By Daniel Larison | The Libertarian Institute | September 30, 2024
The Joe Biden administration claims to be pushing for a “temporary ceasefire” between Israel and Hezbollah to avert a larger conflict, but this is very late in the day and it is not a serious effort to prevent a new war in Lebanon. It is at best a desperate, last-minute exercise in going through the motions of diplomacy. The administration would like to pretend that it is a passive bystander pleading from the sidelines instead of the chief patron and arms supplier of the main belligerent in the conflict, and it designs its entreaties to be toothless so that Israel can safely ignore them.
The United States has refused to exert any pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government for the last eleven months, and it has continued supplying Israel with weapons no matter how those weapons have been used to commit war crimes against Palestinians. Now American officials say that they don’t want further escalation in Lebanon, but once again the administration won’t back up those words with action. The U.S. could use its leverage to rein Israel in and insist on the de-escalation that the administration says that it wants, but the president has shown that he has no interest in doing that.
The empty Gaza ceasefire negotiations prove as much. The ceasefire talks have become an interminable process designed to lead nowhere. The administration has catered to the Netanyahu government’s preferences at every turn. Each time that Netanyahu adds new deal-breakers or otherwise seeks to derail negotiations with new attacks, the administration has dutifully taken his side and pretended that Hamas is the sole obstacle to securing an agreement. The United States cannot be a credible diplomatic actor in the region when its primary role is acting as Netanyahu’s PR agent.
The Israeli government assumes that the U.S. won’t withhold weapons, diplomatic support, or military protection under any circumstances, and that has encouraged Netanyahu to pursue increasingly aggressive goals. Because the U.S. shields Israel from military reprisals, as it did earlier this year during Iran’s missile and drone strikes, it has given Netanyahu free rein to lash out whenever and wherever he wants. The administration has dressed all of this up as preventing a wider regional war, but the reality is that they have simply delayed the conflagration while making it more likely that it will be even more destructive when it occurs.
The total failure of the administration’s policy is there for all to see. The region is likely facing a new Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and that invasion will have serious destabilizing effects on the wider region. This is the disaster that the United States has claimed to oppose all along, but in practice it has done nothing to stop it. Had the U.S. truly wanted the war in Gaza not to spread, it would have demanded a lasting ceasefire months ago. Had the U.S. wanted to prevent escalation in Lebanon, it would be cutting off arms transfers and pulling back its forces from the region rather than rushing more troops to the Middle East. Instead the United States has done everything that one would expect it to do if it wished to set the region ablaze.
The U.S. is at great risk of being ensnared in this larger war. It is imperative that our country avoid direct involvement in Israel’s conflicts. The U.S. has no vital interests at stake in these fights. The president has no authority to involve American forces directly. It is not the responsibility of the United States to bail out a reckless client state when it gets in over its head. The quickest way to force the Israeli government to deescalate is to deprive it of the support and protection that it takes for granted.
Once the current crisis is over, U.S. foreign policy in the region has to be radically overhauled. To avoid future entanglements in the wars of client states, the U.S. should downgrade its relationships with the Middle Eastern governments that rely heavily on American weapons supplies and protection. The United States has no formal commitments to defend these states, and it should not extend security guarantees to any of them. The U.S. also needs to reduce its military presence in the region to the bare minimum required to secure our embassies. Decades of extensive American military involvement in this part of the world have been ruinous for the countries of the region and for American interests, and it is in the best interests of all concerned for the United States to get out.
Press TV – September 29, 2024
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says that Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah may have been intended to provoke a war between the United States and Iran.
Lavrov told reporters at a news conference after addressing the UN General Assembly on Saturday that a lot of people believe Israel’s assassination of Nasrallah was aimed at provoking Iran and the US “to unleash a full-blown war in the entire region.”
Killing the Hezbollah leader was “not simply a political assassination. It’s very cynical as an act,” Lavrov said.
“I think – well not even, I think, but a lot of people say – that Israel wants to create the grounds to drag the US directly into this and so to create these grounds, it is trying to provoke Iran,” Lavrov added.
“The Iran leadership, I think, are behaving extremely responsibly. And this is necessary. This is something that we should take due note of.”
Speaking at the UN Security Council meeting on Friday, Lavrov said, “the Middle East is once again on the brink of a big war,” calling for active diplomatic efforts to prevent the “most catastrophic scenario.”
In his UN General Assembly speech, Lavrov condemned the Israeli regime for its “inhumane attack on Lebanon.”
“Another glaring example of terrorist methods as a means of achieving political aims is the inhumane attack on Lebanon that transformed civilian technology into a lethal weapon,” Lavrov said, calling for an immediate international investigation.
‘US knew about Israel’s pager attacks’
Lavrov also told reporters that the US was likely aware of the Israeli regime forces’ plans to launch a “terrorist attack” against Lebanon using communication devices.
He said the complexity of the attack and the leaking of details to Western media indicate Washington’s possible complicity in the terrorist operation.
Last week, thousands of hand-held pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah members exploded across Lebanon simultaneously, killing dozens and injuring thousands, including many civilians. The attack, widely blamed on Israeli spy agency Mossad, drew international condemnation, with UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Turk calling it a “shocking” and “unacceptable” act that violates human rights laws.
Tel Aviv has not claimed responsibility for the pager attacks, and its allies have denied any knowledge. However, according to Lavrov, Western media reports regarding the details and preparations “indicate to varying degrees the involvement and, at the very least, awareness of Washington concerning the preparation of that terrorist attack.”
Johnson’s “three-fold plan for Ukrainian victory”
By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – September 29, 2024
A September 21, 2024 article published in The Spectator written by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson titled, “It’s time to let Ukraine join NATO,” attempts to formulate a theory of victory for Ukraine as war with Russia continues to grind on.
Johnson demands that the collective West “end the delays” and that the West “get it done and get it won.” By this, he means lifting all restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons on pre-2014 Russian territory.
Next, he demands the US and Europe provide a “package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease: half a trillion dollars,” or “even a trillion.” Johnson claims such support will send a message to the Kremlin that, “we are going to out-gun you financially and back Ukraine on a scale you cannot hope to match.”
Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation
Finally, he demands Ukraine be allowed membership into NATO immediately, even as the conflict rages on. In respect to NATO’s Article 5 regarding “collective defense,” Johnson proposes that:
… we could extend the Article 5 security guarantee to all the Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Ukraine (or at the end of this fighting season), while reaffirming the absolute right of the Ukrainians to the whole of their 1991 nation. We could protect most of Ukraine, while simultaneously supporting the Ukrainian right to recapture the rest.
While Johnson points out the political implications of this policy, meaning all of NATO would, “have to commit to the defence of that Ukrainian territory,” he falls far short of considering the practical implications.
NATO Intervention in Ukraine: Political vs. Practical Considerations
Far from a lack of political will or financial resources, the collective West has fallen short supplying Ukraine with the military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and ammunition required to match or exceed Russian military capabilities because its collective military industrial base itself is incapable of physically producing the quantities required, regardless of the money allotted to do so.
Military industrial production requires several fundamental factors in order to be expanded – financial resources being only one of many. Expanding production also requires the physical enlargement of existing facilities, the building of new facilities, the expansion of trained workforces which includes reforming and expanding primary, secondary, and specialized education, as well as the expansion of downstream suppliers and the acquisition of additional raw materials required for production across the entire industrial base.
Any one of these measures could take years to implement. Implementing them all would take longer still.
Then there is the very structure of the collective West’s military industrial base. Consisting of corporations prioritizing the maximization of profits, not performance, the collective West’s military industrial base has for years focused on low quantities of highly-sophisticated (and very expensive) weapons systems and munitions.
For the duration of the so-called “Global War on Terror” these weapon systems were adequate, if inefficient. They enabled US-led forces to roll over the antiquated, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped Iraqi army in 1991 and again in 2003, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such weapon systems also proved effective in the destruction of Libya in 2011.
But as the global balance of military and economic power has shifted throughout the 21st century, limits to this military industrial approach became apparent. In 2006, Israel’s vast Western-backed military machine categorically failed in its invasion of southern Lebanon, confounded by Hezbollah leveraging modern anti-tank weapons.
The US intervention in Syria from 2011 to present day also revealed the growing limitations of expensive Western military hardware, with 100s of cruise missiles fired at targets across Syria with limited success due to vastly better air and missile defenses than previous US adversaries possessed.
The Western media now admits waning US military support for Ukraine stems from dwindling stockpiles and an inability to quickly expand production.
CNN in its September 17, 2024 article titled, “US military aid packages to Ukraine shrink amid concerns over Pentagon stockpiles,” would admit:
US military aid packages for Ukraine have been smaller in recent months, as the stockpiles of weapons and equipment that the Pentagon is willing to send Kyiv from its own inventory have dwindled. The shift comes amid concerns about US military readiness being impacted as US arms manufacturers play catchup to the huge demand created by the war against Russia.
Nothing took place between September 17, 2024 when CNN published this report and September 21, 2024 when The Spectator published Boris Johnson’s article to change this reality. Johnson simply chose to ignore it.
NATO committing to the defense of Ukrainian-held territory would require sufficient quantities of artillery, armor, air and missile defense systems, and trained manpower – all of which the collective West, not just Ukraine, has in short supply.
In many ways, the collective West is already waging war against Russian forces. Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) from 2022 onward. Russia has not hesitated to target and destroy Western equipment or the Western personnel operating it, though Russia has managed escalation very carefully in the process.
Were NATO to more openly intervene in what is already a NATO proxy war against Russia, Russian forces would likely continue targeting all of Ukraine’s territory while continuing to manage escalation carefully. NATO itself could escalate, using its long-range missiles and air power against Russian forces both within Ukraine and within pre-2014 Russian borders, but this would present two major problems.
First, if the West is already out of long-range weapons to transfer to Ukraine, its stockpiles having dwindled to critical levels, and having failed to expand production to reconstitute to them should any contingency of any kind fully deplete them, a more direct role in Ukraine would consume what arms and ammunition the West has left with no means of replacing them in the near-term.
Second, whatever impact the collective West imagines using the remnants of its arms and ammunition on Russia directly will have, it will leave the West far short of any material capabilities to conduct large scale war anywhere else in the world, including in the Middle East against Iran and its allies and across the Asia-Pacific region against China – two areas of concern Johnson himself mentions in his article.
Boris Johnson claims:
If you are truly worried about ‘escalation’, then imagine what happens if Ukraine loses this war – because that is when things really would begin to escalate. Ukraine won’t lose but if it did, we would have the risk of escalation across the whole periphery of the former Soviet empire, including the border with Poland, wherever Putin thought that aggression would pay off.
We would probably see escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East. We would see a general escalation of global tension and violence because a Ukrainian defeat, and a victory for Putin, would be not only a tragedy for a young, brave and beautiful country; it would mean the global collapse of western credibility.
What Johnson means by “western credibility,” is Western primacy. By “escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East,” Johnson means regional players displacing unwarranted US-led occupation and interference. Johnson’s plan to commit the West’s waning military power to Ukraine means forfeiting the means to cling to primacy elsewhere around the globe.
Johnson’s plan to incorporate Ukraine into NATO would not be a master stroke up-ending Russia’s escalation dominance, it would be the forfeiture of NATO’s own escalatory leverage regarding Article 5. Success for NATO would depend entirely on Russia failing to call the West’s bluff and avoiding the targeting of Ukrainian territory once NATO intervenes directly.
A very similar strategy was used in Syria by the United States as a means to reverse the flagging fortunes of its proxies there. The US, instead, at most managed to create a stalemate. Over the past nearly 10 years the US has occupied eastern Syria, its position in Syria as well as in the rest of the region has waned.
Part of this stems from the US’ inability to field a large enough military force, armed with sufficient numbers of arms and munitions. US air and missile defense systems in particular are in short supply and have opened up US forces in Syria and Iraq to regular drone, rocket, and missile strikes, compromising US military supremacy in the region.
By stretching US and European military power out even thinner by committing large numbers of troops and equipment to a direct intervention in Ukraine only means accelerating the decline of US-led Western primacy around the globe even faster.
Johnson’s plan to “save” Ukraine is borne of desperation, predicated on either a poor understanding of the fundamental factors required for its success, or deliberately ignoring these factors.
It is also a plan born of a lack of imagination. For Boris Johnson and the Western special interests he represents, the only possible future for humanity is one dominated by the West, just as it has done for the past several centuries.
The ultimate irony, however, is Johnson’s mention of a “Soviet empire” he claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is intent on rebuilding. At one point, Johnson claims:
The message is: that’s it. It’s over. You don’t have an empire anymore. You don’t have a ‘near abroad’ or a ‘sphere of influence’. You don’t have the right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we British have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It is time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but that like Rome and like Britain, the Russians have decisively joined the ranks of the post-imperial powers, and a good thing, too.
Yet, the conflict in Ukraine stems directly from NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders. It was never a matter of Russia telling Ukraine what to do – it was always a matter of the US politically capturing Ukraine in 2014 and transforming it into a national security threat to Russia from 2014 onward.
Russia is responding to the expansion of a modern-day empire – not in any sort of effort to create its own empire. The empire Russia opposes in Ukraine [Zionist globalism] is the same empire Johnson fears will be challenged in the Middle East and the South China Sea should its proxy war fail in Ukraine. While Johnson accuses Russia of being out of touch with reality regarding imagined imperial ambitions in Moscow, his plan reflects very real delusions associated with a desperate desire to perpetuate the US-led “international order” the UK itself is so deeply invested in.
Boris Johnson’s attempt to build policy regarding the West’s proxy war in Ukraine without a sufficient foundation is a recipe for disaster – the same sort of disaster this proxy war in Ukraine has precipitated that Johnson’s desperate plans are meant to address in the first place.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.
Press TV – September 23, 2024
The US Department of Defense has decided to deploy more boots to West Asia amid the Israeli escalation of war in the region.
Additional US troops will be deployed to the Middle East in response to a sharp spike in violence between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon that has raised the risk of a greater regional war, the Pentagon spokesperson said on Monday.
Gen. Pat Ryder announced the new deployment without providing details on how many additional forces would be needed or what they would be tasked to do.
“In light of increased tension in the Middle East and out of an abundance of caution, we are sending a small number of additional US military personnel forward to augment our forces that are already in the region. But for operational security reasons, I’m not going to comment on or provide specifics.”
The United Nations has sounded the alarm, warning that the escalating violence between the Israeli regime forces and the Hezbollah resistance movement in Lebanon was catapulting the Middle East conflict “to another level”.
Prior to the latest escalation of violence, the Pentagon had announced that the approximately 40,000 US troops deployed in the region were “enough to protect Israel.”
In addition to tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East region, the Pentagon has warships, fighter jets, and air defense systems deployed to protect both its forces and the Israeli regime.
Ryder warned of the potential for the Israel-Hezbollah violence to escalate, calling for a diplomatic solution.
“Clearly there is the potential for these tit-for-tat operations between Israel and Hezbollah to escalate and to potentially spiral out of control into a wider regional war, which is why it’s so important that we resolve… the situation through diplomacy,” Ryder said.
Middle East tensions rose sharply after the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shakr in Beirut at the end of July, prompting the Pentagon to begin sending additional US troops to the region. The US military claimed the additional American troops would not be engaged by the Israeli forces for “offensive” operations against Hezbollah.
Pentagon’s announcement comes as fears of a broader regional war grow, with Israel striking hundreds of targets in Lebanon following Israel’s communication devices terror attacks which targeted Hezbollah cadre and civilians with exploding pagers earlier this week. The attacks killed 37 Lebanese and injured thousands more.
World powers have called on the Israeli regime and Hezbollah to pull back from the brink of an all-out war, with the focus of violence shifting sharply in recent days from Israel’s southern front with Gaza to its northern border with Lebanon.
Hezbollah, a powerful political and military force in Lebanon, has exchanged near-daily fire with the Israeli regime forces in support of the defenseless Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI) and the Ansarallah-led government of Yemen stand alongside Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting US and Israeli positions in the region in an effort to oppose Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
The occupying zionist regime forces launched the genocidal war on helpless Palestinians trapped in Gaza almost a year ago in early October, which has claimed the lives of more than 41,400 people, most of them innocent women and children.
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 23, 2024
“After today [the day of the pager simultaneous explosions], there can be no talk about settlement and solutions”, writes Ibrahim Amine, Editor of Al-Akhbar, known for his close contacts with the Hizbullah leadership:
“In just one minute, the enemy succeeded in delivering its harshest blows to the body of the Islamic Resistance … [Furthermore] through yesterday’s operation, the enemy confirmed that it doesn’t want to abide by the rules of engagement. Have the doors to a war [then] been opened: a war without any limits, ceilings, or borders”?
“After today, it [i.e. the Israeli enemy] will make no distinction between a fighter operating on the front and an individual working in some distant office”, Amine noted.
For the last year, both Israel and Hizbullah have avoided major escalation by observing unwritten rules of engagement or ‘equations’ between the parties, such as not targeting civilians. That is now over.
In his first speech since the devices blew up on Tuesday and Wednesday, Sayed Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, conceded that his group had “endured a severe and cruel blow”. He accused Israel of breaking “all conventions and laws” and said that it would “face just retribution and a bitter reckoning”. But he did not describe how Hezbollah might retaliate; “nor did he discuss the time, nor manner, nor place” of it ocurring.
Nasrallah warned:
“The enemy declares as its official goal to return the settlers to the North. We accept the challenge: You will not be able to return to the North. In fact, we will displace more Israelis from their homes. We hope Israel enters Lebanon, we are waiting for their tanks day and night: We say, ‘welcome!’”.
There is some point to this remark. From the outset, Hizbullah was configured militarily more for all-out war with Israel, than the limited tit-for-tat, calibrated war – which never played best to Hizbullah’s strengths.
Clearly, a new phase of war has begun, and to underline this point, Israel began one of its heaviest strikes on Israel after Nasrallah’s speech on Thursday night. U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin reportedly informed leaders of Congress that evening about his fear of an imminent Israeli offensive into Lebanon.
Nasrallah’s assessment of coming war is fully shared by at least some senior Israeli military commanders, albeit by no means all. Several profess the belief that war with Hizbullah could extend into a regional war – and lead to the collapse of Israel.
However … “You don’t do something like that, hit thousands of people, and think war is not coming”, said retired Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, who leads the Israel Defence and Security Forum, a group of hawkish former military commanders. “Why didn’t we do it for 11 months? Because we were not willing to go to war yet. What’s happening now? Israel is ready for war”.
“There’s a lot of pressure from the society to go to war and win”, said Avivi, the retired general. “Unless Hezbollah tomorrow morning says, ‘OK, we got the message. We’re pulling out of south Lebanon’ – war is imminent”.
A poll in late August by the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank, found that 67% of Jewish respondents thought Israel should intensify its response to Hizbullah. That includes 46% who believed that Israel should launch a deep offensive striking Lebanese infrastructure, and 21% who seek an intensified response that only strikes on Hezbollah’s infrastructure.
General Avivi’s remarks likely reflect an underlying reality that had become only too clear: Amos Hochstein, the U.S. Envoy, has failed to achieve any ‘diplomatic’ progress towards a Hizbullah withdrawal from the south of Lebanon. In parallel, U.S. officials, (according to the WSJ ) now concede that a Gaza ceasefire is ‘out of reach’ for Biden; and that, equally, Israel’s military attrition on southern Lebanon that had resulted in the displacement of 80% of its inhabitants had achieved nothing. Israel’s northern residents also remain displaced.
It seems, therefore, that Israel is set on a path to wider conflict. A taster has already been given: On 17 September, the Houthis fired a missile at a target close to Ben Gurion airport. The missile covered 1,300 miles in less than 12 min, which is to say, it flew at hypersonic speed, approaching Mach 9 – untouchable by air defences – and struck its target.
It is probable that we shall see more such hypersonic missiles flying – immune to air defences – should this war escalate, and Iran intervene.
What is paradoxical (as so often in conflict) is that the exploding pager operation seemingly was entirely fortuitous in terms of the timing. It was not planned specifically to move Israel to a new phase in the Lebanese conflict:
“High-level regional intelligence sources told Al-Monitor that the decision to carry out the operation was “forced” on Israel following an intelligence lapse … The Israeli military’s original plan was to explode the devices in the event of a full-blown war with Hezbollah in order to gain a strategic edge – but not to detonate them on Tuesday”, the sources added.
“However suspicions from at least two Hezbollah members caused the Israeli security establishment to agree to a premature execution of the plan. After a Hezbollah member in Lebanon suspected foul play with the pagers several days ago – that person was killed, the sources said … [and the plan was] ultimately executed. The subsequent decision to trigger the radios to explode was said to be driven by the expectation that after the pager detonations the radios would fall under suspicion”.
With the weather due to change within a few weeks, curtailing – or even halting – air operations, Israel was faced with having to choose between two alternative courses: Military action within weeks, or to wait until next Spring to exert more pressure on Hizbullah to shift its stance. The political future in Israel going into next year however, is extremely opaque. (Netayahu’s court appearances are due to resume in December).
The Hizbullah member’s unforeseen suspicions about the pagers ‘cast the die’ – taking us to a new level of war.
Unsurprisingly, the chatter in Israel is that the pager operation has resulted in a major blow to Hizbullah’s communication system that will cripple the movement’s military capability, offering Israel the ‘window’ to press home an invasion to establish a ‘buffer zone’ in southern Lebanon – one that might facilitate the return of Israeli residents to the north. Nasrallah promises the opposite: More Israelis will be displaced from their homes in northern Israel.
The notion that Hizbullah’s communications are crippled is wishful thinking that fails to distinguish between what may be called civil-society Hizbullah, and its military arm.
Hizbullah is a civil movement, as well as a military power. It is the Authority over a significant slice of Beirut and a country – a responsibility that requires the Movement to provide civil order and security. The pagers and radios were used primarily by its civil security forces (effectively a civil police managing security and order in Hizbullah-controlled parts of Lebanon), as well as used by its logistics and support branches. Since these personnel are not combat forces, they were not seen to require truly secure communications.
Even before the 2006 war, Hizbullah ended all cellphone and landline communications in favour of their own dedicated optic cable system and hand-courier messaging for the military cadres. In short, Hizbullah’s communications at the civil level took a major hit, but this will not unduly impact upon its military forces. For years, the Movement has operated on the basis that units could continue with combat, even in the event of a complete rupture of optic communications, or the loss of a HQ.
What comes next? Several scenarios are possible: The key is that Netanyahu is now back in “his comfort zone”. The talk about hostages has subsided, and the plans for the stealth, calibrated expulsion of the Palestinian population are unfolding under the supervision of ministers Ben Gvir, Smotrich and others on the Right. Defence Minister Gallant has even declared military ‘victory’ in Gaza.
And it seems that Gallant too, has bowed to the inevitable: Netanyahu, it would seem, has got his way – bypassing Gallant and senior IDF officers’ objections to escalation versus Hizbullah, without having to sack the popular Gallant as defence minister, and without having to take in the troublesome Gideon Saar into his government!
Defence Minister Gallant, IDF chief Halevi and other IDF officials all issued statements on Wednesday evening which appeared to suggest a full-on war with Hizbullah was brewing, hours after the wave of explosions of communications devices across Lebanon.
From Netanyahu’s perspective, the U.S. – however grudgingly – is committed to supporting Israel in this war, and in a wider war, should Iran enter the fray. The U.S. hints its support is not open-ended, but Netanyahu probably counts on its engagement inexorably ratchetting up as events unfold, pulling the U.S. further in. (The Israel-supporting power-structures would never countenance any abandonment of an Israel in danger, in any case).
Judging by the statements out of Israel, the consensus is that Hizbullah will retaliate, but in a way that is different from the way it has responded until now. Will it make do with a limited response? That is unclear. But anything it does do could lead to an exchange of blows that, in turn, will precipitate a large-scale war.
Senior officials in the IDF and in other parts of the security establishment warn openly against ‘reckless steps being planned by their government in the north’. On the one hand, these steps carry a very tangible danger of flaring up a general state of war, not only on the border with Lebanon, but in the entire region; and on the other hand, they do not promise a solution that will allow the residents of the north to return to their homes, or that the Gaza hostages will ever be released.
The Cradle | September 20, 2024
The US is confident in its ability to defend Israel given its current force levels in West Asia, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said on 19 September, amid heightened fears of a wider war between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel.
“We’re confident in the ability that we have there right now to protect our forces and should we need to come to the defense of Israel as well,” Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said in a press briefing Thursday.
The possibility of full-scale war increased following Israel’s terror attacks in Lebanon, which targeted Hezbollah cadre and civilians with exploding pagers earlier this week. The attacks killed 37 Lebanese and injured thousands more.
US military officials began sending additional forces to the region in July. Tensions escalated after Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shakr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran at the end of that month.
While US officials say they will help defend Israel, they claim they will not help it in an offensive war against Iran or Hezbollah.
“We are there in the defense of Israel, should we need to come to their defense. We’re not going in and supporting offensive ground operations in what they do, whether it be in the north or in Gaza,” Singh stated in the press briefing.
US officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the AP that additional resources sent to the region since July have helped as the US forces carry out operations targeting Axis of Resistance groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
In addition to Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI) and the Ansarallah-led government of Yemen have hit US and Israeli targets in the region in an effort to oppose Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
The AP reported that about 34,000 US troops have traditionally been deployed to West Asia. The number grew to about 40,000 in October last year as additional ships and aircraft were sent in after the start of the war on Gaza.
Several weeks ago, the total temporarily spiked to nearly 50,000 when US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered two aircraft carriers and their accompanying warships to stay in the region.
One aircraft carrier has since left, but US navy warships remain scattered across the region, from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Oman. Air force and navy fighter jets are strategically based at several locations.
The USS Abraham Lincoln and its three destroyers are in the Gulf of Oman. Two US navy destroyers are in the Red Sea.
There are six US warships and three naval destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Six F/A-18 fighter jets and the USS Georgia guided missile submarine are in the region, but US officials refuse to say where.
The air force has four land-based fighter squadrons in West Asia, which include a squadron of A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft, F-15E Strike Eagles, and F-16 fighter jets. US officials also declined to say where the planes are based.
Should the US join Israel in fighting a war against Iran, the air force can also launch attacks from bases within the US itself.
In February, two B-1 bombers flew more than 30 hours from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and back to strike 85 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) targets in Iraq and Syria.
Press TV – September 16, 2024
Yemeni Armed Forces have shot down another advanced American drone in support of Palestinians, who have come under a US-enabled Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, and in protest at Washington’s aggression against Yemen.
The MQ-9 Reaper was struck in the airspace of Dhamar Province in western Yemen on Monday.
The heavy aircraft, which is used for dual combat and spying purposes, is worth around $35 million.
The drone was the third aircraft of the type to be brought down by the forces in the span of a week and the 10th one to face such a fate since October 7.
.
The forces have been carrying out numerous strikes against the occupied Palestinian territories since that day, when the Israeli regime began the war on Gaza.
Their most daring pro-Palestinian strike of the type came on Sunday, when they attacked an Israeli military site in Tel Aviv with a new hypersonic ballistic missile.
Also on Sunday, leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement once again underscored the country’s support for Palestinians in the face of the Israeli genocide, saying the operations would continue until the regime ended the war and the siege.
At least 41,206 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed so far during the brutal Israeli onslaught, which enjoys unquestioning political, military, and intelligence support on the part of the United States.
The forces have also been targeting Israeli ships and vessels heading towards or away from the occupied territories as means of trying to force the regime into stopping the war and a siege that it has been simultaneously imposing on Gaza.
The United States has, on the other hand, been staging attacks against Yemen as means of trying to stop these operations.
The Cradle | September 12, 2024
The UK has renewed pressure on the Lebanese government to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that would allow London unrestricted military access to Lebanon’s soil, including the deployment of British troops in the country, Al-Akhbar reported on 11 September.
“The purpose of the memorandum is to define the responsibilities and general principles regarding the deployment of British armed forces within Lebanese territory for purposes other than training activities,” the draft copy of the memorandum, obtained by Al-Akhbar, reads.
The UK Foreign Office submitted the draft in July.
At the end of August, the foreign office sent a two-page letter to the Lebanese government “requesting facilities to deploy its army in Lebanon for the purposes of evacuating citizens, and in the event that Lebanon needs humanitarian assistance from Britain.”
Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry recently sent the draft to the Lebanese army, according to Al-Akhbar.
“The above-mentioned draft memorandum of understanding was studied from all aspects, and the study concluded that the memorandum of understanding raises concerns about Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, with the scope of the mission of the British armed forces unclear, which increases the state of uncertainty,” the newspaper cites the army response as saying.
The army reportedly “acted as if” it was not informed and did not give prior approval for the UK memorandum, Al-Akhbar revealed.
The UK initially justified this request as a precautionary measure for evacuating citizens in case of war, citing past failures in Afghanistan and Sudan.
However, sources have confirmed to Al-Akhbar that the British requests predate Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the outbreak of the war in October.
Al-Akhbar had revealed in November last year that the UK was pushing Lebanon to accept this agreement.
The clauses include granting British military personnel immunity from arrest or prosecution, adding that if any are detained, they must be immediately handed over to UK forces. Another is giving them authority to move around the country armed and in uniform.
“The memorandum guarantees that, in the event of a misinterpretation or non-compliance with the terms, Lebanon will not be able to resort to any international court or third party to resolve the dispute,” Al-Akhbar wrote in November.
The Lebanese government has said that the MoU constitutes a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
By Daniel Larison | The Libertarian Institute | September 12, 2024
The first presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump presented a bleak picture of the future of U.S. foreign policy no matter who wins in November. On the most urgent and important foreign policy issue of the year, the war and genocide in Gaza, Harris repeated empty platitudes about a “two-state solution” and Trump fell back on tired “pro-Israel” rhetoric. Neither candidate offered voters any hope that there would be a meaningful change from incumbent Joe Biden’s policy of unconditional support for the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians.
Trump absurdly said that Harris hates Israel, but aside from her perfunctory expression of support for Palestinian self-determination there was unfortunately very little to distinguish the two of them on this issue. Like Trump, Harris backs Israel to the hilt, and the main difference is that she pays lip service to Palestinian rights while doing nothing to protect them. She says some of the right things about the need for a ceasefire, but the Joe Biden administration isn’t willing to use its leverage to secure one and Harris refuses to call for the halt to U.S. arms transfers that U.S. law requires.
Harris has had many opportunities in the two months since Biden dropped out to separate herself from the president on this issue. She squandered them all by sticking to the official administration line. The vice president would rather tout her support from the likes of Dick Cheney than try and win the support of antiwar voters across the country. Harris has been catering mostly to hawks this summer, and she prefers attacking Trump for being “weak” instead of using his policy failures against him.
For his part, Trump returned to his old obsession with Iran and criticized the Biden administration because “they took off all the sanctions that I had.” Unfortunately for diplomacy with Iran, Biden never lifted any Iran sanctions, and the small amount of sanctions relief that he was prepared to grant was never delivered. Biden kept Trump’s dangerous Iran policy in place with similarly poor results, and there is no evidence so far that Harris is interested in pursuing a policy of diplomatic engagement.
The candidates had almost nothing to say about diplomacy during the debate. It was telling that the only time the word diplomacy was uttered during the debate was when Harris was criticizing the Trump administration’s negotiations with the Taliban that led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Trump mentioned negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, but he offered no specifics on how he would bring the belligerents to the table or what he would do to secure an agreement.
Harris also repeated the president’s strange lie that the United States isn’t at war anywhere. She said, “There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.” That would come as a surprise to the soldiers recently injured during a raid in Iraq and to the sailors waging Biden’s war in Yemen. It would also be news to the American forces fighting in Somalia and the troops illegally stationed in Syria. The U.S. Navy has said that its ships have been engaged in the most intense combat since World War II in the Red Sea, but as far as Biden and Harris are concerned it isn’t even happening.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-backed war in Gaza continues to claim innocent lives. Israeli forces bombed yet another tent encampment filled with displaced civilians on Tuesday, killing dozens of them. According to analysis of the damage, they used 2,000-pound U.S.-made bombs to do it. These bombs are so large and so powerful that using them in a densely populated area is obviously criminal. That was just the latest in a string of attacks on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on at least sixteen schools where displaced people had taken shelter. The official death toll is now over 40,000, but informed estimates from doctors that have worked in the territory suggest that the real number is more than double that.
During the debate there was no mention of that massacre in a so-called humanitarian zone, nor did anyone bring up the name of Aysenur Eygi, the American citizen murdered by an Israeli sniper in the West Bank just last week. People watching the debate would have had no idea that one of the worst man-made famines in modern times is currently raging in Gaza, and they wouldn’t know that the famine is the result of an Israeli campaign of deliberate starvation. The victims of the monstrous bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington are usually invisible in American debates, and this was no exception.
The Cradle | September 10, 2024
Israel is lobbying members of Congress to pressure South Africa to drop its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Axios reported on 9 September.
South Africa has until 28 October to submit its arguments for continuing its case, claiming Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention due to its war in Gaza.
Israeli officials say they want members of Congress to threaten South Africa with consequences for continuing to pursue the case.
On Monday, the Israeli foreign ministry sent a classified cable to the Israeli embassy and consulates in the US with instructions for dealing with South Africa.
“We are asking you to immediately work with [US] lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price,” the cable read.
In December, South Africa filed a case at the ICJ accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case alleged Israel’s actions “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part” of the Palestinian population in Gaza.
After the start of the war on 7 October, Israeli political and military leaders issued statements suggesting they intended to pursue a genocidal military campaign against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Israeli forces have killed over 40,000 Palestinians since then, the majority women and children, in a vicious 11-month bombing campaign.
The ICJ issued an interim ruling in January demanding Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
However, Israel hopes the new coalition government in South Africa can be pressured to take a different approach to Israel and the war in Gaza, the officials speaking with Axios said.
In parliamentary elections in June, the African National Congress (ANC) party lost its majority for the first time since the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule 30 years ago.
The Israeli diplomats were instructed to ask members of Congress to issue public statements condemning South Africa and threatening to cut off trade relations with South Africa.
Axios adds that the Israeli diplomats were also instructed to ask members of Congress and Jewish organizations in the US to reach out directly to South African diplomats in the US and make clear South Africa would “pay a heavy price” if it doesn’t change its policy.
The Israeli foreign ministry asked Israeli diplomats to lobby for hearings about South Africa’s policy towards Israel in state legislatures.
According to the cable, Israeli diplomats were instructed to emphasize to the ANC and “pursue dialogue” with Israel “instead of boycotts and punishments.”
Press TV – September 6, 2024
The US and Iraq have reached an agreement for the withdrawal of US-led coalition forces from Iraq, which would see hundreds of troops leave by September 2025 and the remainder by the end of 2026, according to a Western media report.
The Reuters news agency, quoting multiple unnamed sources within the governments of the US, Iraq, and other countries, said the withdrawal plan “has been broadly agreed but requires a final go-ahead from both capitals and an announcement date.”
“We have an agreement, it’s now just a question of when to announce it,” Reuters quoted a senior US official.
An official announcement was initially scheduled for weeks ago but was postponed due to regional escalation related to Israel’s genocidal onslaught on Gaza and to iron out some remaining details, the report quoted the sources as saying.
Farhad Alaaldin, foreign affairs adviser to the Iraqi prime minister, told the news agency that technical talks with Washington on the coalition drawdown had concluded.
“We are now on the brink of transitioning the relationship between Iraq and members of the international coalition to a new level, focusing on bilateral relations in military, security, economic, and cultural areas,” he said.
According to the agency, the US and Iraq are also seeking to establish a new advisory relationship that could see some US troops remain in Iraq after the drawdown.
The agreement comes six months after Baghdad initiated talks with Washington on the withdrawal of US forces stationed at Iraqi bases.
Those talks began after a wave of rocket and drone attacks on American forces in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for Washington’s support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza and its atrocities against the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi resistance groups have been pressing for an end to the presence of foreign forces in Iraq for more than a decade after a US-led coalition invaded the country in violation of international law based on false claims of it owning weapons of mass destruction.
There are nearly 2,500 American troops in Iraq and some 900 in Syria as part of what Washington claims to be a fighting force against Daesh.
The US has maintained its presence even after the Arab country and its allies, including Iran, vanquished the Takfiri terrorist group in late 2017.
In 2020, the Iraqi parliament voted for the expulsion of US forces. The vote came after Iran’s top anti-terror commander, martyr General Qassem Soleimani, and deputy PMU commander Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis were assassinated in a cowardly drone strike ordered by then-US president Donald Trump outside of the Baghdad airport.
On January 8, 2020, Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) targeted the US-run Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq after launching a wave of attacks to retaliate for the assassination of the two top anti-terror commanders.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 