Operation Just Rewards Approaching Halftime?

It figures I have to pick the middle of the latest Middle East war to go away for the weekend. Just look at all that I missed. Sheesh, couldn't both sides have waited until I got back? How inconsiderate is that?

Yes, that was an attempt at ironic whimsy. Seemed like a good time for it.

I'll take developments in Israel's counterstrike against Hezbollah (interesting how operations in Gaza have disappeared from the front pages, huh?) since our last post on the topic in chronological order.

***Syria made a rhetorical entry into the conflict, but so far their collective mouth is the only thing they've thrown into the fray:

Syria will support Hizbollah and Lebanon against Israel's attacks on the country, the ruling Baath Party said on Friday, defying the Jewish state and its chief ally Washington.

"The Syrian people are ready to extend full support to the Lebanese people and their heroic resistance to remain steadfast and confront the barbaric Israeli aggression and its crimes," said a communiqu¿ from the party's national command issued after a meeting.

It said Israel and the United States "are trying to wipe out Arab resistance in every land under occupation" and that President Bashar al-Assad was aware of the seriousness of the situation in the region.

The national command is the highest echelon of the Baath Party, which has been in power since 1963. The party considers the issue of Arab rights and regaining land occupied by Israel central to its legitimacy.

Assad, who is shaped by his late father's lifetime of struggle with Israel, was not at the meeting. [emphasis added]

Assad wasn't at the meeting??? He's "aware of the seriousness of the situation"? Sounds to me like he's been tossed under the bus - or maybe he's still hiding in the basement of his summer retreat after the IAF buzzed it a few weeks back.

If this is indicative of what Syria brings to the table, it's no wonder they've kept their hands to themselves so far. Hezbollah's miscalculation has put Damascus' collective neck in the noose right along with them. [h/t CQ]

***Israeli fighter/bombers obliterated Hezbollah's Beirut headquarters on Saturday, part of air attacks reaching as far north as the city of Tripoli, some 55 miles north of the Lebanese capital. This followed Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's call for "open war." Reports had the Hezbollah leader and his lieutenants fleeing Beirut in terror after the IAF granted him his wish.

***So much for Israel leaving Syria alone:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus seventy-two hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

The report said “a senior Pentagon source warned that should the Arab world and international community fail in the efforts to convince Syria to pressure Hizbullah into releasing the soldiers and halt the current escalation Israel may attack targets in the country.”

Al-Hayat quoted the source as saying that “the US cannot rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike in Syria,” this despite the fact that the Bush Administration has asked Israel to “refrain from any military activity that may result in civilian casualties."

I guess Jerusalem wasn't impressed with the Ba'athists' huffing and puffing, either. The question now becomes whether Israel is bluffing in turn to deter Syria from making good on its threat without having to commit the military resources to open a third front.

Syria was probably seeking to regain some international prestige on the cheap on the assumption that the Israelis would back down at the prospect of Syrian intervention. Israel, on the other hand, may be seeking to exploit perceived Syrian weakness to strongarm the Assadites into dismantling Hezbollah for them.

Neither seems very likely; the difference, though, is that Israel is able to make good on their threat.

This would presumably give Iran the tripwire the mullahs are seeking to unleash their long-promised apocalypse against Israel and the West. What that phrase means in practice will likely not be of much solace to another doomed bunch of Ba'athists, since 135,000 American troops plus the burgeoning Iraqi military would stand between the Iranians and directly aiding their besieged ally. For those American troops as well as the inhabitants of Israeli cities, however, it could mean something very, very nasty.

Ironically, that is another reason why Syria would be a useful Israeli target:

If Israel decides to go after Iran, then that means they will have already begun to go at it with Syria beforehand. They might run a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) package east through Syria as a feint to hit Damascus (which would be a target rich environment anyway) and pull through some heavy airlift assets (C-130s etc) and choose a remote airfield in eastern Syria and seize it Ranger style. If their SEAD is effective, they could set up shop at this airfield, bring in fuel and ammo and mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iranian targets at will. Most of Syria's military forces will be on the other side of the country and if they attempt to go after their FOB, the IAF could hammer them in transit. Besides, the IDF could destroy all roads leading to said airfield, and mine the shit out of the hinterland effectively creating an island out of their new base. Not a simple plan to execute to be sure, but one that could put them in striking distance of Iranian nuke sites. If they could pull off Entebbe in the 1970s, they could do this now.

That creates two discomfiting incentives: for the Israelis (who can't afford to wait to be attacked first) to do the above sooner rather than later, and for Iran's attack to be similarly fast-tracked. Both are consistent with how rapidly this conflagration appears to be escalating. [h/t CQ]

***On the other hand, the Israelis are denying the aforelinked ultimatum report. But then I would expect them to anyway, particularly if they are planning just such an operation. And given that, according to the Jerusalem Post, the Syrians have moved an infantry division to the Lebanese border.

***There is some talk now emerging that suggests the Israelis are afraid to commit to a ground offensive into Lebanon against Hezbollah for fear of signficant casualties. The signals here from the Jews appear to be mixed:

Abraham Rabinovitch, writing in the Washington Times Monday, said the IDF is less than half way through a four part plan of mounting intensity which will culminate in a ground assault.

Israel's actions so far are "eerily similar" to the U.S. battle plan in the first Gulf War, where the "left hook" that drove Saddam's forces from Kuwait was preceded by a month of bombing, said "John," a former Air Force officer who blogs at OPFOR.

So is Israel getting ready to drop the hammer? Or has Israel decided not to swing it at all?

This signals are mixed. In an address to the nation Monday, Prime Minister Olmert promised to continue the fight until the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah were removed.

He was followed to the podium in the Knesset by Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the loyal Opposition (a terrific concept, would that our Democrats would try it) who pledged his support for the government to obtain "a decisive victory without concessions."

But earlier Monday, the Middle East News Line reported Mr. Olmert's government has rejected recommendations for an infantry assault. "We want to keep our signature on the ground very low," an unnamed official was quoted as saying.

The reason for that at this stage is that the IDF is in the process of starving Hezbollah; once debilitated, it would be that much easier to kill it:

So far, Israel has relied on its dominance in sea and air forces to isolate Hezbollah, rather than focusing their brunt of their superior forces on actual enemy positions. By blockading the coast, neutralizing Beruit's airport, and damaging roads and bridges into and out of Lebanon, the IDF has cut off Hezbollah's supply routes by land, sea, and air, and blocked all lines of escape. The end result is a battlespace that traps the now ill-equipped enemy force, the ideal environment for Israel to crush Hezbollah forces.

This puts Israeli preconditions for a cease-fire in better perspective:

Israel would agree to a cease-fire in its six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah if the Lebanese guerrillas withdraw from the border area with Israel and release two captured Israeli soldiers, a senior official said Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had conveyed Israel's position to Italy's prime minister, who is trying to broker a cease-fire deal.

Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities. However, the senior official said Israel would agree to Hezbollah merely leaving the border area - with the Lebanese army taking its place.

There are two ways to look at these demands: (1) Israel is buckling once again to international pressure to pull up and let its enemies escape; or (2) they're making a demand - the Lebanese army forcing Hezbollah to withdraw from the Israeli border - that can never be satisfactorily met.

Being the cynic I am, I would ordinarily subscribe to (1) as naturally as breathing, but the evidence appears to point the other way. Especially given that international pressure is, so far, a long way from overpowering. The G8 summit statement on the crisis didn't mention Syria or Iran by name, didn't use the word "terrorist," and did aim the usual lame "restraint" admonitions at Israel, but did recognize the Jews' right to self-defense, placed the blame for hostilities squarely upon Hezbollah, and insisted they cease their bombardment of Israeli cities and release all their IDF hostages.

Even more remarkable is the reaction of Arab League states, which, while certainly not pro-Israel, has been definitely lacking in enthusiasm for the Islamist cause:

An emergency Cairo meeting of the 18 Arab League nations' foreign ministers last weekend produced the most significant event in the region since Saddam fell from power. These meetings are routine, held in crises or for political posturing and on every occasion before last weekend have resulted in condemnation of Israel and (or) the United States. This meeting began with the Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action, supporting Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means" (which even the AP report characterized as "language frequently used by Hizballah to justify its guerillas' presence in south Lebanon.") The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means." The "Lebanese prisoners" are virtually all Hizballah members and "legitimate means" translates to terrorism. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hizballah. But an historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism.

The Saudi foreign minister, al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was "...criticizing the guerilla group's actions, calling them 'unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.'" Faisal said, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them." These are the rumblings that precede a political earthquake. The Arab leaders are frightened that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next.

As well they should be. Not only does the mullahgarchy seek to dominate the Middle East, but the Iranians are not Arabs, another fact not lost on these regimes. Frightened indeed they must be to break anti-Semitic ranks so publicly. They doubtless still hate the Jews, but they hate the idea of losing power as well as their lives in a war not their own even more.

It is a remarkable and historic convergence - or, rather, divergence from the usual knee-jerk world bias against the Jews. But it is unlikely to last very long. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so pacifist, short-attention-span news media and the governments who toady to them despise a politically-incorrect country beating up on bad guys indefinitely without a rapid climax. Too much time is provided to propagandize for the latter and against the former. And diplomats are given too much time to weave their fecklessly subversive web of appeasenik entanglements. Already France (natch) has made passively common cause with the Lebanese government, or one-step removed from throwing in with Hezbollah. And British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with United Earth President Kofi Annan, not to be outdone, have proposed not just an irresolute ceasefire but also [drumroll] UN peacekeepers to be deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border! Boy, that'll have "Why won't any Arab state save me?" Nasrallah quaking in a spider hole, won't it?

"World opinion" is one more factor pushing Israel towards a rapid attainment of its immediate goals, which necessarily includes the complete eradication of Hamas and Hezbollah. The continuing bombardment of its northern cities is another.

This is the miscalculation of the Iranians, that using their terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, they pushed Israel too far, too fast, provoking a much bigger, more ferocious response than they may have been counting on. It may also be why they reversed course and agreed to fresh negotiations on the Western deal offered last month to bribe the mullahs into giving up their nuclear ambitions. Not that they have any intention of capitulating to us, but for the same reason they've been indulging our diplodrones for the past several years: to buy more time with empty promises they have no intention of keeping. Time to complete their nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities, and time the Israelis cannot afford to drag out the Lebanon and Gaza fights until global demands wear down American support and Israeli will.

They have no reason to believe that the same tactic that has served them so well won't work one more time. But if they're wrong, and find themselves in danger of losing both their Hamas and Hezbollah assets AND their Syrian junior partners, we have no reason to believe that the mullahs - who are convinced that they are divinely invincible - won't throw caution to the wind.

Either way, Plan R is sliding down the slipway, with Israel as the initial flashpoint. The inevitable war with Iran is now imminent. The time for seizing the initiative against the mullahs is now past. All we can do now is stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jews and prepare for the onslaught.