Musings on Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran

• Why did Olmert change his mind about taking out Hezbollah? It seems he was preparing for a full scale occupation of Southern Lebanon when he started taking out the infrastructure -- ports, airports, major highways/bridges from Syria in the north. He had already paid the price of destabilizing the Lebanese government, economy, etc, when he decided to limit Israel's attack to a blanket of airstrikes instead of facing a ground/guerrilla war. Why? I don't for a minute believe it was political pressure or "media bias" in reporting... since when does Israel not do what Israel needs to do despite world opinion? Were they surprised by Hezbollah's ability to fight back? Hezbollah was able to lob missiles clumsily into Israel, not with any real accuracy but far enough over the border to ensure that an occupied zone in the South would need to be wide and well controlled to keep Israel safe. Did they determine that there was no longer a benefit to occupation? Did they fear a pro-Syrian government coup in Lebanon that would result in Lebanon/Syria joining forces against them? This seems unlikely, too, as Syria itself is not an undefeatable military presence and doesn't bring much to the table.

• Why did Bush change his tune so dramatically? He unabashedly gave the green light to Israel and publicly supported the attack... why the sudden about-face and frantic efforts toward ceasefire? Was it because he was left holding the bag politically once Olmert hesitated to move forward with a ground invasion? Or did Bush and Israel share a strategic change of heart when they better understood Hezbollah's military capability? I'm sure there wasn't much appeal in endless occupation and endless guerrilla warfare where neither of those things would leave Israel any safer than it already was. Whoa... deja vu!
  

• If the whole point of Hezbollah's existence is to kill Jews then why have they been operating so far below the radar? I mean, if they've been sitting on the missile capability to take out ships in the gulf and hit inside Israel, why have they been so relatively quiet over the past six years? Just a few forays over the border on isolated terror missions to keep up troop morale but not much else. It seems they were not expecting the response they got from Israel and weren't trying to provoke it. So why are they sitting quietly on all that weaponry, anyway? If the weapons are a gift from Iran for Jew killings, wouldn't they be expected to actually use them to kill Jews? Or are they playing a more complex role for Iran in the region?
  

• Hezbollah has been bankrolling huge social programs in the South and even now is committing large amounts of money to the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon and working with the residents directly. Unspecified funding... probably Iran, taking care of its own Shiite brotherhood, buying their support. Hearts and minds.

• We can't keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands forever. The genie has been out of the bottle since 1945 and too many countries share the secret recipe. My own personal theory is that Iran already has nukes. Not homemade... probably store-bought from the fallen Soviet Union. Iran's threat to us won't be nuclear. Just like every other country knows, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. They can take out Tel Aviv, they can take out Chicago, New York, Washington, and LA, they can take out London and Paris and Rome. They can hit directly with missiles or via a dirty bomb in a subway. But in the end, nothing will be left in the Middle East but a sheet of glass covering an oil swamp. I think they just want to be players and I think they're enjoying playing us.
  

• People should learn to be more interested in the Shia Crescent in general and less afraid of Iran's nuclear potential. Most Middle Eastern countries have a relatively sane government (albeit corrupt and/or dictatorial) and a relatively crazy population segment (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc). Governments are focused on their own self-preservation; the crazies are focused on their own disaffectedness. The disaffected Shiite populations stretching from Iran to Syria are starting to figure out that they have plenty in common among them. The Iraqi and Lebanon Shiite have their own militias and the Iranian Shiite have their own state (the Shia in Syria are still a minority). With someone charismatic to lead them they could begin to establish themselves as a powerhouse in the region. Would they seek legitimacy by changing borders to better align with their cultural identity? If so, would there be clashes within the Arab vs Persion Shiite factions first to establish dominance, and then with the regional non-Shiite populations? And then would they be ready to take on Israel or the West?