Doyle McManus writing in the LA Times has been paying attention, or at least listening to people with good insight:
WASHINGTON — To President Bush, the conflict in Lebanon is more than a campaign by Israel to protect its citizens from Hezbollah missiles. Instead, it is "a moment of opportunity" for the United States — with the most important target not Hezbollah or even neighboring Syria, but distant Iran.
When Bush talks publicly about the 18-day-old campaign, he often makes the point of blaming Iran, one of Hezbollah's main sponsors. Aides say that's a reflection of what he has said in private: that Israel's battle with Hezbollah is merely part of a larger struggle between the U.S. and Iran for influence across the Middle East.
"The stakes are larger than just Lebanon," the president told reporters Friday after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "The root cause of the problem is you've got Hezbollah that is armed and willing to fire rockets into Israel; a Hezbollah … that I firmly believe is backed by Iran and encouraged by Iran."
He added: "I also believe that Iran would like to exert additional influence in the region. A theocracy would like to spread its influence, using surrogates…. And so, for the sake of long-term stability, we've got to deal with this issue now."
I'm glad at least some MSMers are figuring this out - too bad that it took them this long to figure out that Iran has always been at the back of our efforts in the Moslem world. Ever since 1979, Iran has been to locus of our fundamental problems in the Moslem world - future generations will be strong in their condemnations of Jimmy Carter when he failed to war on Iran when we had the perfect justification in 1979. All inaction and "diplomacy" did for us then is sow the seeds of future catastrophe and war.
Now, since 9/11, it is a much trickier prospect - the Iranian regime disposes of some pretty strong military assets (though nothing near enough to actually stop a determined American assault) and the US, by going along with Iranian actions in the past without response, has elminated justification after justification for going to war with Iran. We have to wait for them to commit an overt act and, for the past five years, they've been pretty careful not to give us one. With the Iran-ordered Hizbollah attack on Israel, however, Iran might have stuck its neck out a bit too far.
The linked news report concentrates on the short-term goal - diminishing Hezbollah and getting Lebanon finally and firmly out of the Syria/Iran orbit - but the the longer term goal, getting rid of the Iranian regime, can also be advanced. What Iran has done is offer the opportunity to tie Iran directly in to the larger War on Terrorism - something Americans are at least half-inclined to accept even without any prompting, given Iran's long-term terrorist reputation - as a preliminary to a campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Such a campaign might just topple the whole Iranian regime by exposing its inability to withstand American action.
Things are moving very fast in the middle east right now.
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 30, 2006 03:40 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/whitehouse.cgi/7602
Comments
Hate to break this to you Mark, but most people understand that this is in a way a proxy war between the US and Iran.
that this war started a day before the UN was to meet on Iran's nuclear program is no surprise.
Unfortunately, the US and Israel made the mistake of thinking that Israel could destroy the military militia of hezbollah with a military campaign. They could if innocent life was of no consequence, but it is. And now they see what many others have seen for a while, that only through negotiation and politics will Israel be secure.
In 1982 after a assassination attempt by the PLO operation inside of lebanon, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee. This ended in the occupation of southern Lebanon which was the driving force behind the creation and existence of Lebanon. Just some have claimed that Israels attack now will bring about peace, they thought the 1982 invasion would bring peace. It clearlly did not.
Also, Israeli destruction of the PLO in Palestine led to Hamas. No peace there.
As I said before, it was hard to blame Israel for their immediate and strong military action. And that there was nothing much to initially do diplomatically. Unfortunately, the US made the mistake of not intervening soon enough and calling for a cease fire before negotiations. Israel now sees that its military might will not bring about the demands it made on totally disarming hezbollah (they have backed off this demand) and they now see their military campaign is doing more harm that good (48-hour halt to the attacks).
It was the US' job to help bring these two things about quicker. They failed to do this. Hezbollah is still going to be standing after this is all said and done, with much more support in the arab world than it had before.
What the US has to do now is call for an immediate cease fire and have serious talks with Syria about aiding the US in cutting off Iranian influence in Lebanon.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 30, 2006 07:43 PM
Hate to break this to you Mark, but most people understand that this is in a way a proxy war between the US and Iran.
that this war started a day before the UN was to meet on Iran's nuclear program is no surprise.
Unfortunately, the US and Israel made the mistake of thinking that Israel could destroy the military militia of hezbollah with a military campaign. They could if innocent life was of no consequence, but it is. And now they see what many others have seen for a while, that only through negotiation and politics will Israel be secure.
In 1982 after a assassination attempt by the PLO operation inside of lebanon, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee. This ended in the occupation of southern Lebanon which was the driving force behind the creation and existence of Lebanon. Just some have claimed that Israels attack now will bring about peace, they thought the 1982 invasion would bring peace. It clearlly did not.
Also, Israeli destruction of the PLO in Palestine led to Hamas. No peace there.
As I said before, it was hard to blame Israel for their immediate and strong military action. And that there was nothing much to initially do diplomatically. Unfortunately, the US made the mistake of not intervening soon enough and calling for a cease fire before negotiations. Israel now sees that its military might will not bring about the demands it made on totally disarming hezbollah (they have backed off this demand) and they now see their military campaign is doing more harm that good (48-hour halt to the attacks).
It was the US' job to help bring these two things about quicker. They failed to do this. Hezbollah is still going to be standing after this is all said and done, with much more support in the arab world than it had before.
What the US has to do now is call for an immediate cease fire and have serious talks with Syria about aiding the US in cutting off Iranian influence in Lebanon.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 30, 2006 07:44 PM
“We have to wait for them to commit an overt act and, for the past five years, they've been pretty careful not to give us one.”
That didn’t stop Bush in Iraq!
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 30, 2006 10:31 PM
BG2000,
you really should get another talking point. Run on over to the DNC web site-there are many to choose from! I haven't been here too long but spent sometime in the archives and you have worn every inch of this out.
Posted by: mary s at July 30, 2006 10:45 PM
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 30, 2006 10:54 PM
Barney, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the Ash. You have spent so much of your life resolutely denying the truth, restating the truth so it could be dismissed, and in general dedicating yourself to a cause and a movement in which truth is not only irrelevant but a downright impediment, you can hardly make prounouncements about "truth" to anyone.
Your whine about why Bush wanted us to go into Iraq is proof of that.
And Tom has come up with yet another conspiracy---this time it is the timing of the Israel attack on Hezbollah. Tell us, Tom---how did they get Hezbollah to cooperate by lofting a few more rockets into Israel?
And show us, Tom, how well "negotiations" and "politics" have worked to protect Israel in the past.
I'll tell you exactly what "negotiations" and "politics" mean to zealots----they mean "more time to kill as many people as we want to kill". They mean "they are weak and we can prevail". They mean "Gotcha!!!"
Posted by:
Almiranta at July 31, 2006 12:23 AM
We can't start on Iran until we are done with Iraq.
International support won't be sufficient and we don't need to maintain two occupations...
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 31, 2006 01:30 AM
We can't start on Iran until we are done with Iraq.
Why not? Ever hear of WWII?
Posted by:
Reverend Scaramonga at July 31, 2006 10:28 AM
Post a comment
Hate to break this to you Mark, but most people understand that this is in a way a proxy war between the US and Iran.
that this war started a day before the UN was to meet on Iran's nuclear program is no surprise.
Unfortunately, the US and Israel made the mistake of thinking that Israel could destroy the military militia of hezbollah with a military campaign. They could if innocent life was of no consequence, but it is. And now they see what many others have seen for a while, that only through negotiation and politics will Israel be secure.
In 1982 after a assassination attempt by the PLO operation inside of lebanon, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee. This ended in the occupation of southern Lebanon which was the driving force behind the creation and existence of Lebanon. Just some have claimed that Israels attack now will bring about peace, they thought the 1982 invasion would bring peace. It clearlly did not.
Also, Israeli destruction of the PLO in Palestine led to Hamas. No peace there.
As I said before, it was hard to blame Israel for their immediate and strong military action. And that there was nothing much to initially do diplomatically. Unfortunately, the US made the mistake of not intervening soon enough and calling for a cease fire before negotiations. Israel now sees that its military might will not bring about the demands it made on totally disarming hezbollah (they have backed off this demand) and they now see their military campaign is doing more harm that good (48-hour halt to the attacks).
It was the US' job to help bring these two things about quicker. They failed to do this. Hezbollah is still going to be standing after this is all said and done, with much more support in the arab world than it had before.
What the US has to do now is call for an immediate cease fire and have serious talks with Syria about aiding the US in cutting off Iranian influence in Lebanon.
Hate to break this to you Mark, but most people understand that this is in a way a proxy war between the US and Iran.
that this war started a day before the UN was to meet on Iran's nuclear program is no surprise.
Unfortunately, the US and Israel made the mistake of thinking that Israel could destroy the military militia of hezbollah with a military campaign. They could if innocent life was of no consequence, but it is. And now they see what many others have seen for a while, that only through negotiation and politics will Israel be secure.
In 1982 after a assassination attempt by the PLO operation inside of lebanon, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee. This ended in the occupation of southern Lebanon which was the driving force behind the creation and existence of Lebanon. Just some have claimed that Israels attack now will bring about peace, they thought the 1982 invasion would bring peace. It clearlly did not.
Also, Israeli destruction of the PLO in Palestine led to Hamas. No peace there.
As I said before, it was hard to blame Israel for their immediate and strong military action. And that there was nothing much to initially do diplomatically. Unfortunately, the US made the mistake of not intervening soon enough and calling for a cease fire before negotiations. Israel now sees that its military might will not bring about the demands it made on totally disarming hezbollah (they have backed off this demand) and they now see their military campaign is doing more harm that good (48-hour halt to the attacks).
It was the US' job to help bring these two things about quicker. They failed to do this. Hezbollah is still going to be standing after this is all said and done, with much more support in the arab world than it had before.
What the US has to do now is call for an immediate cease fire and have serious talks with Syria about aiding the US in cutting off Iranian influence in Lebanon.
“We have to wait for them to commit an overt act and, for the past five years, they've been pretty careful not to give us one.”
That didn’t stop Bush in Iraq!
BG2000,
you really should get another talking point. Run on over to the DNC web site-there are many to choose from! I haven't been here too long but spent sometime in the archives and you have worn every inch of this out.
Truth hurts mary
Barney, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the Ash. You have spent so much of your life resolutely denying the truth, restating the truth so it could be dismissed, and in general dedicating yourself to a cause and a movement in which truth is not only irrelevant but a downright impediment, you can hardly make prounouncements about "truth" to anyone.
Your whine about why Bush wanted us to go into Iraq is proof of that.
And Tom has come up with yet another conspiracy---this time it is the timing of the Israel attack on Hezbollah. Tell us, Tom---how did they get Hezbollah to cooperate by lofting a few more rockets into Israel?
And show us, Tom, how well "negotiations" and "politics" have worked to protect Israel in the past.
I'll tell you exactly what "negotiations" and "politics" mean to zealots----they mean "more time to kill as many people as we want to kill". They mean "they are weak and we can prevail". They mean "Gotcha!!!"
We can't start on Iran until we are done with Iraq.
International support won't be sufficient and we don't need to maintain two occupations...
We can't start on Iran until we are done with Iraq.
Why not? Ever hear of WWII?