Media Roundup (WP)

Walid Phares in San Francisco Chronicle on whether no Iraq war would mean easier war on terror? In Canadian Global National report examines the french report that Osama Bin Laden died last month in Pakistan and what this means for al-Qaeda. In other media he also discusses the role of Hezbollah in the Middle East, Bin Laden and U.S. strategies.

Hezbollah Hurting? (CM)

Charles Krauthammer writes:

Hezbollah is in no position, either militarily or politically, for another round. Nasrallah's admission that  the war was a mistake is an implicit pledge not to repeat it, lest he be completely finished as a Lebanese  political figure. …

With Nasrallah weakened, the other major factions are closing in around him. … The March 14 democratic movement  has regained the upper hand and, with outside help, could marginalize Hezbollah. …

A strong European presence in the south, serious U.S. training and equipment for the Lebanese army, and  relentless pressure at the United Nations can tip the balance. We should be especially aggressive at the United  Nations in pursuing the investigation of Syria for the murder of Rafiq Hariri and in implementing resolutions mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah.

More here.

FDD Media Roundup

This week's Notes & Comments are now online. Cliff May comments on how the kidnapping and intimidation of journalists influences media coverage of the Palestinian issue He also reports on support for the war on terrorism in Hollywood, the latest news from the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and the progress of liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Over at TechCentralStation, J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss discuss Europe's Munich moment.

Iran, Vanuatu with a frown? (AV)

Steve Sailer, from the American Conservative, has joined the ongoing effort to wish the United States' Iran problem away. Sailer writes:

That Iran's GDP is about 1/20th of ours, that their installed base of post-1978 aircraft and tanks is paltry, that they have virtually no offensive capability to seize territory where the local population doesn't support them, and that they have been spending a no higher percentage of their limited GDP on their military than we spend (and possibly less), suggests Iran is not a major threat to conquer the Middle East. This is as if bored New York sportswriters, following, say, a collapse by the large market Boston Red Sox, got into a frenzy over the long term threat to Yankee dominance posed by the small-market Kansas City Royals. Well, it wouldn't happen on the sports pages, because baseball fans know the numbers and the pundits would get laughed at by their own readers.

There's a lot to disagree with in this; let's begin with his baseball analogy.

Forget about the KC Royals. Iran is more like the Oakland Athletics. As Michael Lewis explained in Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, Oakland's GM Billy Beane manages a minuscule budget compared to, say, the Yankees. Yet, he has succeeded in creating a winning franchise. Sure, Oakland poses no long-term threat to the Steinbrenner empire, but they certainly pose problems in the short term, partly because of shrewd decisions by management but also because they're in a weak division.

On to Iran: That Iran is no match for the United States in a conventional war does not mean that the threat they pose is being overblown. With their piffling military budget, Iran funds Hezbollah, a terrorist organ that, prior to 9/11, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group on the planet. Iran also funds Shiite death squads in Iraq and their regional policy consists of encouraging destabilization and sectarian warfare. Iran is proof that it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to create a mess than to clean it up.

Second, that Iran's GDP is insignificant compared to the United States shouldn't obscure us from the fact that a nuclear bomb is the great equalizer, and that Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology greatly magnifies the threat that their military budget would otherwise pose if restricted to conventional weapons.

FDD Media Roundup

Cliff May asks whether Americans are up to the challenge of seeing this war through to the end.

Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham highlight the absurdity of the UN ceasefire to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

J. Peter Pham discusses the uncomfortable truth that China is currently building alliances with despots the world over to balance against American power.

Did Israel violate the ceasefire? (AV)

Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for violating the ceasefire after it launched a raid against an arms shipment to the Bekka Valley. But Annan's position is not - nor can it be - supported by the actual ceasefire resolution, UNSCR 1701 (2006).

Structurally, UNSCR 1701 does two things: first, it forces an immediate and temporary ceasefire based upon the cessation of actual hostilities; second, it calls for an international presence in southern Lebanon to help Lebanon maintain the ceasefire. Right now, we are somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 2. So a resort to force is justified if it derives sanction from the actual text of UNSCR 1701 or a right enshrined in the UN Charter or in international law generally. With this as the standard, there is a case to be made that Israel's commando raid against an arms shipment in the Bekaa Valley is lawful.

Israel is pointing out (correctly) that the resolution bans offensive military operations; this is a truism since a Security Council resolution cannot ban defensive operations. Israel is claiming its actions are justified by the right of self-defense, which is given partial expression in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The key requirement here is that Israel's response be necessary and proportional.

It is certainly proportional, since a commando raid that results in little collateral damage is proportional to the threat posed by an arms shipment to Hezbollah, and the proximate relationship between that shipment and an attack on Israel's territorial integrity. But was it necessary? This is a more difficult question, but there is a strong case to be made that the answer is yes.

Operative Clause 8 of UNSCR 1701 calls upon Israel and Lebanon " to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles." It then goes on to define these principles, the support of which is necessary, by the resolution's own language, for a permanent ceasefire: subclauses 2,3 and 5 list those that I think are most relevant: removing armed personnel, assets and weapons unless those authorized by the government of Lebanon from south of the Litani; the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon; no sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.

Before we reach Stage 2 of the ceasefire, the only parties capable of enforcing the terms of UNSCR 1701 are the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and nothing in the resolution precludes Israel from enforcing its terms, especially if this strengthens Israel's right of self defense. We should note that if the UN Security Council wanted Israel to remain uninvolved in the enforcement of the technical terms of the resolution, it could have done so. For example, when the Security Council authorized a coalition to use force against Iraq to remove it from Kuwait, the resolution was worded such that Israel could not be part of that coalition. Here, in the absence of such wording, Israel is fully justified in enforcing the resolution.

I eagerly await a press release from Kofi Annan criticizing the country that sent that shipment, which assuredly is in violation of UNSCR 1701. It is up to Israel and her allies to rebut the perfidious Kofi Annan when he tries to pin the blame for the collapse of his UN mission on Israel.