|
Is the
Lebanon Invasion a Step
Toward a Regional War in the
Middle East?
By Kevin Zeese
Al-Jazeerah, August 17, 2006
The
US Anti-War Movement Must
Oppose Expanded War in the
Middle East
The dividing line between peace
candidates and pro-war candidates is no longer opposition to the Iraq War –
a view now held by large majorities of Americans. It is whether they oppose
the pre-meditated destruction of
Lebanon by
Israel – with
U.S. weapons, and oppose
a first strike military attack on
Iran.
Israel’s massive attack
on
Lebanon, resulting in
the death of more than 1,100 civilians and destruction of the Lebanese
infrastructure, was certainly not about the capture of two soldiers in a
cross border incident. Rather, it was a pre-meditated attack about a broader
vision of a Middle East dominated by
Israel and the
United States working
together.
Further, it may be part of a plan to
attack
Iran.
The UN Security Council set a deadline of August 31 for
Iran to stop
its nuclear power program.
Iran rejected the resolution saying it was legal for
Iran to
develop nuclear power. Does the upcoming escalation of the conflict between
Iran and Israel/United
States explain the timing of the massive attack on
Lebanon?
Did Israel act now to prevent a response from Hizbullah when
Iran is attacked by
Israel or the
U.S.?
Already,
President
Bush acknowledges the Lebanon conflict was a proxy war between
Iran and the
U.S.; time will tell
whether it develops into a direct conflict. But if an attack on Iran does
occur Israel’s claim that is was responding to Hizbullah’s “terrorism” will
be even more clearly seen for what is was – akin to the manipulation of
claims of alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by the Bush
Administration – an excuse to go to war.
In fact, the cross-border incident
that led to the attack on
Lebanon, where two
soldiers were captured, was part of an ongoing series of conflicts at the
Israel-Lebanese border.
The Christian
Science Monitor reports:
“Since
its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern
Lebanon in May 2000,
Israel has violated
the United Nations-monitored ‘blue line’ on an almost daily basis, according
to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early
1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into
Israel only
in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's
leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.”
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
(UNIFIL) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line “on an almost daily
basis” between 2001 and 2003, and after that “persistently” including in
2006. They report that these incursions “caused great concern to the
civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound
barrier over populated areas.”
Or as
George
Monbiot reports Hezbollah’s action “was simply one instance in a long
sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both
sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded
it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The
assault had been planned for months.”
Further evidence that this reaction by
Israel was premeditated
is that fact that there is
a long history of
prisoner exchange between the Palestinians and Israel as well as Hezbollah
and
Israel dating
back to 1948. In 2004
Israel released 436
prisoners in return for three Israeli soldiers and an Israeli intelligence
officer. The prisoners included 400 Palestinians; 23 Lebanese; two Syrians;
three Moroccans; three Sudanese; a Libyan; and a German Muslim. This time
Israel reacted out of
character and turned a border skirmish into an invasion with group
punishment for Lebanese civilians.
Israel presented its
plans for destroying
Lebanon to
the Bush Administration a little more than a year ago, according to the
San Francisco Chronicle.
Israel's Lebanese
plans were at the center of political discussions during the annual World
Forum, organized by the neo-con American Enterprise Institute, on June 17th
and 18th of 2006. There, Benjamin Netanyahu and Dick Cheney conferred at
length, along with Richard Perle and Nathan Sharansky. The
White House gave the
green light for
Israel's
invasion a few days later.
This is confirmed by the independent
reporting of
Sy
Hersh in the New Yorker who wrote that the Bush Administration had been
told of the plans long in advance of the capture of the Israeli soldiers.
Hersh reports “Israel
had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush
Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. ‘It’s not
that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into,’ he said, ‘but
there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the
Israelis were going to do it.’”
Further, this pre-meditated military
assault on Lebanon – thorough and well-planned – is consistent with a plan
put forward for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996,
“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The strategy
noted that the border with
Lebanon was a problem
that could be dealt with saying: “Syria
challenges
Israel on
Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can
sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its
northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal
agents of aggression in Lebanon.” The goal of the “Clean Break” plan was to
remake the Middle East -- much like the Bush neo-con vision -- beginning
with
Iraq and then moving onto
Syria and
Iran.
Noted writer on
U.S. intelligence, James
Bamford,
reports in a July article, that planning for an attack on
Iran has been going on
for five years. He describes the close relationship between
U.S. neo-cons
and the pro-Israeli lobby, AIPAC, a relationship that has led to
indictments. And he reports how the neo-cons see the current
Lebanon
attack as a next step. Bamford concludes his article saying:
“To [the neo-cons], the war in
Lebanon represents the
final step in their plan to turn
Iran into the next
Iraq. Ledeen,
writing in the National Review on July 13th, could hardly restrain himself.
‘Faster, please,’ he urged the White House, arguing that the war should now
be taken over by the U.S. military and expanded across the entire region.
‘The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in
Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting
between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and
Israel on the other. Only the
United States
can accomplish it.’”
Hersh reports the Bush
Administration supported
Israel’s plans to attack
Hezbollah as a prelude to a
U.S. or Israeli attack on
Iran:
“President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were
convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me,
that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s
heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in
Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to
a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear
installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.”
An attack on
Iran may lead to a
regional war, but comments by American officials demonstrate the chaos of
regional war may be welcome. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in
a press briefing
on July 21, 2006: “What we're seeing here is, in a sense, the growing – the
birth pangs – of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be
certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to
the old one.”
After months of beating a war drum
for an attack on
Iran around the issue
of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, the Bush administration seems to have
failed to garner enough support for this path to an attack. Perhaps after
the August 31 UN deadline they will pound those drums louder, but it seems
evident that the
U.S. is trying to use
Lebanon, and their
allegations of close ties between Hizbullah and
Iran, as another path to
war with
Iran.
The so-called opposition party, the
Democrats, are trapping themselves in a political corner where they will be
unable to oppose an attack on
Iran. The House of
Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of
Israel's war in
Lebanon, a
resolution that also “condemns enemies of the Jewish state.” The Democrats,
loyal to their funders from the hard right Israeli lobby, are cheer leading
the attack on
Lebanon and, sound like
Bush when they discuss
Iran as well.
The defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman is
just one more signal that this November’s elections are going against
pro-war legislators. The anti-war movement needs to build on this momentum
and not let an expansion of wars in the
Middle East empower pro-war politicians.
The timing of an attack on
Iran, whether it is
before or after the election – or whether it occurs at all – could depend in
part on how well the anti-war movement organizes electorally.
Anti-war voters need to make clear that they will resist these manipulations
by refusing to support any politician who fails to actively oppose the
Iraq quagmire, or
other escalation of combat in the region. Those voters opposed to war should
become committed peace voters and sign the VotersForPeace Pledge at
www.VotersForPeace.org and
build a fierce anti-war electoral movement which does not tolerate or
protect pro-war incumbents from defeat this fall. The peace movement must
prepare to rapidly turn escalation of hostilities into a political poison
for pro-war politicians.
It is time for the anti-war movement
to put forward its vision for the future. A future that is based on
multi-national, not unilateral, actions; one that is rooted in diplomacy and
negotiation, not shock and awe and one built on stability and peace, not
instability and chaos.
For
Israel the current
path does not lead to peace or security. It must make peace with its
neighbors – that begins with ending its occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese
and Syrian territories as well as the return of the thousands of political
prisoners it holds.
The success of Hizbullah in
responding to the awesome, high tech military power of
Israel, along with the
success of the resistance in
Iraq, should show the
United States and
Israel that the future
is not in bombs and military force, but in multi-national diplomacy.
Organized peace voters can drive that message home.
Kevin B. Zeese is director of
Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US)
and a candidate for
U.S. Senate in
Maryland (www.ZeeseForSenate.org).
|
