why lebanon, why now – and what it might mean for iran

Still no time to blog, but I wanted to pass along this link to Seymour Hersh’s new piece on Lebanon. Here’s a clip:

“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House “has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a pre

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Ted Glass
    Posted August 14, 2006 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Juan Cole on the Hersh article:


  2. egpenet
    Posted August 14, 2006 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    No official Government could attack Israel without severe consequences. And Israel is not the only “target.” Clearly, Jordanians and Palestinians, though not direct targets, are expendable.

    The Christians, who Lebanon was originally designed to protect, are a non-issue, most having left for other parts of the world (Toledo, et. al.)

    Note that Hezbollah has yet to attack or pinpoint any military targets in Israel with their rockets. All … every single firing … has been at civilian sites.

    Meanwhile, Syria will hold Lebanon’s hands behind its back, while Iran arms Hezbollah with hundreds more rockets with range capabilities to terrorize all of Israel.

    After this current “exercise,” Hezbollah will retreat into Syria, if need be. The Lebanon will remain unsecured, albeit with a U.N. peacekeeping force in place … if the truce holds.

    Long-range, (5 years or less), Iran’s plan is to re-arm Hezbollah with more missles and unvonventional warheads. The next round, whether next month or in five years will be the ultimate attack upon Israel.

    And despite the fact that the world will know Syria and Iran were behind it all … there will be no target, no standing army, no trenches of uniformed soldiers with whom to do battle.

    Israel knows all of this and is fighting back hard now, despite negotiations, to attempt to render Hezbollah a fatal blow. The world says “Israel is hitting back rightfully but with too much ferocity.” The world really doesn’t see the writing on the wall.

    Moreover,in my opinion, the world doesn’t care. The world by and large seems to agree with Mel Gibson. Besides, the world has other issues (Iran itself, Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Global Warming, Tsunami’s, Africa, Aids, etc.).

    From a military or even police action, the world can and/or will do nothing until Israel is attacked with dirty warheads. And then, who will be the enemy? Who will answer for what could be another Chernobyl, this time of exponentially greater magnitutde?

  3. ol' e cross
    Posted August 14, 2006 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    NPR’s Democracy Now show recently had a couple stories on the crisis.

    One was an interview with Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallahwhere he was asked about Hezbollah’s strategy to free Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. This was his response:

    “The only possible strategy is for you to have Israeli prisoners … and then you negotiate with the Israelis in order to have your prisoners released … You have two options, either to have these prisoners or detainees remain in Israeli prisons or to capture Israeli soldiers.”

    Democracy Now also has a transcript of a debate between Norman Finkelstein and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami that discusses Israel

  4. Ted Glass
    Posted August 14, 2006 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the links, T.G. and Ol’ E. C.

  5. oliva
    Posted August 14, 2006 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Ol’ E. Cross, I saw Ambassador Peck (your link #1) that day he was interviewed on Democracy Now! and was absolutely grateful for his good sense and reasonableness and knowledge. Do appreciate his remarks about the official U.S. definition of international terrorism, which, as he pointed out, includes the United States and Israel. And to think he was a Reagan appointee.

    Anyway, thank you. (Peck should be a staple on CNN, ABC, and the others–ah, but there I go dreaming of a righteous country, and mainstream media, again.)

    Gore and Feingold in 2008!

  6. oliva
    Posted August 15, 2006 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    The Arab-American Institute has a really worthwhile piece on “The Question of Palestine” at:

    Raw Story has a link today to a UK Independent piece about “America’s one-eyed view of [the] war [in Lebanon]”:

  7. Ted Glass
    Posted August 15, 2006 at 1:19 pm | Permalink


    Don’t access the President of Iran’s blog from Isreal. If you do, you might get a virus. True?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.