[Marxism] What the hell has happened to the Israeli army?

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Wed Aug 16 13:42:45 MDT 2006

Yoshie wrote:

> > On 8/14/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:

> > So why haven't they bombed Iran yet, if the outcome is so "immaterial"
> > to
> > them?

>The deadline for stopping nuclear enrichment is 31 August 2006.  Then,
>another UN SC resolution.  Washington is unlikely to try anything
>military before that, at least.  It is said that they are assembling a
>UN force for Lebanon at a greater speed than usual:
The haste in assembling a UN force in Lebanon has more to do with ensuring
that the ceasefire holds than with preparing an attack on Iran. If they were
interested in the latter, you would expect: a) the Israelis, with US
support, to be consolidating their position in south Lebanon for use as a
staging base against Syria and Iran b) leading politicians like Bush and
Olmert to be declaring there was "unfinished business", ie. military
business, to take care of relation to Iran's "forward batallions", ie.
Hezbollah, and c) Hezbollah, supported by Iran, to be resisting a one-sided
ceasefire it understood to be a preparation for a wider regional war.

Instead: a) the Lebanese and UN member states led by France are making plans
to replace Israeli units which have started pulling back across the border,
b) both Olmert and Bush have publicly declared "victory" against Hezbollah,
which is what politicians normally do when they want to prepare their public
for political moves from a purported position of "strength" rather than a
military escalation, and c) Hezbollah, with reservations, has accepted the
ceasefire on the understanding it will, with cosmetic adjustments, continue
to be the armed power in south Lebanon.

That's how things appear right now, at any rate.
>How terrible the sanctions will be depends on Moscow and Beijing,
>concerns about oil prices, etc.

Someone from inside the administration - can't remember who offhand - said
the other day that sanctions will be "light", meaning the oil supply is not
likely to be affected, which no one wants to see for their own reasons. Then
again, they may impose tough sanctions to show they mean business about
limiting Iran's nuclear program, and then look for ways to circumvent them
in practice.
>...it is far from clear that Tel Aviv and Washington
>won't emerge victorious over Iran...

60-40 says they will have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear
deterrent, as the US did in the Cold War and is now having to do with North
Korea, especially when Iran's deterrent is still only on the drawing board
and the Israelis will retain a much bigger nuclear arsenal for a long time
to come. I think they have real doubts about their ability to knock out
multiple concealed nuclear sites, and real fears about the regional
consequences of a strike against Iran, especially in Iraq. So I think the
greater likelihood is they will come to rely more on political subversion
and coordinated Western economic incentives and threats to promote
"cooperation" and subsequent regime change from within.

More information about the Marxism mailing list