Crazy theory #385
Just a bit of a stray thought that I haven't seen elsewhere. Perhaps the Israelis' use of "disproportionate" force in Lebanon is intended to lay the groundwork for something else.
For example, if there were to be attacks on Iran or her nuclear facilities, either by the US or the Israelis, one of Iran's primary possible responses would be to use Hezbullah to launch missiles into Israel.
In this logic, the Hezbullah threat would have to be degraded and pushed back out of range from Tel Aviv before any actions against Iran were undertaken. Also, cutting roads and bridges would prevent Hezbullah, or Syria itself, from rapidly flowing to Israel's northern border with Lebanon.
This could also explain the Bush administration's willingness to let this go on. (per Haaretz, for another week?) I mean, if the US or Israel are going to initiate a military conflict with Iran, the ill feelings generated by this Lebanon action will be relatively small potatoes.
No backing for this, and there are some good counter arguments against it, it's just something floating around in my head this morning.
For example, if there were to be attacks on Iran or her nuclear facilities, either by the US or the Israelis, one of Iran's primary possible responses would be to use Hezbullah to launch missiles into Israel.
In this logic, the Hezbullah threat would have to be degraded and pushed back out of range from Tel Aviv before any actions against Iran were undertaken. Also, cutting roads and bridges would prevent Hezbullah, or Syria itself, from rapidly flowing to Israel's northern border with Lebanon.
This could also explain the Bush administration's willingness to let this go on. (per Haaretz, for another week?) I mean, if the US or Israel are going to initiate a military conflict with Iran, the ill feelings generated by this Lebanon action will be relatively small potatoes.
No backing for this, and there are some good counter arguments against it, it's just something floating around in my head this morning.
posted by mikevotes at
12:46 PM
10 Comments:
That is certainly a crazy idea. Unfortunately, they are crazy so it cannot be dismissed.
By
gary, at 1:50 PM
I agree. I don't really think so, but it does fit.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:35 PM
And stupid US is right between Iran and Israel. Next year in Jerusalem, as I predicted. Fight for America, die for Israel.
By
Anonymous, at 2:41 PM
I like the picture.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:20 PM
I don't think it's so outrageously crazy. Not when you actually lay it all out this way. The overwhelming use of force here has to mean more than just a targeting of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. There's a message being sent here as well. Why not this one?
By
QuakerDave, at 6:13 PM
Yeah. Another possible idea I've been entertaining is that somehow this military is intended to split Syria from Iran as a part of that initiative to isolate them, but I can't seem to get all the pieces to fit.
The Hezbullah pressure might make some sense, but why then bomb all the roads and such in N. Lebanon.
I'm just trying to figure this thing out.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:49 PM
Not crazy at all Mike. I've read some similar theories. Juan Cole has a good piece on it today including the news about the Israelis having had this in the planning for well over a year.
By
Anonymous, at 9:05 PM
Well the way they have been targeting infrastructure (bridges, airports, ports) I would concur. They will first attack Syria, as they are closer to home, and then when Iran comes to Syria's defense, nukes on Iran who then have no credible way to retaliate, except through Iraq (as romunuv pointed out)where hundreds of thousands of US troops are sitting ducks.
By
Lew Scannon, at 9:10 PM
Libby, I saw that, too. Another possibility in that they're trying to "solve" the Hezbullah problem before Iran gets nukes because that would shift all the calculus. Opposite side of the same argument except that it does not explain the infrastructure and northern bombing.
Lew, I really don't know, I'm at the working theory phase of this. It's a question of whether they want a full war going through Syria and Iran, or whether they just want to try to pop Iran's nuke sites. But in this scenario it does make far more sense for Israel to do the bombing.
And, I agree that the US troops in Iraq are potentially sitting ducks, but they also represent a potential threat on Iran's border tying down part of their force to defend the border. Because the Iranians know that as bad as the US is at occupying a country, if their task was to attack a conventional force and take ground, the US is still a huge threat. The question is whether the US force could be wheeled about to that "facing." to offer a real threat before the guerrilla attacks cut into them.
Again, just working it all out right now.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:07 PM
I don't think they'll use "conventional" nuclear weapons, as they produce too much "waste". The radioactive particles get into the atmosphere, and you've got hell on your hands. They'll probably use "bunk buster bombs" (atomic weapons, really), but they explode, for the most part, underground, so the radiation is somewhat localized. They've been pushing for Iran for so long it's hard to imagine that they will get distracted by a small defenceless country like Lebanon. Or Syria.
By
Anonymous, at 12:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home