Last week, I wrote about the Israeli public’s preparation for one aspect of a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities: the vast threat of Iran’s likely response, which would begin with thousands of rockets from Hezbollah’s stronghold in southern Lebanon. At this point, most of Israel is within range of rockets from either Lebanon or Gaza, though the rockets in Lebanon are more advanced and more numerous, and defended by a better-trained and more resilient terrorist organization.
Today, former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens tackles what this means in practical terms for Israeli military strategy, and concludes that Israel should attack south Lebanon before a Western attack on Iran’s nuclear installations:
What is certain is that we are facing a real and imminent danger to our civilian population. Hezbollah’s rockets are the Iranian nuclear project’s first line of defense. Is it not reasonable to attack that first line of defense before doing anything else? Should it not be made clear to one and all that Hezbollah’s armory of rockets in Lebanon must be dismantled? They are a weapon of terror, pure and simple, and they now stand guard over the preparation of the worst terror weapon of all – an Iranian nuclear bomb. If all agree that the world will not accept the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon, will it agree to the continued existence of the first line of defense guarding that weapon?…
Here, too, as in the case of the Iranian nuclear project, it would be preferable to do this without resorting to military action. The majority of Lebanon’s citizens are almost as interested as Israel is in dismantling Hezbollah’s armory of rockets. And Hezbollah, a terrorist organization and a supporter of Bashar Assad in Syria, has few friends aside from Iran in the world. A public campaign can be launched to send them the message that they must dismantle their rocket armory. It would exert pressure on them from other quarters of the world. And if that doesn’t work, there remains the military option. It is going to take some preparation, but it can be done. It needs to be done. First things first.
This may sound provocative, but Arens notes that if Hezbollah were allowed to unleash its missiles unabated the attack could easily result in hundreds of Israeli civilian casualties. Arens is wrestling with a very real question about the government’s responsibility to protect its citizenry from a known, expected threat. (We can assume Hezbollah won’t voluntarily disarm.) Of course, not only would an attack on Lebanon first inspire howling from the international community, it would also telegraph an attack on Iran. While such outrage from the international community probably won’t move the Israelis, it could increase public opposition in the United States to the main attack on Iran, thus endangering American support. But such international condemnation will come Israel’s way whether or not they attack Lebanon first, and neither the U.S. nor Israel is likely to be swayed much by it.
But there’s another element to this as well. The discussion of Hezbollah’s response to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities usually treats it as an inevitable consequence Israel would have to deal with. But the Iranians likely see it as much more. To Iran, Hezbollah’s response would have to be a centerpiece in a post-attack response designed to convince the West of the futility of trying to stop Iran’s quest for the bomb. If an attack only sets Iran’s nuclear schedule back a few years, the possibility of using military force to stop it again (and again) would represent an untenable proposition for the West if Iran was able to set the region on fire every time.
There would only be two ways for the West to prevent the regular outbreak of hostilities over Iran’s nuclear program if Iran’s leaders stay in power and resolve to continue their mission: let Iran have the bomb, and focus on “containment”; or hit Iran with a much more comprehensive military attack in the first place. Such an attack would be far more consequential, but also far more dangerous and unpredictable, than just dropping the bunker busters.
It’s fair to say the international community finds the latter idea abhorrent, and the U.S. and Israel consider the first option to be unacceptable. Perhaps Arens has just given the West a third option.
Perhaps not, but the response to a Hezbollah attack must be jaw-dropping. Something people will talk about in a hundred years. Erase them.
the question is whether Ehud Barak and the current military have improved their game sufficiently to mount an attack effective and coherent enough to destroy Hezbollah's assets utterly, rockets, infrastructure, troop concentrations, control and command, and into their political echelon; a tall order, as Israel has in recent decades based its northern campaigns on air-only or air-mostly strategies that are sub-par. But building on its improved Cast Lead experience, It would have to come in with sufficient ground force and air cover to drive a wedge into Lebanon and secure it for massed artillery to direct continuous area fire against Hezbollah targets and emplacements, and then sweep the line forward to gain additional ground and additional range of fire, and then secure and sweep forward again–all the while sustaining separate operations against Iranian nuclear facilities 500 mi away. without, theoretically, support, logistical or otherwise from the United States. n na very difficult order of battle
Yes. Prove to them that Allah sides with the Jews.
Erase them, Empress Trudy? An honest advocate of genocide is apparently welcome on the Commentary site. Lest anyone forget, Hezbollah arose in the wake of Israel's invasion of Lebanon when that country's Shia, after welcoming Israeli troops who they believed would get the PLO out of their hair–and go home, began to treat the Shia as they did the Palestinians, in a word, sadistically. 18 years later with 1000 soldiers dead and scores more wounded, Israel withdrew its forces. n nIn 2006, an Israeli army that hadn't had guns pointed at it in years, found Hezbollah to be more than its match in the 34 days of that war and it is not likely that those who fought there are anxious to do it again. n nIt should be mentioned, in case Moshe Arens hadn't noticed, that in the last Lebanese election that Hezbollah, allied with three Christian parties, gained 55% of the popular vote so his statement that "The majority of Lebanon’s citizens are almost as interested as Israel is in dismantling Hezbollah’s armory of rockets" is pure nonsense. In fact, as former Lebanese President and General Michel Aoun has said, Hezbollah's weapons provide the country's only defense against Israeli aggression.
Yes and the 3rd Reich swept into office in a legitimate election that Jimmy St. Carter himself would certify. To say nothing of the mobs shouting themselves hoarse electing such luminaries as Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Enver Hoxha. Leftists seem thrilled at the pictures of purple fingers don't they?
You sound like the Kaiser sending his troops to China during the Boxer Rebellion. n nJews should not talk about erasing people, no matter how wicked.
Oh I'm sorry let's adopt the leftist prose and qualify that in carefully couched phrases of "the 'Hezbollah-ists'". And then let's whine and pout and scream and affect outrage and claim we were horribly misconstrued and mistranslated because after all 'erase' is an ineffable term in English and what was really meant was 'throw flowers and candies at them'. n nWould that work for you?
Another benefit of an Israeli attack on Hezbollah: as a prelude to an attack on Iran itself, it might make such an attack less necessary. The biggest obstacle to getting Iran to budge has been its belief that it wouldn't be attacked. Attacking Hezbollah might shake Iran of that thinking.
The problem with attacking Hezbollah but not Iran is that Iran can continue its quest for nuclear weapons. The end game is the elimination of nuclear arms from Iran. Hezbollah is part of the equation, but eliminating the threat from Hezbollah is not sufficient. Iranian nuclear weapons must be eliminated; anything else falls terribly short.
Should Israel, or the U.S. plus Israel, launch strikes against Iran there will be a three front confrontation. The first is with Iran, the second is with Hezbollah, and the third is with Hamas. There could even be a fourth with Egypt given how the Muslim Brotherhood is taking hold of that country and its military. n nHamas has faced Israel and survived. Same for Hezbollah. If Israel is serious, she will have to pound Hamas and Hezbollah without regard to world opinion. There is no other option here because Iran will insist that these two terrorist organizations pound Israel. Israel will also, if she goes it alone, have to strike Iran. This is why Israel is so reluctant to strike and has been putting it off. The costs will be high. n nIran presents a major challenge to Israel's military and to her people. Both will have to prepare for it. And by the way, preparations and troop movements to do these jobs mean that there will be no surprises. Everyone will know about the decision before there is any action. The troop movements and preparations of these sizes will be tremendous and are not concealable.
The preemptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas, would probably be carried out simultaneously with the attack on Iran. The notion that the attack on Iran would only delay their acquisition of atomic weapons is not really very important. Presumably, the Iranian regime, if it survives such an attack by Israel, would bolster it's defenses in preparation for a subsequent attack. But such a subsequent attack, if necessary, would also be increased in severity. To ultimately the nuclear and thus final level. Hopefully, before this occurs, this despotic regime will be destroyed peacefully or violently, but totally, from internal rebellion. We do not need a Hitlerian redux (not completely over yet) here.
lets not get carried away in multiplying fronts in a multi-front war, an engagement with Hamas is not inevitable. sadly Israel cannot attack Iran without attacking Hezbollah if Hezbollah responds which means a two-front war minimally, and Israel's last performance in Lebanon was mediocre and unfocused.
it's not the materiel the Israelis lack, it's the will. they take only halfway measures. Operation Cast Lead, for instance. they pulled back and stopped before they'd completely vanquished the enemy. I mean, I feel slightly stupid sitting here in my comfortable American home, telling Israel its business, but they have to not care so much about "world opinion," because world opinion sure doesn't care about them. n nIsrael will never catch a break. everybody will condemn them no matter what they do. but much of the world will also be thanking the Israelis privately, just like they did after Israel decimated Syria's nuclear facilities (and aren't we glad about THAT now!)
Ahrens is a great man, but this idea is bad.
A variant of "Prisoner's Dilemma" – but with real life consequences rather than just gaming theory.
Fully agree with M A. nIL will find the solutions. nNo need 4 outsourcing!
While there is no question but that Hezbollah's standing has suffered in the Middle East because of its backing of Assad, it apparently has been more outside of Lebanon than within it since it still has the backing of a substantial segment of the Maronite population as well as the Druze who have had no problem with Syria in recent years and fear the consequences of a potentially Salifist Sunni ascendancy not only across its borders but in the area north of Beirut. n nIt is obvious you have never been in Lebanon and, if you were in the IDF, never saw a day of combat and you seem to know even less about that country. But if you are so gung-ho to take on Hezbollah, it might be time to volunteer your services to do just that. It's not hard to do if your willing. Otherwise….