Tehran Takes Gloomy View of the Lebanon War and Truce

August 14, 2006, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

While the damage caused Israel’s military reputation tops Western assessments of the Lebanon war, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report an entirely different perception taking hold in ruling circles in Tehran.

After UN Security Council resolution 1701 calling for a truce was carried Friday, Aug. 11, the heads of the regime received two separate evaluations of the situation in Lebanon – one from Iran’s foreign ministry and one from its supreme national security council. Both were bleak: their compilers were concerned that Iran had been manipulatively robbed of its primary deterrent asset ahead of a probable nuclear confrontation with the United States and Israel.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201

amazing what one may learn when not dependent on the msm agenda.

Ohio,

True - and, of course, I may be wrong: it may be - and I've thought of this - that the whole exercise was just to push back the short range rockets in preparation for a US strike on Iran.

In either case, my fundamental view still holds: it was just the right time for a cease fire.

Mark

I agree, to a point. We would have probably had better long range results had we gone after Syria or even Iran. Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran with Syria playing a huge role, however, Lebanon is a legitmate target, if this will weaken Hezbollah to the point that Iran's proxy is no longer a significant threat. The decision to invade Lebanon was a good one, if you succeed in degrading Hezbollah's capability to attack or if you destroy it. Military operations that don't achieve their stated goals are not good. We judge leaders by what they accomplish, not by what they attempt to accomplish.

There probably were a number of mistakes made. There will be in all human endeavors. The important thing is what do we learn from the mistakes. The mistakes seem to be as follows. Israel was to slow to commit ground forces. Some commentators have gone so far as to say Israel tried to conduct the war "on the cheap." The air campaign was not as effective as it was hoped it would be. I say these "seem" to be mistakes that were made because I'm not a military expert. I don't know how much of this is people grandstanding for political purposes and how much of it is legitmate. The errors that seem to have been made resolve around under estimating the enemy. The US under estimated its enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is hard to believe that five years after 911 we would STILL be underestimating this enemy.

This all leads into what was the biggest mistake of all. Even under the most ideal circumstances where every thing went perfect and not a single mistake was made, Israel would have needed longer than about a month to do enough damage to an enemy as powerful and well dug in as Hezbollah. To accomplish the mission of damaging Hezbollah enough to make a long range difference, Israel would have needed at least three months and probably longer.

I never had any doubt that Israel could damage Hezbollah long enough to make a long range difference or out and out destroy it. What concerned me was would Israel get enough time before a cease fire was imposed on them. Short of a Dresden type response or a nuclear response there was no way that only about a month would be long enough.

If there is a silver lining to this, the Israeli army seems to have formed brilliantly once the troops were actually commited. Also, Israel and America have a chance to learn from any mistakes that were made. This is important that we learn. This enemy will be back. When it comes back, we better prepared to stick it for longer than a month.

Mark: I like your posts but this one, at least the part about Israel pursuing the wrong stratagy appears inconsistent with an earlier post. Specifically, the one entitled "Misunderstanding from a Well Informed Man".

That being said I think conservative commentators should hold their tongues on whether Israel "failed" (lost if you perfer) or not, until everyone actually has a chance to assess the results of the invasion and the subsequent ceasefire.

I grow concerned that this maybe a Tet Offensive moment. That was from a purely military view a major United States victory. from a political standpoint it was a major disaster. Why the diffrence: Because the pundits of the day were so impressed with North Vietnams ability to mount a major offensive and that offenses intial success that they completely ignored the ultimate result. I see no reason for us to make the same mistake. The liberal commentators will do that for us.

You guys really need to familiarize yourselves with Seymour Hearsh's latest work in the "New Yorker." The Israeli bombing campaign was essentially a "dry run" for a projected American campaign in Iran -- I guess we can write that off now (thankfully).

Ohio

Thanks for the link from debka. From this and other sources I suspected that the damage done to Hezbollah was greater than is generally reported. The Arab press is generally state controlled or there will be severe consequences for a media that deviates from the terrorists talking points because of this there will be very little reporting from the Arab media on anything critical of the terrorists and the Aemrican press simply repeats their talking points.

I hope and pray the damage to Hezbollah was enough to make enough of a differnece to have a long term benefit. Right now that does not seem likely.

Salve

I suspect that the Israeli and American military leaders will study the results of the battle and learn from what went right and what did not go right. The important thing is for the politicians to resist the urge to try and use this to score political points. I suspect much of the sniping going on in Israel right now is the result of people trying to score political points. This needs to stop in both the US and Israel.

The US is not going to support Israeli actions in Lebanon strictly for a dry run on Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel knows that America's willingness and ability to provide diplomatic cover for them is going to be limited. The US would never sanction the event that Mr. Hearsh is suggesting against Lebanon to test a war plan against Iran.

The US is not likely to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities any way. The domestic political situation and the Iraqi political situation make this unlikely. Israel will have to take out the facilities or Iran will need to stop. If Iran does not change course, the Israelis will be forced to take action. These weapons are a survival threat to Israel.

Tim

I agree whole heartedly. I could not have said this better myself. We do not know what the end result is. It does seem that Israel damaged Hezbollah and was winning the war before the cease fire was called. We should wait and see how things turn out before we classify the mission as a failure. I must admit I am not optimistic. I think to do the kind of damage to Hezbollah that would make a long range difference would have reuqired three months or more.

This enemy will be back. When it comes back, American and Israeli leaders should be prepared to stay in the fight longer. Israel's military was winning and probably would have won but the politicians pulled the plug. Israeli and American leaders need to GET A BACK BONE!

Poster,

Some American leaders have more of a backbone than others. Let us hope that by the time Hezbollah or their replacements are ready to go, our leaders have the backbone needed to sustain the fight. Also, lets hope both the IDF and the US military have learned enough from this fight to really crush the enemy.

Mark-

I generally agree with the notion that Israel went about its offensive in the wrong way, but this part bothers me:

(Note: I know that some will wonder where some of these sentiments were while Israel was engaged in battle - well, I consider the Israelis to be the blood brothers of my Americans...I'd no more have have talked down about their efforts while ongoing than I woudl take down my brother's efforts while he's trying to get a job done. Friends support their friends, especially when the going gets rough.)

I agree with your sentiment of supporting Israel in times of need, but I think that you are confusing the prospect of supporting one's aims with supporting their actions or means of achieving those aims. One overly dramatic example: if, to destroy wahabiists, Israel decided to carpet-bomb the entire country of Saudi Arabia.

Though I would agree with their goal of destroying wahabiism, I would never support the indiscriminate bombing of an entire country.

The same with Israel in this sense. You may completely agree with Israel's goal of defeating Hezbollah, but if you feel that they are going about achieving that goal are flawed, it is not a sign of a lack of support to point that out.

I believe that it is best to speak out when you believe that a war or any other policy is being executed poorly. If there is noone to tell them that they are wrong, what is to stop policy makers from making things much worse than they have to be?

Salve,

If Hersch said that, then he's dumber than even I thought he was...there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between what Isreal did and what we will do in Iran.

Tim,

To explain the disconnect: I've just thought about it some more, and the thoughts in this post started to occur to me yesterday afternoon. In both cases, I could very well be wrong - but I'm not wrong about one thing: we need to concentrate on Iran, and the Israeli battle in Lebanon was distracting from that.

Georgia,

Perhaps - if the people who were critical were being reasonable and helpful in their criticism...when we're faced with absurd and asinine cricitism, as we've seen over Lebanon and Iraq, then those who support victory have to be exceptionally careful not to provide ammo for the idiots.

Has anyone else seen the various articles where Hezbolla is saying A) They will not disarm, and the Lebanese army is agreeing to this; and B) because they survived the Isreali assualt they won? Any ideas on how to counter this?

Mark-

Are you willing to let policymakers carry out potentially harmful policies because you're afraid of political opponents?

You should be willing to do the right thing even if the loonies "will use it as ammo."

Mark,

You know that Sy Hersch is an idiot, and that tells you what you need to know about ol' Sal.

Getting back to the war: I hope you're correct, because this cease-fire debacle, to me, looks like more of the same old crap. The U.N. is supposed to be a major player, and Hizbullah gets to keep their arms?

It's time to face reality--the Bush Doctrine is dormant. When he gave his speech back in September '01, he said we were going after them, and this included nations that harbored and aided terrorists. So far, we've gone to Afghanistan and Iraq--two major battles in this war, but not enough to make a dent in the threat we face. Iran and Syria need to be taken out, and maybe even Egypt and Saudi Arabia, if those two choose to support their true allies. However, President Bush has no political capital left, and he's running out of time. We should have done Iraq differently; we could have been finished there, and taking care of these other regimes.

Sorry if I sound negative, but this Israel/Hizbollah debacle has left a sour feeling in my gut. And don't any of you kook trolls get the notion that I'm leaning your way; I'm pissed off, but I'm no moron. War

Georgia,

If I saw an actually bad policy, I'd call 'em on it...but poor tactical choices? Once again, depends on the circumstances.

The fault lies with you critics - even you, Georgia, are not immune because 99.9% of the objections raised have been absurd. There is plenty to criticise, and just as soon as I seem some critics actually criticising the right issues, then I'll write about it...that is, after I recover from my faint from shock at seeing such rational criticism.

Getting back to the subject at hand: what we have here is an example of tactical error...Israel conducted the wrong campaign. This is akin to if we were to suddenly move in to Somalia to clear out the Islamists there - a worthy goal, but entire beside the actual point, as Iran must occupy our full attention. We can clear up Somalia - and Hezbollah - at our discretion once Iran is dealt with.

I'm bringing this up because I see too many people on my side of the argument getting themselves in to a snit. Just like them, I'd like to see Hezbollah distroyed...but now wasn't the time, and Lebanon wasn't the place.

keefer,

You are correct in what we need to be getting at them - but we can't get at all of them, all at once...we want our potential enemies divided, and thus we have to tread a careful line...including things like making nice/nice with the Saudis even as we know they - or, at least, their citizens - are supporting our enemies.

It is a trick business we're in - but, we're also winning.

The tough talk from Iran is the same sort of tough talk we got from Nazi Germany in May of 1944...right before we invaded Europe, and a year before Germany's utter defeat...the Nazi Empire in May of 1944 still looked mighty impressive - stretched from Russia to the Atlantic...a year later, it was all gone. The Iranians might appear to be riding high, but we've got the Gulf States off the hook of having to choose between us and fighting Israel, we have Iran bracketed on all four sides with American power, and our army in Iraq will shortly be relieved of day to day security issues in Iraq...

What will happen? I don't know - but I believe that we will war on Iran. Really, there is no other course open - and from what we know of President Bush, he's unafraid to do the right thing.

...and from what we know of President Bush, he's unafraid to do the right thing.

Oh, I agree with you on this, Mark, and this is what I admire most about him, but Iraq has taken a mighty toll. Not that I think that the Iraqi government and their security forces haven't progressed quickly enough; they have, but the donks are playing politics with this, and along with the drive-by media, have succeeded in making Iraq look very bad, when it isn't. This is why I feel President Bush is running out of time. We have an enemy within that obstructs and undermines every move he makes, and if they regain their hold on power, all progress will be erased in short order.

We're in a holy war, Mark, and the clock is ticking. We need to agressively ramp up the Bush Doctrine, or we're doomed...

Nice posts, all. You've got my mind racing to keep up. I do wonder, with your recent posts about so close to all of the Iraqi police and defense forces being trained, why haven't our troops come home? Sure, there's bombings almost every day, but there's not a whole lot having troops there can do to stop that. I can't help but wonder if we aren't leaving them there because whenever we do strike Iran's nuclear program (and probably quite a bit more than just that), our troops are still there to prevent a reprisal by the Iranians coupled with a coup by the Shiites that support Iran. Wouldn't that show Bush (in Iran's leader's head) if he took back freedom from a nation in which we'd invested so much?

Georgia,
If our leaders truly did have major difficulties with the way Israel was running its gambit against Hezbollah, there are ways of communicating that to Israel without circulating it on Sunday morning talk shows. Even our senators could probably get in touch with them (and if they couldn't get in touch with them, there's probably a reason for that). If several of our legislators wanted to get together and send a message, they can do it without having a press conference. This is one of the best traditions of the military, that you can suggest an alternative, but you have faith that if your CO doesn't go with it, there's a reason for it. Endless dissent and doubt take a toll on motivation that can be more costly than the loss of a marginal benefit from a marginally better idea. The future is uncertain, and nothing proves that the most rational ideas often fail like dealing with religious extremists, people who are exceptionally irrational.

KJ

The most important lesson that should have been learned from this is that there is no way an enemy as powerful and well dug in as Hezbollah can be defeated in only about 30 days. To do this properly would have taken at least three months and probably longer. After a slow start, Israel was making real progress then the plug was pulled. It seems we are still under estimating the power of this enemy. After all of the trouble we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is hard to believe we would still be under estimating this enemy but this seems to be the case.

Only thirty days into one of the most pivotal battles in the GWOT, the American leadership shamefully caves in. I would think members of the greatest generation who fought WWII woud be ashamed of this government's lack of resolve.

We will get another chance. This enemy will make sure of that. When they come back, they will be stronger. The next rockets launched at Israel may contain WMD.

Mark,

Israel’s military does have amphibious capability and they did use this capability during the 1982 war in Lebanon when Israel conducted amphibious landings near Sidon.

Israel’s mistake was their belief that they could win this war on the cheap with their Air Force in a “shock and awe” type of campaign. Air power is not very effective in fighting guerilla armies such as Hezbollah. In addition, Israel’s decision to rely mostly on air power turned most of the world against them. When the war first started, even Arab countries were condemning Hezbollah’s action. Seeing Israel’s military dropping bombs on Beirut and other heavily populated areas on a regular basis turned public opinion against them through most of the world. Israel should have relied on their army from the start, to go after Hezbollah. This would have resulted in far fewer civilian casualties and would have been much more effective in destroying Hezbollah’s strongholds. It’s very limited what can be done against a guerilla army from 40,000 feet. I read reports that a number of Israeli Army officers were very critical of the way their government chose to carry out the war.

keefer,

Doomed is too strong a term - if, that is, you mean the permanent destruction of our way of life. What we might be doomed to, however, is a much longer and bloodier war if the Iranians and/or the American Democrats get their way.

Brian,

Have you got any info on the number and type of Israel's amphibious force? Checking out the IDF website, I find nothing on it...

Mark,

I don't have the exact specifications of Israel's amphibious force. I'm not sure whether that information is classified or not. The following article gives a brief description:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/agency/navy.htm

With a moderate number of landing craft, Israel could deliver small forces of troops and armored equipment for beach landings in the eastern Mediterranean. This capability was demonstrated in June 1982, when these amphibious units successfully landed an assault force of tanks, armored personnel carriers, engineering equipment, and paratroops behind PLO positions near Sidon on the Lebanese coast.

Mark & Keefer

I would not say we are "doomed" yet. No matter who wins the elections of 2006 and 2008 this enemy will continue to fight. They are going to force us to fight whether we really want to or not. While exact comparisions are not possible, this has similarities to WWII. At some point, the gloves will come off. I jsut hope and pray we get serious before a WMD attack.

It is true that we will have to deal with Iran in the future, but I disagree with your assertion that it can only be done through war. And considering the quagmire we are stuck in in Iraq (as I recall, you told me two years ago that we had 'won' Iraq already-- and at this rate, we must have 'won' it three times and counting) I really don't even see an invasion of Iran as feasible. Sure, we could bomb the crap out of them, but they have likely made a calculated gamble that they could survive a bombing campaign-- and I really don't see right now where we could spare the force necessary to invade and (the hard part) occupy Iran. General Shinseki disagreed with Rumsfeld and recommended that we use 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq based on the population of the country in order to prevent an insurgency from flaring up, and with the benefit of hindsight he was right. So given that Iran is 2 and a half the size of Iraq, both geographically and population wise, we would need a million troops to occupy to prevent another Iraq there. Unless you are suggesting a draft, I don't see it happening. And even if you are, Iraq has now cost us rapidly approaching a third of a trillion dollars-- that is a thousand dollars of your money, a thousand dollars of my money, in fact a thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America. What do you think Iran would cost? Two or three times that, most likely. So the quick answer to a military invasion of Iran-- we can't afford it.

What history teaches us is that we can defeat a country we can't conquer. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, and as we now know bankrolled terrorist groups throughout the world including the Bader-Meinhof gang in Germany, the Italian Red Brigade, and the Japanese Red army, as well as the early days of the PLO. None of that saved them when their own people started wanting something communism couldn't offer them-- freedom and material goods. Iran's biggest weakness is its youth-- the 2/3 of the population born since the Iranian revolution, for whom the revolutionary rhetoric of Ayatollah Khomeini is as dead as the rhetoric of Lenin is to Russians, and who frankly resent the strictures of an Islamic society. What we should do IS trade with them. Our strongest weapons are McDonald's, Disney, Coca Cola and rock and roll. It really amazes me that conservatives, of all people, don't realize this, and insist that the only way to take down a regime like that in Tehran is by armed invasion, instead of planting the 'poison pill' of freedom and materialism, by means of open trade agreements.

As a Liberal it is amazing to me that I'm posting on a conservative blog, and I can see things that used to be common sense to conservatives-- before the neo-cons took over anyway.