The Fiction Writers Of The Lebanese Government Start A New Chapter

In recent years Lebanon has been a proving ground for the contention that a country can survive and even do well in the absence of an effective government.  Before that, the often crisis torn place had proved that armed anarchy was a very poor concept.

Now, it would seem the Lebanese are bound on recapitulating the lessons of the period of warring clans, factions, religious confessions, and assorted proxies of foreign powers.  Indeed, it is hard to see how the long suffering people of Lebanon can avoid this dreary future.  The country has been damned by leaders who place the interests of faction, religious confession, or external sponsors ahead of the needs of the population or the interests of the state.

The cause of the impending descent into the abyss is Hezbollah, the long extant Party of God.  Presumably, the deity referred to in the name is Allah, but the record of the group strongly suggests that the actual god of which they are the party is Mars or, perhaps Chaos.  For it is war and chaos which most strongly beckon Hezbollah and result from its acts, policies, and beliefs.

The emergence of Hezbollah as the government of Lebanon rather than as merely the dominant component would have not been possible without the presence of a facilitator.  This critical role has been played by Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze minority.  Jumblatt, who initiated a flirtatious relationship with the US and the West generally, has reversed his field, reverting to the traditional Jumblatt family tradition of supporting hard Left and pan-Arab entities.  He demonstrated his new stance dramatically by withdrawing his eleven members from the Hariri government and pledging their support to Hezbollah.

In effect, Walid Jumblatt pulled the plug on Hariri's future.  At the same time he pulled the plug on future cooperation between the Lebanese government and the International Tribunal for Lebanon.  It is this tribunal and the investigation report recently sent to the pre-trial judge for review and action which prompted Hezbollah to make its play for unquestioned authority a few weeks ago.

Jumblatt justified his action by saying his earlier assessment of Hezbollah had been wrong.  Now, he has seen the light and come to realize that it was not a terrorist group operating as a proxy of Iran and Syria but rather a legitimate resistance movement seeking justice for the Palestinians and against Israel.  He also averred that a recent commitment by Hassan Nasrallah, the jefe grande y supreme of Hezbollah, that his group would "respect" the Lebanese constitution, institutions, and traditions which fixed the allocation of offices among the several religious groups had reassured him regarding the group's lofty intentions.

If Jumblatt really believes Nasrallah's assurances, the Druze chieftain has way too much faith in his fellow men.  Hezbollah has made a career out of creative manipulation of perceptions through its extreme economy with the truth.  It is not necessary to be a member of Mossad to know that.

The de jure takeover of the government by Hezbollah will bring it into direct conflict with the US.  At stake are the millions of dollars promised to the government and Lebanese National Forces meant to assure the full implementation of UN Resolution 1701.  Given that Hezbollah has been declared a terrorist entity by the US government, there is no chance that the largess of Uncle Sam will continue--or that it should.  Even if the Obama administration is inclined to keep the cash flowing, the power of appropriation rests with the Republican controlled House which is less prone to flights of international fancy than the Guy in the Oval.

The stopping of the money flow will, of course, have no impact on Hezbollah or its government frontmen.  There is no doubt but Iran will step into the breech with alacrity and generosity.  It is well worth a few hundred million dollars for Tehran to bind Hezbollah closer to the foreign policy requirements of the mullahs.  As the example of Cuba shows clearly, the stopping of American aid simply gives the field over to an adverse power.

The full enforcement of Resolution 1701 was an illusion in the first place.  Hezbollah has been too strongly entrenched in Southern Lebanon for too long.  No matter who rules in Beirut, Hezbollah has the juice once the Litani river is crossed.  When Israel fully withdrew from Southern Lebanon and ended its support for the Christian South Lebanese Army, the resultant vacuum invited Hezbollah.  And, that group has never been noted for being slow on the uptake.

From the perspective of both the US and Israel the least-worst answer for the conundrum called Lebanon was allowing the Syrians to run the show.  While there were some major drawbacks to the Syrian operational dominance, the upside was Syria is a relatively risk-averse state whose army and intelligence services acted to keep the lid on any precipitant actions being mounted from Lebanon.  Quite simply were the Syrians still running the show, there is no chance that Hezbollah would have been allowed to stockpile the formidable arsenal of short and mid-range missiles it currently has in the south of Lebanon.  Or, if the missiles were there, so would be responsible Syrian officers.

The impending Hezbollah putsch will not only destabilize the country, perhaps to the point of another bloody sectarian internal war, but will do the same for the region.  Iran is a mixer and troublemaker.  Hezbollah is of the same stripe.  Syria, being the junior partner in the alliance, has lost the juice it once had to keep Hezbollah on the sanity reservation.  This implies the chance for war on Israel's northern front will grow significantly in the weeks and months following the emergence of Hezbollah to official prominence.

When developments in Lebanon are taken in conjunction with the stasis in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the problem for the Obama administration becomes an order of magnitude greater.  One of the major impacts of the failure of the Obama sponsored peace talks is that the relation between the administration and the Netanyahu ministry are at a record low.  This, in turn, implies that the US cannot deliver on the only subject which would alter Syria's stance vis a vis Iran and Lebanon--the return of the Golan Heights.

The solution to the Lebanese mess has always resided in major part in Damascus.  This should have been obvious to every American administration in the past thirty years.  Whether evident or not, the brute fact remains that no US administration has trusted Syria sufficiently to allow it the free hand in Lebanon which Syria has long believed it is entitled to.  Nor has any administration taken Syria at its word that the Golan Heights was the one and only problem which needed to be solved before Damascus could and would emulate Cairo and sign a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel.

Now it may be a day too late to get on the right track.  But, this will not be known if it isn't attempted.  Sovereignty over the Golan will and must be a part of any overall Mideast peace, and, considering that it is the defining question in the mind of Assad and those around him, it is well worth making the effort.  Even Israeli intransigence need not be considered--Netanyahu knows that Israel must show some signs of seeking real peace with somebody if the international deligitimization campaign is to be arrested.

In short, the only hope for us and Lebanon is for the US to make an offer to Syria which it will not refuse and make a demand on Israel which it cannot refuse.  This way the only losers will be the genuine bad guys--Iran and Hezbollah.

Looks Like Lebanon Is Setting Up For A Down The Tube Ride

Pity the Lebanon--and those who live in that unfortunate geographic expression.  No country equals Lebanon's sorry record of recurrent fits of energetic disassembly.  Part of the reason for the Lebanese proclivity is attributable to its religious demographics--split between Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and smaller sects.  Another part of the package is its relationship with Syria, which has never gotten over the idea that Lebanon is a sort of lost province of something called "Greater Syria."  And, in recent years, great responsibility for Lebanon's fits of falling apart can be assigned to non-Lebanese actors ranging from the PLO in the days following the terrorist group being ejected from Jordan to the tool of Tehran, Hezbollah.

During the period of the French Mandate, the government of Lebanon was distributed among the three major religious confessions on the basis of membership numbers as determined by the snapshot of a census.  The distribution remained unchanged for decades regardless of the demographic changes which occurred.  The result was a dangerous combination of alienation and resentment.  The explosive mix would have detonated in 1957 had it not been for a very well executed American intervention, which served to keep the lid on the pot for another fifteen years.

In the wake of the salutary and short-lived American presence, Lebanon enjoyed a prolonged period of internal peace and economic development.  In the late Sixties Beirut was an island of Western style high life and sophistication in the otherwise dreary Arab Mideast.  It well merited the sobriquet, Paris of the Levant.  The city was glitzy and the nearby countryside beautiful.  It was a safe and fun place for tourists, businessmen, and spies alike.

The Lebanese party came to an end when Jordan got its military and political acts together so as to expel the gunslingers of Fatah and others of the PLO combine.  As these troublemakers and their rabble rousing chairman, Yassar Arafat, were PNG in Syria and Iraq, the only alternative was Lebanon.  Unfortunately, both the army and government of Lebanon were too weak to resist the demands for "Islamic" hospitality which were issued by Fatah and the rest.

In a manner both quick and bloody the trigger pulling thugs of the PLO, who enjoyed the diplomatic and financial support of distant Arab states, established their own state inside a state within Lebanon.  From these enclaves, the Arafat terrorists (and others of those long gone days, the days when terror was secular in goal and motive conducted by groups hiding behind a bewildering welter of alphabet soup initials) launched attacks against Israel and Israelis.  As is their custom the Israelis struck back.

One thing led to another with the result that Lebanon toppled along the edge of the cliff, finally falling into the vast and deep crevice of internal, multi-party war.  The years of war invited outsiders.  Israel invaded.  The US, France, and the UK intervened.  Finally, the Syrians moved in.  Alone among the outsiders, the Syrians remained.

Even though the waves of war and intervention served to eject much of the Fatah/PLO apparatus from Lebanon, and Syria in pursuit of its own interests brought others of the terror networks firmly to heel, this did not mean that Lebanon was cleansed of all who sought to use terror for political purposes.  A new organization, the Party of God or Hezbollah, had formed in the chaos called Lebanon.  It may have started small but it would grow as its leadership brought religion self-consciously into the terror racket.

It does not do disservice to Hezbollah to say it successfully combined the secular nationalism of previous terrorist entities such as Fatah with the violent political Islam which had propelled the Iranian Islamic Revolution.  Protected by the Syrian government whose bidding it did--most of the time--Hezbollah had the time necessary to develop its message, methods, and organization.  With Syrian assistance Hezbollah demonstrated it had the ability and will not only to attack Israeli targets but to provide a reasonable facsimile of effective government in portions of Lebanon.

Israeli hostility, particularly during the debacle of 2006, was second only to Syrian patronage in establishing the political legitimacy and military capacity of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The relative failure of the Israeli Defense Forces in that campaign validated the decisions made in Tehran and Damascus a year or two earlier to make Hezbollah a full fledged proxy of the new strategic axis connecting Iran and Syria.

The killing of Lebanese former prime minister Saad al-Hariri in 2005 proved to be a fulcrum event.  At the time the massive VBIED killed al-Hariri, it was no doubt believed in both Tehran and Damascus that the assassination would pass unmarked by the larger world.  In this both governments were wrong but neither could be blamed for having assumed that one more noisy killing of an anti-Syrian politician in the blood soaked Levant would raise no eyebrows.

In the event the Lebanese government not only howled, it went to the UN.  Specifically, the government requested that the busy bodies on the Hudson launch an independent international investigation and determine who was culpable.  Almost simultaneously the Bush/Cheney administration in a fit of rushing to premature judgement unilaterally determined that the Syrian government was responsible and recalled its ambassador.

The UN tribunal started off with a credible imitation of Inspector Clouseau and ran off sniffing Syrians under every bed and behind every bomb.  The investigation belatedly got on a less inaccurate track two years ago.  With the grudging cooperation of the Syrian government in which Hezbollah now had a major presence, the investigators apparently focused on the Iranian-Hezbollah linkage with a nod to some peripheral Syrian involvement.

With this the situation in Lebanon took a severe and negative turn.  Reduced to its essentials Hezbollah demanded that the government headed by Hariri's son withdraw its cooperation and support from the tribunal and its investigators.  To his credit Hariri fils declined the demand.  Then Hezbollah sought to bring the government down by withdrawing its ministers from the cabinet.

New elections are scheduled for March.  Hariri has declared his candidacy much to the displeasure of Hezbollah which denounced the action as unacceptable.  Reinforcing their displeasure, Hezbollah has conducted a "drill" preparing it would appear for a coup.  This has done nothing to enhance the tranquility of the Lebanese population.

The sealed report of the investigators is now in the hands of the pre-trial judge who will announce his decision on whether or not to proceed with arrest warrants in the next six to ten weeks.  Assuming the pre-trial judge does not wimp out, there is a high probability that high ranking members of both Hezbollah and the Iranian government, including the Supreme Guardian of the Revolution himself, will find their names on international arrest orders.

In effect this would constitute a declaration of war on both Hezbollah and its Iranian masters.  Certainly the position of Hezbollah that the tribunal is a tool of the American-Israeli conspiracy hints broadly at this conclusion.  At the least Hezbollah will stage the expected coup.  Given the relative weakness of the Lebanese National Forces, there is no probability of a determined resistance to any Hezbollah takeover.

Should the UN tribunal (or at least the pre-trial judge) be so bold as to aver Iranian complicity, particularly that of the Ayatollah Khemenei, Tehran will go ballistic (metaphorically at least.)  As the pre-trial judge is no doubt cognisant of this eventuality it is probable that he will demand more investigation before putting the Supreme Guardian of the Revolution on the Interpol arrest list.  Indeed, a gentle regard for the probable violent reaction of Hezbollah to any accusation of involvement may stay the man's hand completely.

Should the pre-trial judge show the white feather this will mean that Hezbollah has won.  It will take over the government without the messy necessity of a coup and its undoubtedly bloody aftermath.  A demonstration of international cowardice will also give Iran a free pass to engage in further acts of proxy conducted assassination.

Whichever way it goes, the UN tribunal is in a no-win situation.  If the indictments go forward, Lebanon will dissolve into one more internal multi-party war which will not end until either Syria alone or Hezbollah with Syrian support imposes a simulacrum of peace.  If the indictments do not happen, if more investigation is demanded, the result will be a loss of credibility for the UN, a peaceful takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, and a boost to Iranian clandestine and proxy efforts.

Whichever way the situation progresses the US will not be able to keep the hands-off policy set forth by Secretary Clinton today.  In either event Israel will be put at greater hazard.  In either event the Mideast "peace process" will be derailed even more than is currently the case.  In either event Iran will become more rather than less intransigent in its dealings with the US and the West generally.

The Lebanon crisis is deep and will get much deeper.  The prospect for the long suffering Lebanese population is poor at best and disastrous at its realistic worst.  And, lost somewhere in the shuffle of political agendas, is the notion of justice.  There will be no justice.  Not for Saad al-Hariri.  Not for his son.  Not for the region.  And, certainly not for the people of Lebanon.

They Are Getting Uptight In Lebanon--For Good Reason

One of these days, quite soon by all accounts, the special tribunal established by the UN to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 is to be released.  The history of this investigation is marked with false steps and false accusations, but now it appears the tribunal thinks they finally have achieved a firm grip on the event.  The tribunal's staff are convinced that they know who dunnit and why it was done.

The murder of Hariri was roundly condemned by the US.  That was a standard issue, off-the-shelf response.  Not so standard and certainly not well-advised was the precipitate action taken by the Bush/Cheney administration to false reports directly linking Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to the killing.

With a haste which was both unnecessary and unseemly, the neo-con ninnies suspended diplomatic relations with Syria, calling our ambassador home.  One result of this act and the charges underlying it was the sharp turn toward Iran made by an irate Bashir who felt that his country and himself personally had been insulted.  In addition the Syrian regime saw itself threatened by the suspension of normal diplomatic representation.

Syria has cleaved most tightly to Iran ever since.  This relationship is not in US interests any more than it is in the interests of Israel.  The Obama administration was well enough oriented toward reality to attempt damage limitation and repair.  This effort has proven fruitless as too much time had passed, too many connections made between the clerics of Iran and secularists of Syria, to allow any substantial or speedy change in the status quo.

The only action the US might have undertaken which would have resulted in Syria executing an about face was the return of the Golan Heights from Israel.  Since the administration decided to focus its efforts and attempts at pressure on levering Israel back to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Authority, it was impossible to do the same with Syria and the Golan.

The unwillingness or inability of the Obama administration to do anything useful on the Golan question assured that Bashir al-Assad saw nothing to be gained by dumping the mullahs and embracing the US.  An additional obstacle to changing Syrian affections from Tehran to Washington has been the repeated refusal by American administrations to acknowledge that Syria has both interests and a special position in Lebanon.  To us the notion of a "Greater Syria" incorporating Lebanon is a nul referent; to Syrians it is a reality demanding full recognition by the world including the US and its allies.

The real deal is Syria has a special position in Lebanon.  Whether Syrian troops are present in country or not, whether Syrian police patrol the streets of Beirut or not, whenever Syria decides to sneeze, Lebanon will catch pneumonia.  In short, to use the words of Winston Churchill, in Lebanon Syria has one hundred percent of "the say."

Since the US threw one hissy fit after another until all Syrian armed forces were withdrawn from Lebanon, the Boys in Damascus have employed the tried and true method of use-a-surrogate to exercise "the say" in Lebanon.  Hezbollah was a creation of Syria a quarter of a century ago and more.  Over the years the lads of Hezbollah have demonstrated a clear utility to Syria both in Lebanon and, when necessary, elsewhere.

However, the situation has become more complicated in recent years as a direct result of the tight and getting tighter linkage between Iran and Syria.  Particularly after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the flow of money, material, and training from Iran to Hezbollah has strengthened the direct ties between the theocrats of Iran and the adherents of armed political Islam of Hezbollah.  (It's nice to remember that the name translates as the Party of God.)

The situation is such that Hezbollah is almost in a position to play off Syria against Iran should its best interests demand it.  At the moment, however, the best interests of Hezbollah are served by unity between its two patrons.  The problem comes in what that may mean for Lebanon overall as the UN tribunal cranks up to go public with its investigation.

The conclusions of the tribunal's investigation is, Hezbollah did it.  This prospect has Hezbollah worried.  It has the current Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, very worried.  It has the Lebanese political elite very, very worried.

Hezbollah's capo, Hassan Nasrallah, has the capacity to tumble the government.  In lieu of simply causing the chaos a forced collapse of the central government would bring in its wake, the very hardline Islamist group and its leader may simply demand a reformulation of the Taif Agreement which ended the simmering internal Lebanese war by bringing Hezbollah into the government.  Any reformulation would grant even more power to Hezbollah, a prospect which Israel, among others, finds alarming.

Three ago the politics of Lebanon as threatened by the UN tribunal report made for strange bedmates as Bashir al-Assad met one on one with the King of Saudi Arabia.  The two long standing foes had come together in the hope of making sure there would be no reawakening of the dormant civil war.  For a couple of months it appeared the two had succeeded in brokering some sort of undiscussed in public means of preventing a Lebanese collapse.

The rapprochement has proven short-lived.  The Kingdom of the Two Mosques and the Baathists of Syria have come to a parting of the ways on Lebanon as a direct result of the Syrian-Iranian alliance.  The Syrian government has come out in favor of the candidacy of Nouri al-Maliki.  Maliki is the favorite son of Iran for the office of Iraqi prime minister.  Being Iran's favorite means Maliki must be Syria's as well.

The opting for the Iranian Candidate has infuriated Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Even if it was not possible for Bashir and his government to come out in support of Allawi, who was acceptable to Saudi Arabia, the overt endorsement of Maliki was too much for the Keeper of the Two Mosques.  It was, as they say, a deal killer.

Bashir has also blasted the on-again and now once more, off-again Israeli-Palestinian Authority talks as existing only to "boost Obama."  That he delivered himself of this opinion with Ahmadinejad beaming away in the next chair was not lost on any observer--particularly those in Saudi Arabia.

The Iranian Orator-in-Chief is scheduled to return the call in a couple of weeks.  This means the internal politics of Lebanon will remain in stasis at least until the Man From Tehran heads home on 15 October.  After that date, all bets are off regarding the internal stability of the faction ridden state of Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad, accompanied by Nasrallah, is scheduled to dedicate a garden located not far from the Israel-Lebanon border.  At this time the Guy From Tehran is expected to toss a symbolic stone in the general direction of Israel.  This action close to what Ahmadinejad has called "Iran's border with Israel" raises a question.

No, bucko, not what shape is Ahmadinejad's arm.  Rather, will the Israelis go for a commando raid and snatch, bringing Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah back to Israel to stand trial for either war crimes (in Nasrallah's case) or exciting genocide in regard to Ahmadinejad's many calls for the destruction of Israel.  In a way it is too bad that this intriguing prospect (think glass booths, simultaneous translations, hordes of international observers all in the ala Eichmann manner) is a non-starter.  It would solve so many problems all at once as well as raise a number of other, more fascinating--or at least less repetitive--issues.

In any event watching Lebanon will be a whole lot more fun after the UN tribunal releases its report.  It will be one more episode in the long running and ever-so-bloody drama of Can Lebanon Survive?  In the worst realistic case, the Lebanese situation will be reality TV at its most compelling.

ADMIN NOTE: Press on through the anti-spam comment defenses as the Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments.

Iran Turns Lebanon's Crank Some More

A while back the Geek posted on the advantage Iran would enjoy by embroiling Israel in a shooting war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Doing such would involve diplomatic repercussions which would limit Israel's capacity to take direct action against the emerging existential threat of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In the past few days the Lebanese crank has been turned not once, but several times. The most dramatic of these actions was the fatal shooting of an IDF reserve colonel overseeing a brush clearing operation on Israel's side of the border. In the resulting firefight another Israeli officer was wounded and a Lebanese troop or two killed, as was a reporter for Hezbollah's television station on hand to document the fun and games.

The presence of the journalist and an accompanying cameraman suggests the Lebanese forces had planned the action. Given the close--dare one write, "intimate?"--ties between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Hezbollah as well as the fact that Hezbollah is a fully functioning component of the government of Lebanon (GOL), it is highly probable that not only was the outrage planned but also approved at a high level in both the LAF and GOL.

One result of the unprovoked, unjustified sniper fire has been a (temporary perhaps) cessation of American military assistance to the LAF. The initial move to halt the flow of already programmed assistance was taken by the chairs of the relevant subcommittee and full House Foreign Affairs committee. But, there is support in Congress for a more extensive block on aid.

The State Department is, unsurprisingly, pushing back on the hold. State has grounds for concern. GOL has taken the expectable position of rejecting any US aid that comes with any appended conditions. In a move equally devoid of drama or shock value, the Iranian government has offered any and all necessary assistance to assure Lebanon's territorial integrity against "Zionist" aggression.

It is the second factor which rubs State's fur the wrong way, of course. The folks in Foggy Bottom and, presumably, the Pentagon hold some faith in the proposition that US aid to LAF will bring some influence upon the Lebanese military and government in its train.

Duh!

These people must be either off their meds or know a dealer handling truly righteous stuff actually to believe that a few hundred million bucks worth of obsolescent gear will somehow, someway, offset the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the capacity of Iran to wag the Lebanese dog's tail whenever and to whatever degree Tehran believes indicated. Hezbollah has an effective veto power over GOL even without resorting to force. It controls vital ministries including the one dealing with foreign affairs.

Need more be known?

The potency of Hezbollah as well as GOL's subservience was highlighted in a speech by Hezbollah capo, Hassan Nasrallah, in which the cleric accused Israel of being behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, whose son is the current incumbent. The "evidence" offered by Nasrallah was a risible pastiche of intercepted non-encrypted imagery transmissions from Israel UAVs of a decade ago and allegations of sinister Israeli spies littering the Lebanese landscape.

The Lebanese government, which should have been insulted by Nasrallah's speech, said nothing. The current prime minister was seemingly in agreement, if not with the speech, then with the goal toward which Nasrallah's speech was directed--the ending of the UN investigation which was aimed evermore closely at Hezbollah.

After a disastrous false start lamentably supported by the George W. Bush administration in which the UN created tribunal sought to pin the tail of blame on Syria, the investigation finally got back on course. This course led directly to Hezbollah as the agent of death. This, in turn, implies Tehran knew and at least tacitly approved of the killing.

The takeaway is simple: Neither Hezbollah nor Lebanon, nor, for that matter, Iran, can tolerate any imputation of responsibility for the death of Hariri, senior, a very popular and effective politician who had a unique ability to straddle the several competing religious communities which comprise Lebanon. Any odor of culpability would fracture the tenuous stability which has taken root in the past couple of years.

Fracturing Lebanon would immediately and drastically reduce the value of both Hezbollah and Lebanon as the means and venue for diverting Israel from going after the Iranian nuke plants. That would be a major no-no from the perspective of Tehran.

The need to preclude Israel from using its military muscle has become more critical to the mullahs and their stooges. This fact has been bought front and center in an article in the Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg. In this apparently well researched and evidently well reasoned piece, the writer comes to a stark conclusion--Israel will go it alone if necessary by next July at the latest to abate the Iranian nuclear threat. That is, of course, barring the success of other, less robust means.

Iran is long, very long in bluster, threats and photo-op weapons. Its actual capacity to defend against advanced air and missile delivered munitions is far more questionable. Against an American attack Iran is virtually defenseless. Against an Israeli attack the same may well be the case.

While Tehran is secure against any American threat given the tone and character of the current president, the mullahs cannot be so sanguine regarding Israel. The latter country perceives correctly that a nuclear armed Iran is not simply a game changer but a very real threat to the lives of thousands of its citizens.

As a consequence, the imperative to deter Israel through a diversionary effort looms large in the calculations of the Iranian leadership. The best opportunity for doing this given the current state of global affairs and perceptions within the elites of the West is by way of Lebanon. One more round of warfare between Israel and Lebanon (read Hezbollah) would defang Israel for months, perhaps years.

That would be the equivalent of victory for the mullahs. It would be the same for the legions of people in the Arab street who see Iran as no threat and Israel as the biggest bully in the world.

The upshot of this concatenation of considerations is simply that the ball is back in Obama's court. Unfortunately, it is most probable that the b-ball playing president will muff his shot.

Time Is On The Side Of War

In the years before World War I large sections of the British politically articulate classes became increasingly convinced that British power, particularly naval power, had peaked and would soon decline in relation to Germany. The idea of war became increasingly thinkable as there was a pervasive belief that time was on the side of the Kaiser and not Britannia.

Today the same situation exists but now it holds forth on both sides of the great divide and not just one. There is good reason for Iranians and Israelis both to have the idea that time is working to the disadvantage of each.

It is arguably true that Iranian power is peaking in comparison to Israel's. When Iran gains even a rudimentary nuclear capacity, the Jewish state is under real and immediate threat.

It is arguably true that Iran is facing potentially fatal internal opposition now that the merchants of the bazaars in Tehran and other large cities have been expressing not only anti-tax but anti-government sentiments. The Iranian government's stability is in no way assisted by the effects of the new sanctions imposed by the European Union and the US. There will be more shortages, more unemployment, more unrest, more repression.

In a very real sense then the rulers of Iran may be expected to conclude that now represents their last, best chance to go to (indirect) war for purposes of regime maintenance and diplomatic diversion. The availability of competent proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas provide the needed avenue for indirect war.

On the Israeli side of the hill it is to be expected that the country's strategists have seen all the alternatives available to the mullahs in the proxy war category--and will not be diverted from their main enemy, Iran. The awareness that being distracted, tied down both militarily and diplomatically in a proxy war in Lebanon would provide advantage only to Iran must pervade the corridors of Israeli political and military command.

In a quirky way the situation resembles not only that before August 1914 but the contest over who would invade Norway first in 1940, Germany or England. For Iran, it is critical to let the Hezbollah dogs of war loose before Israel makes the go decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. For Israel the necessity is hitting Iran before the proxy war, the Hezbollah threat, puts the diplomatic kibosh on any hope of a direct attack on Iran.

Both Iran and Israel have good reasons to resort to war. At the moment the conventional advantage rests with Israel. However, Iran has demonstrated great skill at offsetting conventional advantage with creative use of proxies and terror.

And, at the moment, Iran has the initiative. Iran can decide when and to what initial extent Hezbollah is to be cranked up. After that, of course, Iran will not be able to control either the extent or the intensity of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, which includes the potential that Israel will be able to ignore diplomatic strictures and go for the master behind the puppet.

Israel's freedom of action as well as its ability to ignore any diplomatic repercussions resulting from retaliating to Hezbollah provocations is enhanced by the general perception within the Arab states that the world is much better off if Iran does not get the Big Bomb than would be the case if it did. While only the UN representative of the UAE has made this explicit, there can be no doubt but he was speaking publicly what all others have been saying in private.

Other than Syria there are no Iran fans to be found in the Arab states. The depth of Syrian commitment to the Iranian cause would be tested severely if Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah spilled over into Syria. It would be tested even more severely should Israel seek to buy its peace on the Syrian front by giving the Golan Heights back. That option would have more appeal when taken in conjunction with an ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah and the need for a hard strike on the main enemy, Iran.

Iran has allies on the wider stage but only one, China, is a Great Power. Others, including Russia and Germany, may have interests, primarily economic, in play in Iran but are not or are no longer willing to go to the mat to protect Iran's right to join the Nuclear Club. Words may fly like automatic weapons fire at the UN and other fora but without real conviction and without backing on the action front.

The American administration may, in contemporary jargon, "be deeply conflicted" over any Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah provocation as well as a go-it-alone Israel strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities but will be unable to do anything about it. The political realities of America assure that the Obama administration would be unable to do more than rhetorically hand-wring and counsel "restraint" without expecting the Israeli government to heed the exhortations.

No one will be happy should push come to shove in Lebanon and Iran. Any attack on Iran will derail the fragile global economic recovery as oil prices spike. The noise of terrorist bombs and the body parts of suicide bombers will shatter the quiet and litter the landscape as political Islamists seek their opportunity in the window of chaos opened by any Israeli attack on Iran--or occurring as a sideline to the Hezbollah proxy war.

When the war comes, when Iran unleashes Hezbollah or when Israel preempts by hitting Iran's nuclear constellation, it will be in large measure the result of failed US diplomacy. Two successive American administrations--W. Bush and Obama--have faltered before the challenge of Iranian ambitions. Tough--overly tough--words were backed by weak and vacillating actions to the ultimate advantage of the Iranian regime. Lines were drawn on ever-shifting sand, again to the ultimate advantage of the Iranians.

It must be recalled that whatever benefits Iran acts to the disadvantage not only of Israel and the Mideast but the totality of the world. That is the most discouraging implication of the dismal record of two administrations. The US failed completely in its paramount goal of acting to preserve the global balance of power which acts not so much to the advantage of the US as to the peace of the world.

With every passing day Israel is in more of a get-or-get-got position. Every day the choice for Israel narrows: Fight the war of our choice or fight one of Iran's choice and timing.

Any reasonably able strategist knows the answer to that problem.

Looking At Life From The Other Side Of The Hill

There was a time when the Geek hated above all else receiving a tasking memo containing the words, "estimate probable reactions to a proposed course of US action." Filling the order always required looking deeply into a very cloudy crystal ball. It also required rejecting the American mindset, a difficult task at best for someone who is profoundly American.

However, there are times when the lads on the other side of the hill do the equivalent of sending a fax outlining their intentions. Events of recent weeks in Lebanon combine with other Iranian demarches to give a clear hint as to what the mullahs fear might be about to happen--and what they and their political stooges hope to do as a preventative.

The Iranian Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, must be getting a bit anxious about the potential of an attack against the country's nuclear facilities, and, quite possibly, other very high value point targets. The anxiety felt by Allah's Voice In the Islamic Republic may focus on the Israelis, but might include the remote possibility that the US would join in the festival of air delivered destruction. And, just as feces is impelled downhill by the force of gravity, so also is the Ayatollah's anxiety.

The challenge for the strategists of the Islamic Republic is that of preventing any strike by Israel alone or the (highly) hypothetical joint US-Israel attack. The goal must be the absolute prevention of any attack and not simply the mitigation of an attack's effectiveness or adequate retaliation for the attack. Anything less than a total prevention of any attack of any weight would constitute a significant defeat for the Iranians.

There are two reinforcing avenues by which the strategic goal might be reached. The first, the self-evident, consists of diplomatic gambits meant to cause divisions within the P5+1 states and the larger "international community." The second would be the more robust mechanism of forestalling Israel by means of a proxy preventative war.

The diplomatic axis is already in play. Most recently, the Iranians have brought the rejected Turkey-Brazil brokered exchange deal back into play. The Tehran regime has hinted it will stop its twenty percent enrichment program if the requisite higher quality uranium is furnished according to the deal first proposed by the US and its allies last Fall. Not surprisingly, Ankara has praised the proposal. Similar hosannas may be expected shortly from Brazil. And, in all probability, Beijing will join the chorus of "Give Peace (and diplomacy) A Chance."

The new sanctions regime, including the tougher measures adopted by both the US and EU, will be less than effective, to say nothing of not being the "crippling" measures promised by SecState Clinton months ago. Both Turkey and Pakistan have made it clear that neither feels bound by the UN Security Council measures, nor, it appears the stance of the US. Most recently the government of Pakistan rejected American pressures (and inducements) to sign an agreement running a natural gas pipeline from Iran into the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The unhelpful positions taken by two key American "allies" in the region taken in conjunction with Iran's well demonstrated capacity to evade sanctions in major part will serve to nullify the isolation. This reality when seen as a reinforcement for the delay and division producing charm offensive embodied in the "we will stop enriching, if you do what we want" campaign gives Iran breathing room while enhancing the chance that Israel will undertake a go-it-alone air strike against the Iranian nuclear constellation.

And, that brings us to the second, more critical part of what might be underway on the other side of the hill--preventing Israel from exercising its aerial option.

The key to this is Lebanon. More precisely it is found in the capacity of Hezbollah to provoke Israel into a rematch of the 2006 Second Lebanese War.

The most important aspect of the Hezbollah Option is found not in 2006 but in the aftermath of last year's Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. The highest profile "lesson learned" by enemies of Israel in the wreckage of Gaza is the degree of international condemnation focused on Israel.

Given that this lesson of Cast Lead has been powerfully reinforced by the consequences of the IDF boarding of the Marmara, the potential of the Hezbollah Option to stymie Israel in undertaking any air attack on Iran is self-evident. The ease with which Israel can be rendered harmless has been enhanced by the posture adopted and actions taken regarding Israel by the Obama administration.

Now, let's take a dekko at southern Lebanon, specifically the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River. This area of Lebanon was the focus of Israeli military operations during the Carter and Reagan administrations. At that time and later, the region was the area of operations assigned to the United Nations Interim Forces In Lebanon (UNIFIL.) Following the 2006 Second Lebanese War, UNIFIL was enlarged and charged with the responsibility of enforcing all the assorted provisions governing the region and the larger Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

In theory, UNIFIL is supposed to assure that only the official Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have an armed presence in the region. The patrols and mere presence of UNIFIL was presumed by the UN to guard against a renewal of Hezbollah's armed component using the area as a base of attacks against Israel.

In practice, matters have not worked out as the international "statesmen" at the UN had intended. Hezbollah has not only joined the Lebanese government, it has taken effective control of the region where UNIFIL holds forth. By providing essential services and using tried and true methods of intimidation, Hezbollah has gained unquestioned dominance over the numerous villages of south Lebanon.

Nonetheless, UNIFIL has impeded the efforts of Hezbollah to prepare the border area as an effective base of offensive operations. Hezbollah has not been stopped in stockpiling weapons including short range unguided missiles but it has been slowed, made less effective, inhibited in many ways by the embarrassing existence of the UNIFIL troops.

Until recently this has not been a major problem. However, recent events show that Hezbollah is feeling some pressure to prepare more effectively, more rapidly. Enter the villagers.

In the past few weeks "outraged" villagers have engaged in "spontaneous" actions against UNIFL patrols and installations. This escalating campaign of harassment culminated during regularly scheduled UNIFIL practice operations with an attack on a French contingent which included the temporary blockade of vehicles, seizure of weapons, and detention of personnel. In this case as in the previous ones, UNIFIL had to wait until "rescued" by units of the LAF. Even the UN Secretary General became officially "concerned" over the ability of UNFIL to operate free of impediment.

The Secretary General is also given to fretting over the continued "violation" of Lebanese air space by reconnaissance assets of the Israeli Air Force. Of course, the Israelis have no alternative given that the continued and escalating interference with UNIFIL enhances the ability of Hezbollah to emplace weapons and munitions, undertake field exercises, and otherwise improve the group's capacity at both offensive and defensive operations.

It is most likely that Hezbollah has been responding to the directions of Tehran to prepare for attacks against Israel as well as the inevitable Israeli response. This would be a time sensitive matter as Tehran must be aware that Israeli patience with the US led effort to block the quest for a nuclear weapon is running short.

There is a high probability that Hezbollah will be fully ready to undertake offensive operations against Israel within the next thirty to sixty days. This implies a commensurate readiness to resist and counter the Israeli retaliation--including ground operations.

No matter how Israel may respond to Hezbollah attacks and without regard to the success of the response, the critical reality from Tehran's perspective is that Israel will be tied up in an international firestorm of criticism and diplomatic condemnation. Even if Israel is delayed in its response by pressure from the US to "show restraint," the major effect will be to severely, perhaps fatally, inhibit Israel's potential use of its military option against Iran.

In short, the most attractive alternative for Iran in its search for a sovereign remedy against the power of the IDF is the use of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership does not fear any Israeli attack including a major ground offensive of the 2006 sort. There is high confidence within the organization that it is better prepared today than four years ago to handle the IDF roughly.

This confidence extends to Damascus. Not only have the Syrians done much to facilitate improvements in Hezbollah's war fighting capacities, it is prepared to ostensibly distance itself from whatever provocations Hezbollah may exercise. It is sufficient, the Syrian government believes, to have plausible deniability in its involvement. This attitude is based upon its assessment of the lack of American political will to provide support to Israel as well as the way in which the tide of international opinion (at least among the political elites) has run increasingly against Israel.

Should this scenario play out, the loudest sounds will not be from exploding missiles or bombs but rather from the sighs of relief and chortles of triumph coming from Tehran. No matter what happens on the killing grounds of Lebanon and Israel, the winner will be Iran.

That means the largest losers will be the US--and the rest of the civilized world.

Now, Hezbollah Joins The Narcos--Why Not?

Sue Myrick (R. NC-9) is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It may be recalled that she garnered more than a little notoriety when she wrote the forward for the book Muslim Mafia last year. This book accused the Council On American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of being a subversive entity. (It is interesting in this regard that CAIR during ensuing litigation did not charge the book's authors or publisher with libel or defamation but rather with having acquired certain documents by illegal methods.)

Alarmed by the book's allegations that CAIR had planted espionage agents within committees charged with national security duties, Ms Myrick, joined by other Republican Members of Congress, demanded the Sergeant At Arms investigate to determine whether or not interns appointed with CAIR backing had served in this sinister role. Later she, again with other Republicans, requested the Internal Revenue Service investigate as to whether CAIR had violated its tax-exempt status by lobbying efforts.

It is without surprise that CAIR and other pro-Islam groups including the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim American Society as well as Democratic Party heavyweights, most notably, John Conyers and Mike Honda, pushed back--hard. Weakening the push back efforts was the undeniable linkage of CAIR with officially identified Muslim terrorist groups as an unindicted co-conspirator in the controversial Holy Land Foundation trial.

Ms Myrick has written another letter recently. This time the recipient was Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The subject: Investigate the possible linkage of Hezbollah and Mexican narcotrafficking cartels.

The letter is a fine example of unspecified "former intelligence officers," and "well trained officials," and "some authorities." Ms Myrick's missive rests additionally on some well known and unpleasant realities deep south of the border such as the cooperation between Iranian capo Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan supremo Chavez, the long established presence of Hezbollah operatives in the drug smuggling region of the Tri-border between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, the skill shown by Hezbollah in digging tunnels, and, as a bit of a stretch, the similarity of terrain between that of the southwest US-Mexican border and the border between Israel and Lebanon.

In Ms Myrick's estimate, the probable current or near-term partnership between Hezbollah and the assorted smuggling cartels operating on the US-Mexico border constitutes a definite national security threat. As such, the matter deserves, at the least, the establishment of a task force which "could explore all these issues."

It is the wishy-washy nature of the Myrick request which undermines her argument that the US may soon be experiencing "Israel like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units in the border regions." Get a grip, Congresswoman Myrick!

Either the US does face a growing threat from a partnership between Hezbollah (or Hamas or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the cartels or it does not. If the potential for such exists to the degree you appear to believe, then action beyond the formation of a "taskforce (which) could explore all these issues," is necessary.

The use of the resources, personnel, and knowledge of the smuggling cartels would be of great utility to an entity such as Hezbollah or an adverse state like Iran. However, the potential utility of such an alliance would be eroded significantly if employed for petty efforts such as "Israel-like car bombings." The killing or wounding of a few Border Patrol agents or National Guardsmen would be a frittering away of a capacity with much greater potential.

The current dynamics of global politics makes the use of the smuggling cartels an attractive option. Of course, this option would not be either cheap or risk free, so it seems reasonable that any partnership would have as its goal operations far more damaging to the US than the sound of VBIEDs in the desert air.

Ms Myrick would be well advised to reform her letter, its arguments, and the sketchy evidence supporting her contentions to an appropriate level. Not to be unduly alarmist, but taking into account the strong probability that Iran will have the capacity to take two Hiroshima sized bombs off the shelf within eighteen to twenty-four months, a legitimate level of threat is that of a WMD attack using either nuclear or biological munitions.

The capabilities of the smuggling cartels, their human resources, their collective knowledge are up to the task of introducing agents and equipment into the US. This capability should be understood not as simply dumping the martyrdom seekers and munitions across the Great Fence of the Southwest but delivering them well into the interior of the US.

The complex, well-organized, and highly redundant delivery system developed and constantly improved upon by the cartels provides a ready capacity for delivering a devastating attack on the US at any time. All that is necessary is the formation of a partnership between one or more cartels and either Iran or one of its proxies.

This takes time. The cartels are run by men who are even tougher of mind than the mullahs and their stooges. It will take more than a slight amount of effort to persuade the cartel chiefs that what is in the deal more than offsets the risks of American response. It will take careful playing off of one cartel with the others as well as meticulous manipulation of relevant and receptive Mexican police, military, and government officials.

None of this is made easier by the arrogant xenophobia which has been well noted by those foreigners--even other Muslims--who have had dealings with Iran or Iranian proxies. Nor does the assistance of Hugo Chavez ease the path to partnership.

Chavez enjoys no particularly high standing in the estimate of the cartels. He has even lower standing with members of the Mexican elite both in and out of government. Any Chavez involvement will be obvious since that is the only way Hugo, The Mouth Of The South, knows how to operate. The evident participation of Hugo will make any deal with Mexican officials all the more difficult given the nationalism which is always present in their makeup along with greed.

The culture gap between Islamist jihadi and Latin American narcotrafficker is wide and deep. It will not be bridged quickly and easily--if at all. This ground truth is far more relevant in considering the potential of an emerging threat on the border than is the presence of a few jail tattoos in Farsi.

Ms Myrick is correct in being concerned. The growth of an alliance between Iran or its proxies and the elaborate smuggling networks of LatAm is a real threat in the longer term. But, the right way to go about countering this potential is not in the writing of politically expedient letters.

The right way is that of careful monitoring of developments and their disruption whenever possible. And the options for disruption are manifold given the nature of the relationship between Islamists and traffickers. Not to simplify the matter, time is on the side of the US in this area of threat assessment and abatement.

In short, Ms Myrick should put her word processor on stand-by. Unless the intelligence community has become significantly more incompetent in recent months (not impossible but highly unlikely), the Iranian-smuggling connection is already on the radar screens. As a rule of thumb, if we hear nothing about it, the matter is being handled properly and effectively.

Chavez Continues To Prove The Obvious

Some people just don't ever learn. High on the list of those who are learning impaired are socialists. Topping that heap is Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez whose Bolivarian Revolution--"Socialism for the Twenty-First Century" is coming an every bigger cropper with each passing day.

While Hugo's weekly hours of rant on Venezuelan radio/television remind one of Castro's original brand albeit with a sense of humor, the paratrooper-turned-strongman is not simply a clown with delusions of adequacy. He is a potential danger to the stability and peace of at least a portion of South America as his recurrent threats and bloviations against neighboring Columbia make clear.

He is also a potential menace to the security of the US. Some of the potential menace is indirect, the consequence of Venezuela becoming a major drug shipment center. But, the real potential for danger arises from the ever closer relations between Chavez' government and that of Iran, and, even more important in the emerging threat category, the use of Venezuela by Hezbollah and Hamas personnel.

The combination of drug smuggling; the presence of dedicated, well-trained specialists in terror and asymmetrical warfare; Iranian money and other resources; Chavez' personal, visceral hatred, fear, and loathing of the US; and the collapsing Venezuelan economy does not bode well for American national interest or security. The apparent instability of Chavez' psyche coupled with the evident erosion of the Venezuelan social compact under economic stress does nothing to reassure one that the Hero Of The Bolivarian Revolution might not continence, even foster a clandestine strike against US territory even before launching an adventure into Columbia with his new Russian supplied weaponry.

The implosion of the economy in Venezuela, the fifth largest source of US oil, has reached levels which must be alarming to the Vaca of Caracas. Inflation is reported at thirty-five percent--and rising as if Hugo is bent on imitating his mentors in Iran. Rolling blackouts caused by the decaying nature of the country's hydroelectric system and complicated by the decay of its oil fired power plants hit all the country's larger cities for several hours (or more) per day.

The darkened streets of Caracas must be a boon to the criminals of the city. Caracas has a homicide rate which surpasses even that of Cuidad Juarez where the murders are so commonplace that they are now lumped together in the "other news" section of the daily papers. Given the loss of employment in Caracas, the growth of crime and murder is not surprising.

Somewhat more surprising is the fact that Venezuela's downhill slide started a couple of years ago during the period of record high oil prices. This counter-intuitive condition can be attributed simply and solely to the sheer incompetence and total ineptitude of the socialists who have taken over so much of the country's extraction and manufacturing base and a fair chunk of its agricultural products distribution system.

While South America is generally on a fast road to recovery from the Great Recession with Peru, Chile and Brazil pegged to have growth rates this year at or above four percent, Venezuela is projected to have a contraction of at least two percent and perhaps as much five. This decline comes on top of last years negative growth of 3.3 percent.

All the decline can be attributed to the moribund nature of the private sector coupled with the exceptional inefficiency of the nationalized industries and businesses. In short, Chavez has been proving once again the sad stories of Cuba and other adopters of the socialist brand of command economies: Socialism does not work.

Chavez loudly and almost without letup pins the rap for the failure of his Bolivarian brand on the sinister manipulations of the US. To make sure his message is the only one heard, the Mouth has closed all opposition outlets, jailed dissidents, and, most recently, launched a risible counterattack on Twitter. But no matter how creative and insistent Chavez might be, the combination of oppression and propaganda can neither conceal nor reverse the structural realities at home.

Money blown on weapons cannot be spent on urgently necessary repairs to and improvements of the country's degenerate infrastructure. Efforts directed toward militarizing the nation's youth, suppressing dissent, excoriating neighbors, pouring vitriol on the US and other evil capitalists cannot go toward identifying and rectifying such basic, enervating difficulties as the flight of the middle class, the technically competent, the educated, the people whose energies and talents are so vital to the collective success of the nation and the state.

Looking ahead, it is necessary to ask, "Sr Chavez, when the verbal mongering of war proves insufficient, when the blame game fails, when the bottom continues to fall out of your revolution, what then?"

The underlying anxiety must be that Chavez will resort finally to the reality of war in a desperate attempt to rally a disenchanted population around the national flag--and his leadership. A "splendid little war" perhaps. One with Columbia might do. Or a border dispute with Brazil, or even a tiny naval contretemps with the US. All these are notional at the moment, but none are impossible, particularly should Chavez' party come out on the short end of the vote in the parliamentary elections next September.

The popularity of the volatile Chavez is currently lower than that of President Obama in the US. Hugo is aware of this unpleasant and most inconvenient of truths; so also are his satraps, lackeys, and goons whose phony-baloney jobs are at stake. Balancing this is Hugo's experience based awareness that elections can be jiggered even with Jimmy Carter looking on.

But jiggering and the inevitable post-jiggering criticism from without and dissent from within can take the fun out of being Strongman-For-Life. It is at trying times like this that a re-elected dictator needs some help from his friends. Something to take away the pain of all those accusations, all that finger-pointing and name-calling. A little balm for the embattled soul of a man dedicated to his people.

Sure, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua will leap to the call. They all are, after all, the most fraternal of states, all possessed of a weak, socialist economy; a politics of victimization; and united in a common distaste for the US. But, their sympathy might not be enough to offset the difficulties in which Hugo stands.

He may need heavier guns in his corner. A more potent--and successful source of succor.

Ah, yes, there is a friendly country which meets that description--Iran. Tehran has a fine record of staring down the US and the rest of the Security Council. It sure would be comforting to get a bit of understanding and support from that quarter.

In answering, Iran may call for a bit of the old quid pro quo.

For the quid of diplomatic, military, and economic support, Hugo might be asked, politely of course, by someone from Tehran, "Say, Sr Chavez, how about giving our guys from Hezbollah a little fraternal assistance on a trip to the Land Up North?"

That one could hurt--us.

Is Assad Stupid Or Simply Hacked Off?

The widely circulated, Israeli originated report that Syria has shipped Scud missiles to Hezbollah has been confirmed by the terrorist entity which moonlights as a partner in the Lebanese government. In a rather illogical addition to its confirmation Hezbollah averred it couldn't understand what the fuss was all about.

The Hezbollah spokesman, presumably with a straight face maintained the weapons were both old and unusable. Perhaps the speaker's words were lost in translation from Arabic to Arabic and thus appeared garbled in the Kuwaiti paper, Al-Rai. Or, with equal probability, Syria has designated South Lebanon as the approved dump for ancient, decrepit, and broken warlike stores.

Showing their usual propensity for either ambiguity or an inherent inability to keep the stories straight, the Syrian Foreign Ministry continued to deny the reports of a Scud transfer. Instead, the ForMin trotted out the usual counter-allegation: The Israelis are making it all up in order to roil the otherwise peaceful waters of the Mideast and justify their upcoming invasion of peace loving Hezbollahstan.

Showing the fundamentally peaceful inclination of Hezbollah, the Al-Rai piece went on to quote the Man From Hezbollah as saying, "Our organization has many surface-to-surface missiles spread all across Lebanon..." Ah, yes, the old just-in-case gambit.

While there may be individuals in the IDF and government of Israel who may be itching for a rematch to avenge the bloody nose given the Israelis by an unexpectedly competent and well handled Hezbollah force, it is not likely that Israel is in a search for more ways to complicate their already tenuous position. War may be forced upon the country as it was with Operation Cast Lead, but the Israelis aren't looking to provoke one.

It is quite true that Syria has not been showing a great desire to cooperate with either Israel or the US in a quest for a settlement of either regional or bilateral nature. The rejection by Syria of a bid by Israel to establish a trilateral mechanism in the Golan Heights in order to address points of friction is a very recent sign of Syria's harder version of its long standing hard line policy.

Given the rejectionist posture of Syria at the Arab League meeting last month, the rejection is no surprise. Neither is the shipment of Scuds to Hezbollah.

Both the US and Israel have made the customary statements of viewing-with-alarm and warning of the Grave Consequences. In the rhetorical exchanges both sides have played according to long established protocols. The script written so many years back has been followed with verisimilitude. So far, so good as even Hezbollah has sounded almost statesmanlike given its past oratory.

More important than the "who" and "what" in play here is the basic question of "why?"

There are three possibilities.

The first is Bashir al-Assad didn't know what the boys in the backroom were up to. That is possible but unlikely in the extreme. Assad, fils has a firm grasp on all the levers of power and rogue actions would be firmly squashed--as with a bomb under the underling's car when he leaves a party.

The second is Bashir has gone a little funny in the brain housing group. While not impossible a sudden loss of reason on the part of the tightly wrapped man is on the same order of probability as the arrival of a "death star" from the Oort Cloud.

The third alternative is Bashir is torqued off. He is royally hacked over being ignored in the Mideast "Peace Process." As a consequence, the Syrian leader ordered a typically Syrian exercise in subtlety. Sending a few Scuds to Hezbollahstan can be seen as a shouted, "Pay attention to me! I am a major player. The major player. I can make trouble. Or, I can make trouble go away."

Much, if not most of Syria's foreign policy including its "strategic relationship" with Iran can be seen as motivated by the strong desire of Assad, which is universally shared by his government and military, to regain the Golan Heights and, as a matter of slightly lesser importance, exercise operational dominance in Lebanon. These are the pillars of Syrian policy as they have been since the betrayal of Syria by Egypt during the Yom Kippur War twenty-seven years ago.

The most important lesson drawn by Assad, pere and passed on to Assad, fils was the unreliability of allies, even one as supposedly ideologically compatible as Egypt seemed to be in the days of Anwar Sadat. Allies may be useful but, when push comes to shove, any ally will look to its own fortune first.

The linkage between secularist Syria and the mullahocracy of Iran has little, if any, ideological or political foundation. It is an alliance of narrowly defined self-interest on the part of both countries. Services, cash, and support may flow between the mullahs and the Baathist, but there is no further basis than those pragmatic considerations. This implies the alliance is even more fragile than that which died on the battlefields of the Yom Kippur War.

The real goal of Syria in contracting its alliance with Iran was and is to get the US to take Syria seriously, to put an emphasis on pressing Israel to relinquish the Golan, on acknowledging the reality that Syria, not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, and certainly not the "Palestinians" is the key player in the region. That the gambit has failed to achieve its end is not the fault of the Syrians.

Damascus has played its cards quite well, even putting their own soil at risk to benefit the Iranians. The failure has occurred because American policymakers under both the W. Bush and Obama administrations have been all too willing to be diverted by appearances or spurious events and not see through to the crux of affairs.

The W. Bush administration was unwilling to concede the fact that Lebanon is a geographic expression to a far, far greater degree than it is a functioning nation-state, let alone an authentic democracy. In the long, dark, and bloody years after "Black September," the only force which was able to impose a measure of stability on Lebanon was Syria. When Syria was either devalued in this role or prevented from playing it, chaos ensued.

Damascus considers Lebanon to be in its sole bailiwick. If possible Syria will exercise operational dominance directly but with a a relatively lowered visibility (but always heavy hand.) If prevented from direct intervention Damascus is willing and able to operate through a proxy. This is what is being done with Hezbollah. In point of fact, Hezbollah is the government of Lebanon in all but name.

The danger comes when the proxy becomes strong enough to ignore its patron. This tipping point is coming in Lebanon and Assad knows it. The Scud shipment is a means of postponing the day when Hezbollah tries an end run to Tehran directly.

More infuriating to Syria has been the focus on "Palestine" and the "Palestinians" exhibited by every administration from Clinton to Obama. Being both Arab and a one time sponsor of assorted "Palestinian" groups, the Syrian regime knows quite well that no deal can be made with the zanies of the Palestinian Authority let alone the flat out crazies of Hamas. If for no other reason than the combination of the weight of history and fear of the Islamist jihadists, no figure in the PA can make a deal with Israel on any terms which might prove acceptable to the Israelis and, quite literally, keep on breathing.

Syria knows itself to be a rational actor. In comparison to the PA and Hamas, this position is irrefutable. In Damascus there has been nothing but mystification over the resolute American refusal to see that by solving the Golan Heights question much progress toward a comprehensive peace settlement can be achieved. It is (correctly) thought in Damascus that the Israelis will need to be leaned on heavily if they are ever to disgorge the Golan to its rightful owners. Only the Americans could conceivably apply the requisite diplomatic muscle.

Having watched the Obama administration fruitlessly apply pressure to Israel over settlements in Jerusalem, the Assad regime must be asking itself just what it would take to get Washington to get off the "Palestinian" horse and try something real. If the Americans are going to use pressure, propose their own peace agreement, why shouldn't they focus on the doable? And, what will it take to get the Obama people to see that the Golan is the real center of gravity and not East Jerusalem?

The Scuds to Hezbollah can be seen in this light. The offensive missiles are simply an attention getting device. A way of waking the Obama administration to realities Mideast style. As with their earlier gambits like the Iranian connection any failure will be attributable solely to the blindness of the Americans. On the up side the Scud transfer is a low risk approach. It does nothing to perturb the balance of either military or political power in the region. At the same time it does grab the eye.

Are you watching, Mr Obama? Ms Clinton? Somebody? Anybody??

Hey, Chief! What About Chavez The Terrorist?

President Obama and (as he loves to put it--repeatedly) "his team" had best take a second, longer, and much closer look at Hugo Chavez and his merry crew of friends and colleagues both inside and without the "Bolivarian Revolution." The president's previously expressed view that Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez does not represent a threat to the US or its interests just does not square with reality.

The finding the other day by the Spanish judiciary holding a direct linkage existed between Chavez's regime, the narco/criminal/insurgent group FARC, and the Basque separatist insurgent entity ETA is but one more (almost superfluous) nail in the Obama version of the Rodney King Dictum: "Can't we just all get along together?" Mr King's plaintive cry was both touching and justifiable; for the president of the United States to echo it in practice is destructive of national interest and appropriate only to someone living in an alternative reality.

For reasons both personal and political Hugo Chavez must oppose the US, must be hostile to its interests, must operate in any and all ways possible to undermine American efforts and policies both in the region, and, if possible, elsewhere in the world. He is personally more hostile to the US than were such obvious American foes as Stalin and Hitler. For them the opposition was merely business, the requirement of policy per se. For Chavez the motivations come from some deep personal well of antipathy as well as the dictates of politics.

As the Spanish judge noted in his findings Chavez's regime engaged the services of both FARC and ETA in the task of pursuing targets marked for assassination. The assassinations were intended to terrorize opponents of Chavez both internal and foreign based--most notably the president of Columbia, Uribe. In short, Chavez is the sponsor of terrorism.

Chavez and his regime have cultivated close and growing ties with Hezbollah and Hamas as well as the chief sponsor of these groups, Iran. The "Bolivarian" government has provided facilities and support to representatives and agents of both Hezbollah and Hamas. This means he is just as much a sponsor of terrorism as Iran.

There is an increasing body of information showing that operatives of both jihadist groups are working closely with assorted narcotrafficker syndicates in Venezuela, which has become an increasingly critical shipment point for product destined to both Europe and North America. This development implies that Hamas and Hezbollah personnel as well as their Iranian or Syrian "advisors" will have increasing access to the sophisticated smuggling systems established to funnel contraband into the US.

The evidence was clear a year ago. It is far more so today. Venezuela is a state sponsor of terrorism. The only missing link when Mr Obama took office was a straightforward finding by a court of competence to the effect that Venezuela aided, abetted, or engaged in the use of terror as an instrument of state policy.

There is no missing link now thanks to the ability and courage of a single Spanish judge. And, make no mistake about it, the judge was correct. His correctness has been underscored by the howls and squeals of protest and denial originating in Caracas. The desperate wiggling of Chavez and Company is seen best with the recycling of the Interpol discredited Venezuelan assertion that evidence extracted from the laptop once belonging to FARC's number two honcho by the Columbian government more than a year ago was counterfeit.

Sorry, Hugo, that wingless airplane will not fly. Interpol is not, as you allege, a mere tool of the Yankee imperialists. Your position to the contrary is akin to the Iranian allegation that the IAEA has been taken over by the US.

The time has come for a change in American policy. It is time to add Venezuela to Iran, Cuba, Sudan, and Syria as a state which sponsors terrorism. It is time for the consequences of that designation to be applied to Caracas and environs. To put it bluntly, it is time for the Obama administration and the president to encounter one more unpleasant reality: Hugo Chavez and his regime are hostile to the US and a clear threat to its interests in the region as well as here at home.

A nice smile and a quick willingness to say, "I am not George W. Bush," does not win friends nor influence states. These politically valuable features do not make the US any less likely to be threatened or even attacked by those who wish us ill. That group includes not only Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamists only; it includes Venezuela's Maximum Leader as well.

Mr Obama, Hugo Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" have met the test as a state sponsor of terrorism. Don't you have the intellectual and moral courage necessary to match that of a single Spanish judge and accept reality as it has been shown to be?

Lebanon, Hariri And The UN

Five years ago the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. The results were both dramatic and--at the time--seemed far reaching. The administration of George W. Bush was quick to condemn Syria as the architect of the killing and suspended diplomatic representation in Damascus.

The US was not alone in pinning the blame on Syria. The UN did so as well when it created a special investigative unit focusing on the killing. The first head of this creature of the Security Council was Detlev Mehlis, an experienced German prosecutor. Mehlis lost no time accusing the Syrian government of executing the assassination. Arrests were promised--and made.

Then the great crime fighting adventure petered out. Mehlis was replaced by a monument to doing nothing, Sergi Brammertz, a Belgian judge. When Brammertz slept his way out of office in late 2007, he was replaced by the more energetic Canadian, Daniel Bellemare.

Mr Bellemare's effort was upgraded by the UN in status but it was too late for anything real to come out of the investigation. Indeed, the four Lebanese security officers arrested by Mehlis had to be turned loose. The task of indicting low level operatives could not be accomplished. Of course this meant and means there is no chance of ever proving the initial contention that the Syrian government at the highest levels was directly responsible for Hariri's death.

While the UN creature floundered and frittered, events in the Mideast moved on. Hariri's son, Saad, became Prime Minister. The Iranian/Syrian proxy, Hezbollah, became an effective component of the government. And, Syria once again became a prime actor in Lebanon's political theater.

Sectarian conflict both real and artificial have declined markedly following the "Cedar Revolution" which occurred in the wake of the Hariri killing. Balancing this was the emergence of Hezbollah as a prime factor of Lebanese politics. So important is Hezbollah in the internal stability of Lebanon that the "tail" of Hezbollah is waving the "dog" of the Beirut government particularly when it comes to threats of war with Israel.

The strength of Hezbollah as well as its relations with Damascus could not have been far from Saad Hariri's consciousness when he met with Bashar Assad last December. Equally in the foreground of PM Hariri's thinking was the role of Lebanon as a battleground should push come to shove between Hezbollah and Israel.

The steady rapprochement between Hariri's portion of the Lebanese government and Syria renders the ongoing UN investigation into the murder of five years ago not only irrelevant but potentially dangerous. Present and future realities loom far larger than the solution of a cold case homicide.

The Obama administration has shown (thankfully) an awareness of this. The reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Syria is not only overdue, it is critical to gaining some traction toward that ever-illusive goal of a Mideast peace settlement. As has been argued many times in this blog, Syria is a rational actor with a firm price for participation in a peace agreement with Israel. It is also a key player with respect to either letting loose the terrorist dogs of war--or restraining them.

After some early missteps Bashar al-Assad has shown himself to be his father's son. He has the same overarching goal of regime preservation. He is realistic regarding Syria's strengths and weaknesses. He has a keen appreciation of the necessity of balanced and conflicting sponsors or supporters. As his father played the Soviet card with skill so also does Bashar play the Iranian one today. In both cases the goal was the achievement of leverage with (and even over) US policy so as to keep the regime in place.

US interests are best served by a constricted Hezbollah, a stable Lebanon, a lessening of Iranian influence in the region and some movement toward a comprehensive Mideast peace. The achievement of these goals requires the willing cooperation of Syria.

Syria's price is not low. Damascus wants a free (even if disguised) hand in Lebanon. The Golan Heights must be returned to Syrian sovereignty. The US must show it is not so fickle as to cut and run whenever something unpleasant happens in the region.

The current Lebanese government is realistic enough to understand that Syria will play a role, a major role, in the country. It is Beirut's preference that the role be played directly albeit covertly by the Syrian government and not indirectly and openly by Hezbollah.

The Hariri ministry is also realistic enough to understand that should Hezbollah and Israel go to war the major loser will be Lebanon and its current government. Syria is a potent force against war--or at least a war which is not authorized by Damascus.

The Obama administration would be well-advised to follow-up on the normalization of diplomatic relations. A necessary and very small step in the right direction which would benefit both Lebanon and Syria is the use of our influence in the Security Council to pull the plug on the investigation of the Hariri assassination. The charade has no use, not now, not ever. The sooner it be allowed to die the better.

At least this move would be an easy one. No risk and high payoff. A good sort of warm-up for the far more daunting task of convincing Israel that the Great Golan Land Grab must come to a speedy and complete end.

That, bucko, is a very real toughie!

Really, They Are Peaceful Weapons

You betcha, bubba. Three hundred or more tons of ever-so-peaceful rockets, grenades, and similar devices intended to turn noisy, truculent people into nice, quiet, very peaceful corpses.

All right thinking, cosmopolitan people are perfectly well aware that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas really compose a sort of social network bringing together the downtrodden, the oppressed, the marginalized, the poverty stricken toiling masses of the Mideast in a joint venture for mutual uplift and benefit. The several parties harbor no ill-will for anyone or any country. And, anyway, it was all a big lie foisted off on the world by the "official pirates" of that global bully, Israel as the kindly, avuncular Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, stated during his sightseeing visit to Tehran.

Only a mentally stunted person would question ForMin Moallem on the matter. The sagacious diplomat ignoring a few inconvenient truths such as the simple fact the ship seized by the piratical Israeli naval commandos had departed Iran bound for Syria when he chastised the warmongering Israelis for interrupting normal commercial trade between Syria and Iran. In his perceptive analysis of the situation, the foreign minister informed the world that the innocent conveyor of civilian commerce was en route from Syria to Iran.

Well, if the Syrian foreign minister says so, it must be so since no Syrian (or Iranian for that matter) state official would tell a lie. No. Lying is the sole province of those wily Israelis and their co-conspirators in the US.

No one disputes that the containers filled with the aforementioned lethal paraphernalia were clearly marked as "parts for bulldozers." Since the containers were owned by the state shipping line of Iran and no good Iranian Muslim would lie the matter should have ended right there.

However, showing their true base nature, the bloodthirsty pirates were not deterred and no doubt employing the cutlasses carried between the teeth as they swung aboard the German owned Antigua registered ship proceeded to rip the containers open. One can almost hear the collective shout of "Ho! Ho! Ho!" and similar piratical lyrics as the peaceful contents of the innocent civilian containers were shown to have been mislabeled.

Enraged in their blood lust by the exposure not of peaceloving parts for earthmoving equipment but rather equally peaceloving military souvenirs, the pirates, eye patches firmly in place and again gripping the cutlasses between their fangs, proceeded to force the ship to dock in their lair in Israel. Nerves jangled and testosterone flowing at the sight of the handful of historical military memorabilia, the pirates and their masters called in the world media to view the display of ill gotten swag--all several hundred tons of it.

Hidden by the whistles, bells, and disinformation of the pirates' noise machine of shrill discord was the truth of the matter. It was all a clerical error. Back in Iran, or in Syria if the truth telling and not at all confused as to time and place foreign minister is to be followed, some humble and exploited minor figure in the shipping office of the Ministry of Innocent and Peaceful Devices, put the wrong label on the several containers.

That's all there is to it, folks. A minor, quite unintended human error by a harried clerk. It is a small but very important detail. The label should have read, "Military Memorabilia, Assorted Kinds."

The pirates and their thuggish superiors once again hoping to stir the fear and anger of a gullible world against the Social Network of Oppressed Islamic Peoples knew the truth. They knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intentions of those shipping and receiving the equipment, the rockets, the grenades, and all the rest were peaceful.

These pirates, these thuggish and conniving superiors, all alike knew perfectly well that the senders and recipients alike were dedicated to peace. The peace of the graveyard.

Fortunately the truth will out in this case as it has been regarding the civilians only nuclear program of the Islamist defenders of the Koran directed "religion of peace and tolerance." The truth will out: Perfect tolerance and perfect peace are the property of the cemetary.

And, the sooner all the infidels and apostates in the world find their spot in this particular piece of real estate the sooner peace will reign.

As Allah wills.

They're Speaking Arabic In Mexico

The MSM are not up to speed on this story. Nor are many within We the People. It is, however, a tale with many implications--none of them pleasant for us.

The Iranian supported and to a large extent controlled terrorist entity Hezbollah is hard at work in Mexico. The Boys In Turbans are active in establishing working relations with the narcotrafficking cartels South of the Border. With success.

The increasingly warm relations between Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez and the mullahs of Iran are disturbing in and of themselves. The establishment of a banking arrangement between Iran and Venezuela serves as a ready conduit for the increasing activities of Hezbollah not only in that country but throughout South and Central America, including Mexico. The shipments of weapons and equipment from Iran to Venezuela are not for the benefit of the latter's armed forces. (With a two gigabuck order on Russian books and funded by generous Russian loans, the New Model Army of Chavez has no need for assistance from Iran.)

No. The weapons, the explosive manufacturing equipment, the money are for the use of Hezbollah as it penetrates Latin America. They are for the use of the Party of God as it establishes firm connections with the cartels and narco-insurgents from Peru to Colombia to Mexico.

A month ago the tip of the Hezbollah iceberg was revealed in New York with the indictment of one Jamal Yousef on arms trafficking charges. Yousef is alleged to have sought to sell a variety of "military grade" arms to a person he believed to be a representative of the Columbian narco-insurgent group FARC. Within the indictment some very interesting and disturbing points can be found.

Hezbollah maintains active operations in Mexico which are directly connected to both weapons and drug smuggling. The activities are not limited to any one Mexican cartel but are spread among at least three such as to cover the entire border between Mexico and the US.

The Turban Crew is willing and able to join forces with any local narco-insurgent group anywhere in Latin America which is seeking to destabilize the status quo regime. This includes Mexico where at least a couple of the cartels have expanded their goals beyond drug smuggling or mere crime to political ends.

As the connections between Hezbollah and the assorted Mexican narco-trafficking cartels expand so also does the ability of Hezbollah to insert weapons, lethal materials, and personnel into the US. This potential expands as the Mexican cartels extend their operations throughout Central and South America. In short, Hezbollah has tied into a "one stop shop" for smuggling any sort of deadly goody as well as the necessary personnel into Yanqui Land.

As Hugo Chavez grows ever more cozy with the Iranians--and his intentions in that direction are quite clear as is indicated by his agreement to provide Iran with 200,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products--the potential of Hezbollah to conduct operations throughout the Western Hemisphere grows in tandem. This strongly implies that the Obama administration had best take a much stronger approach with the Chavez regime.

Mexico is a happy hunting ground for an anti-American entity with a lot of money and a firm agenda. Hezbollah is such a group. Its cooperation with the narco-trafficking cartels boosts the threat these represent to the stability of the Mexican government. With backing from the Chavez regime, which is not noted for having small ambitions, the possibility of the current instability in Mexico increasing is enhanced.

This reality implies that the Obama administration had best take a stronger approach to assisting Mexico. It also implies even more strongly that the Mexican government had best reevaluate its hyper-nationalist stance regarding foreign investment in and development of the new off-shore oil discoveries as well as rebuilding the decayed infrastructure of the older fields. Oil is the answer to much of Mexico's current difficulties of poverty and lacks in both physical and human infrastructure requirements. But, foreign money and expertise is necessary for this to be accomplished.

There is a powerful possibility that Mexico will experience in the not too distant future a combination of Islamist jihadist and narco-trafficking groups not dissimilar to that which is seen in Afghanistan. It is not that Islam qua Islam is important in the Mexican venue but rather that the political goals of the Islamist jihadist group intersects with the goals of both the narco-traffickers and quite probably the expansive goals of Hugo Chavez.

A political agenda predicated on fear and loathing of the US has produced strange bedmates in the past. It is doing so today. It can do so to an even greater extent in the near future. There is no bright and shining line which can be drawn between the Islamist jihadists of Hezbollah, the profit and power driven goals of the narco-traffickers, and the hemispheric delusions of Chavez.

Far from there being any inherent bars between such different partners, there are strong imperatives for a tight marriage of convenience. Over time the marriage might even be strengthened by the appeal of Islamist jihadist ideology for young men with a cultural background of machismo and a pervasive sense of present day hopelessness--and the warrior ethos of Islam can make for converts, floods of converts.

Religion, particularly a religion which provides emotional release, a sense of personal worth, and control of destiny has always been a key factor in the social and cultural dynamics of Latin America. As traditional Catholicism lost its appeal by an over-identification with the ruling elites, alternatives such as Liberation Theology and, more recently, Charismatic and Evangelical forms of Protestant Christianity have risen. Arguably, and using Africa as the model case, Islam, particularly in its Islamist forms, can have a similar or even greater attraction to the marginalized, disenfranchised, dis-empowered, and ambitious young men of the region.

Yes sir, folks, it's one more foreign policy challenge for the Nice Young Man From Chicago and his Secretary of State, The Not So Nice Older Woman From New York. And, it is a hell of a lot closer to both places than is Afghanistan.