The Road to Tehran Runs Through Tel Aviv?
There are those both on the left and the right who feel that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is really a proxy war between the US and Iran. But what I would like to know is how much of this is mere coincidence and how much is part of some far more sinister plan to draw the US into another war?
I know, my tinfoil hat is showing. Just hear me out.
It all started last year with the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Immediately, Syria was fingered as the primary suspect. International pressure eventually lead to Syria withdrawing its remaining forces from Lebanon.
Why is this relevant to the current crisis? Well, just last week we learned that the Israelis had been planning the offensive we see unfolding for some time now. This prompted some to wonder who really killed Hariri, since the absence of Syrian forces from Lebanon would seem to be a prerequisite for any Israeli military action there. With Syrian forces no longer an impediment, all that was needed now was a catalyst to get the plan rolling.
That came on July 12th, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel's response to the kidnappings even surprised the Hezbollah leadership, something which lends credence to Israel having planned this offensive in advance.
Almost as soon as rockets started to rain down on Israel, the Bush administration began lambasting Syria and Iran for their support of Hezbollah (a somewhat hypocritical stance given the expedited bomb deliveries to Israel by the US). And also despite the apparent debate raging in the intelligence community about how much control these countries, and Iran in particular, have over Hezbollah's actions. And as always, there are the prominent political pundits who are calling for strikes on Syria and/or Iran.
How does all this tie together? Well some months ago, pressure was mounting on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Since then the escalating violence in Iraq, and now Lebanon, has overshadowed the concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But the later conflagration has allowed the Bush administration to once again put pressure on Iran.
Some see Israel as losing in this round with Hezbollah. Indeed, if the intent was to remove the threat of rocket attacks, the IDF has not been able to achieve that goal in its nearly month long offensive. If more and more rhetoric suggesting that the only way to rein in Hezbollah is to strike at their supporters (Syria and Iran), this course of action may be easier for Americans to except because it can be viewed as the US coming to the defense of an ally (and even more so if it is framed as "confronting a state sponsors of terror").
In fact, it would already seem that officials in Washington have been prodding Israel to expand their war into Syria. This of course would be the next step in the larger plan to remove Iran's regional allies before moving in to deliver the death blow of regime change.
So was the Israeli Connection a Plan B for getting the US embroiled in a war with Iran?
I really need to get rid of this damn hat...
Update: From Glenn "Is Syria Next?"
I know, my tinfoil hat is showing. Just hear me out.
It all started last year with the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Immediately, Syria was fingered as the primary suspect. International pressure eventually lead to Syria withdrawing its remaining forces from Lebanon.
Why is this relevant to the current crisis? Well, just last week we learned that the Israelis had been planning the offensive we see unfolding for some time now. This prompted some to wonder who really killed Hariri, since the absence of Syrian forces from Lebanon would seem to be a prerequisite for any Israeli military action there. With Syrian forces no longer an impediment, all that was needed now was a catalyst to get the plan rolling.
That came on July 12th, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel's response to the kidnappings even surprised the Hezbollah leadership, something which lends credence to Israel having planned this offensive in advance.
Almost as soon as rockets started to rain down on Israel, the Bush administration began lambasting Syria and Iran for their support of Hezbollah (a somewhat hypocritical stance given the expedited bomb deliveries to Israel by the US). And also despite the apparent debate raging in the intelligence community about how much control these countries, and Iran in particular, have over Hezbollah's actions. And as always, there are the prominent political pundits who are calling for strikes on Syria and/or Iran.
How does all this tie together? Well some months ago, pressure was mounting on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Since then the escalating violence in Iraq, and now Lebanon, has overshadowed the concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But the later conflagration has allowed the Bush administration to once again put pressure on Iran.
Some see Israel as losing in this round with Hezbollah. Indeed, if the intent was to remove the threat of rocket attacks, the IDF has not been able to achieve that goal in its nearly month long offensive. If more and more rhetoric suggesting that the only way to rein in Hezbollah is to strike at their supporters (Syria and Iran), this course of action may be easier for Americans to except because it can be viewed as the US coming to the defense of an ally (and even more so if it is framed as "confronting a state sponsors of terror").
In fact, it would already seem that officials in Washington have been prodding Israel to expand their war into Syria. This of course would be the next step in the larger plan to remove Iran's regional allies before moving in to deliver the death blow of regime change.
So was the Israeli Connection a Plan B for getting the US embroiled in a war with Iran?
I really need to get rid of this damn hat...
Update: From Glenn "Is Syria Next?"
Post a Comment