THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, May 31, 2013


If there’s one thing Bashir al-Assad’s enemies hate more that al-Assad, it’s Israel. Recently al-Assad has been quoted as saying that “The Syrian government will not stand in the way of any Syrian groups that want to wage a war of resistance to liberate the Golan”. Since Israel regards the Golan Heights as part of Israel, then Israel is likely to regard any attack against the Golan Heights as an attack against all of Israel.

With Hezbollah now quite openly supporting al-Assad and the Russians apparently sending the Syrian government sophisticated air defence missiles and other more advanced and accurate ballistic weapons, the power balance has shifted from al-Assad adopting a defensive mode to, at least, a deterrent mode. If, indeed, al-Assad does have the weapons he claims, then Israel would think twice about attacking Syria. However, al-Assad – even if he didn’t have a full-blown civil war to deal with – is in no military position to take on Israel and win.

Israel’s main consideration would be its home front. Even a minor tactical strike against Syria now would be fraught with danger. Unlike a few weeks ago when Israel attacked various weapon depots in Syria, any new attack against Syria under the new circumstances might trigger a response that Syria was not capable of then. And once the first salvos are fired against Israel, they could signal the beginning of a massive barrage of missiles into Israel from both Syria and Hezbollah that could weaken Israel’s resolve to continue fighting considerably despite Israel being militarily far superior than its enemies.

It may well be at this point that al-Assad’s enemies in Syria might see an opportunity to attack their long-time traditional enemy; Israel. Such a move would certainly relieve the pressure on al-Assad as far as the civil war is concerned.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013


For decades the resolution to the Palestine-Israel conundrum has proved elusive and the reason for that has been staring us in the face for years. The fact is; the elitists of both sides want all of the lands that were once Palestine and that are now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for their respective selves. The Zionists want all of the lands – and then some – in order to realise their dream of creating a Greater Israel while on the other side of the coin there are some elitist Palestinians who want a nation free of all Jews. These are both ‘one state for one people’ options.

That’s two options; what of the other two?

The ‘two-states for two peoples’ option has for years been the most talked about by both sides – and most of the international community – but, despite concerted efforts, the Israelis have demanded too much for the Palestinians to concede to. Over the years the Israelis have taken over lands that were earmarked to become part of a Palestinian state. Now there is little left for the Palestinians to call a ‘state’. But still the option gets pushed by some.

In the middle, of course, are the ordinary people of the region, both Jews and Arabs, who just want a peaceful life free of fear and full of opportunity – which brings us to option four, the only real and ultimately viable option, the One-State solution, though it may only come about after the others have failed.

There is now so little of the West Bank in Palestinian hands that there is no chance of building a viable sovereign state with what’s left. Israeli settlers have taken over the choicest tracts of land to build their settlements on and the roads and associated corridors that link them have denied or restricted the Palestinian people freedom to move around what is left of their lands. The Israeli settlements are now so entrenched and so populated that they are past any point of being reversed. They are also so large that any ‘land swap’ deal is well beyond reality. Annexation, while being demanded by the settlers, would likely trigger a third and far more vicious Intifada that could, in turn, trigger a regional war not to mention the wrath of the international community.

At long last some influential Palestinians have arrived at the view that realises that the two-states-for-two-peoples solution is just never going to happen and that the only viable long term solution is going to be the One-State solution that allows Jews and Arabs to live free and as equals in a land that is one from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west and from the Lebanese border in the north to the Sinai border in the South.

The push for a One-State solution needs the support of all Palestinians and, of course, the international community including the UN. It’s going to be long and hard road ahead especially trying to convince those elitists that still envisage one for or another of the other options. None of those others are ever going to happen. It’s just a matter of time before everyone realises that.

Friday, May 24, 2013



In a speech to the National Defense University yesterday outlining his new policies regarding the use of drones in targeted killings US President Obama told his audience;

…before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana'a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

At least Obama is admitting – contrary to CIA director John Brennan’s claims that no civilians have been killed in drone strikes – that there are civilians being killed in these attacks though he is inferring that civilian deaths are not as high as some are reporting (though the Human Rights Institute are saying that some non-government reports are actually under-reporting the numbers) suggesting that the people of the world should believe US assessments rather than ‘non-governmental reports’. (Why would anyone want to believe ‘US assessments’ after the Iraq WMDs fiasco?)

Obama goes on to say that the civilian deaths will ‘haunt him’ and all those involved in the killings for ‘as long as we live’. This is unadulterated and utterly transparent garbage. Obama and his willing killers that operate the drones couldn’t care less about the civilian casualties. They do it time and time again. Thousands of civilians have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan alone and each time Obama thinks it’s enough just to say; ‘Sorry. We didn’t mean it. We’ll do our best to ensure it doesn’t happen again’, but, of course, it does happen again – and again, and again. Obama then sinks to new low levels of rhetoric by resorting to the use of moral relativism as he attempts to justify civilian deaths by saying that the ‘enemy they are targeting also kill civilians’.

The reality is that Obama and the US kill the enemy off battlefield simply because they can and they really are not in the slightest bit concerned about the civilian deaths except inasmuch that it may adversely effect public opinion; hence the attempts at justification. What doesn’t seem to have been thought through yet is the possibility that America’s enemy may one day have the same ability to kill by remote control. What then when scores of American citizens die when the enemy makes an attempt to assassinate an American political or military leader via a remotely controlled weapon?

Thursday, May 23, 2013


The so-called ‘war on terror’ is now seen for what it really is; a euphemism for a war against Islam. It began as a war fuelled by Western greed and power as European colonialists divided and conquered Islamic lands in order to plunder their riches. The war about religion and beliefs had long run its earlier course during the Crusades. By the nineteenth and twentieth century it was no longer about religion; it was about oil. Today it has come full circle; it’s still about oil, as well as regional control and hegemony, but for those that resent the West’s intrusion into their lands and the plundering of their wealth, religion has become the means rather than the reason for their determination to fight back.

As Europeans and Americans colonised and controlled Islamic lands through war and influence so Islamic peoples, many of them fleeing the war poverty colonialists had brought to them, searched for a better life in the West. But, wherever they went to settle in Western lands, racism was all that greeted them. Even those that had converted to Christianity were not immune from attack. Colour alone was enough to cause abuse. Anti-discrimination laws needed to be enacted in a bid to stop racism but it was never enough. The abuse continued and in the sixties many African-Americans and those of West Indian and African descent in Europe began to turn to Islam as they rejected Western abuse.

Then 9/11 happened. The West’s ‘war on terror’ was soon seen as a war against Islam. Islam in Europe and the US at first rejected the violence the West accused the Muslim extremists of committing but then those Muslims in the West became victimised themselves by the communities they lived in. While wars raged in the Middle East and Central Asia, hatreds fuelled by resentments have now boiled over into the streets of Europe and America. And fuelling the resentments is a mainstream media full of racists dedicated to stirring up hatreds by relentlessly demeaning and marginalising Muslims that live in the West.

Wanton acts of extreme violence by those that profess to be Muslims are held up as being typical of all Muslims. Their violence is used to promote more hatred and so the cycle of violence and hatreds are perpetuated.

The recent violence in the West by radicalised Muslims – the Boston bombings; the riots in Sweden; the horrific hacking to death of a soldier on London’s streets – are all as a result of the West’s media promoting Western exceptionalism and demonising Islam.

Rupert Murdoch’s various mainstream media outlets have all played a major role in the promotion of these hatreds. In the US commentators at Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal have contributed to the hatred; in the UK Murdoch’s Sun and The Times newspaper have made their contribution to inspire hatred. In Australia racists like Tim Blair (read the comments that accompany this lunatics propaganda) and Piers Akerman at Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph in Sydney (who even tried to blame the Victorian bushfires of 2009 on Islamists), and Andrew Bolt at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun in Melbourne have all sought to promote hatred of Islam throughout the West. Their hatreds inspire revenge. These hate merchants at Murdoch’s online papers open their columns to comments from people who are attracted to this kind of Islamophobic racism. For the most part dissenting comments are not tolerated.

As a result, the worldwide anti-Islam movement is growing. The extreme right-wing racist neo-Nazi English Defence League has already organised anti-Islam demonstrations as a reaction to the slaying of a British soldier in London yesterday.

As the hatreds of each side feed off each other, so the violence associated with those hatreds grow. Provocations by the right-wing arm of the mainstream media, mostly belonging to Murdoch, do nothing to relieve the problem; they only fuel the hatreds that radicalise people from both sides.  

Friday, May 17, 2013


The interference by Israel in the civil war in Syria may have outcomes that Israel may not want – or, on the other hand, perhaps they do. Either way, they’re taking a risk that could draw in Israeli citizens as casualties.

By attacking Syria with air strikes on weapons which the Israelis say were bound for Syria’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and doing so while flying in Lebanese airspace, Israel is clearly deliberately provoking both Hezbollah and Syria.

If Israel attacks Syria again and Syria decides to retaliate then a whole new war front will open up which could possibly be a game-changer for the region.

At the moment, as vicious as the civil war is, it is still little more than an extremely violent sectarian squabble. However, while the two sides despise each other, the reality is that both sides hate Israel even more. While there are many foreign fighters now siding with the rebels in Syria, the vast majority of fighters on both sides are Syrian and, regardless of their allegiances in the civil war, they have not forgotten that the Golan Heights were taken from then by the Israelis.

Apparently, Bashir al-Assad has already given the go-ahead to Hezbollah to attack Israel in the Golan Heights if Israel attacks Syria again. Palestinian’s in Lebanon and Syria would also join Hezbollah forces in fighting Israel to win back the Golan Heights. Since most Palestinians are Sunni and Hezbollah are Shia then the divide between the two maybe bridged to fight the common enemy allowing fighters of both sides in Syria to call a truce to fight Israel.

This, of course, will lead to all-out war between Israel and all of it enemies that are at its borders which could lead to many civilian deaths on both sides. It would quickly escalate to draw in other enemies beyond its borders, including Iran, with the possibility of jihadists of all persuasions getting the call and flocking to fight Israel. This, in turn will lead to the US coming to Israel’s aid.

Who knows where it will go from there.     

Thursday, May 16, 2013


Israel bombed Syria on 2 and 5 May 2013 and the next day, as the world waited for a reaction from Syria, Hezbollah and Iran, the US began a massive war exercise in the Persian Gulf close to Iran. Since President Obama has said that the US was in ‘very close contact with Israel’, it is clear that both the Israeli raids on Syria and the US military exercise in the Gulf were planned to coincide.

Unfortunately for the warmongers in the West, neither Syria, Hezbollah nor Iran took the bait. Despite this, Israel has said that it will try again to provoke its enemies warning that Israel may again bomb targets in Syria and further warning that Syria had better not ‘react’ otherwise Israel will ‘retaliate’. The warning that Syria had better not react comes after Syria earlier warned that it would indeed retaliate if it was attacked again by Israel.

While Bashir al-Assad is in no position to unleash a war against Israel while fighting a civil war at home, Israel hopes that al-Assad’s ally, Hezbollah, will be goaded into launching a retaliatory attack against Israel thus providing a casus belli for Israel to attack Hezbollah and invade south Lebanon. Israel has made it quite clear that, despite bombing munitions on Syrian dirt, Israel’s beef is actually with Hezbollah. In fact, a war with Syria at this stage would not at all be in Israel’s interest since it would likely unite, albeit fleetingly, the warring factions fighting in the civil war in order to fend off Israel who both sides regard as the greater enemy. Israel would not want to take on Hezbollah and Hamas and also have Syria to deal with as well. As for Iran, Israel is hoping that the US will deal with Iran just as soon as Israel comes under attack from Hezbollah with munitions supplied by Iran.

Israel seems determined to provoke war and, while it may seem as though Obama is sitting on the sidelines, in light of the massive military exercise not far from Iran’s coast it’s obvious that in fact Obama really does have ‘Israel’s back’.

Sunday, May 12, 2013


No one could be blamed for being confused about what’s happening in the Middle East these days. The affairs of the Middle East are as complex today as they ever have been. On the one hand we see Sunni Muslims fighting Shiite Muslims and on the other we see both Sunnis and Shiites wanting to get at Israel. And now, so it seems, we see Israel playing one side off against the other in a civil war in Syria while at the same time preparing to take on both.

The problem as far as Israel is concerned is that the lands that the Zionists want to occupy in order to realise their ultimate endgame of creating a Greater Israel are currently occupied by both Sunni Arabs (in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) and Shiite Arabs (in south Lebanon).

In order to understand what’s going on it may help if we analogise the situation by comparing what for many is the mysterious world of Islam with the more familiar, for Westerners, Christian world.

In the Western world we have Christianity consisting essentially of two main groupings; Catholic and Protestants. Within those two main groups there are several sub groups or sects each having varying degrees of belief intensity and commitment to belief. Occasionally these various groups, for various reasons, end up fighting each other. In recent times the troubles in Ireland are a classic example of Catholics and Protestants fighting each other but it’s nothing new – indeed, Catholics and Protestants in Europe have been fighting each other for nearly five hundred years. Yet, despite their seemingly insurmountable differences, when their shared homelands are threatened by another country, even when that other country is also populated by peoples of both religions, they forget their differences and come together to defend their homelands or fight for their country’s cause. The two world wars in Europe in the twentieth century are examples of this when Catholics and Protestant together on both side fought each other for their respective nation’s causes.

The differences the Sunnis and the Shiites have between each other have been around ever since the two went their separate ways following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 when the two groups polarised over who would succeed with the religions authority. Over the centuries geography and circumstances in history has seen the Sunni movement become the dominant group with almost 90% of the world’s Muslims being Sunni.

Just like all religions, both sects of Islam have within their ranks those that strictly adhere to their own often fundamental interpretations of their respective religions which occasionally even contradict or at least conflict with the mainstream of their beliefs. The fundamentalist interpretations of the Holy Koran by some adherents, coupled with the geo-political circumstances in various regions where Islam has come into conflict with the West, has led to a polarisation of Islamic political forces as modern secular Muslims clash with traditional more pious adherents.

These differences have allowed the West to exploit Islam’s sectarian conflicts in order pursue the West’s own interests. The West – by which I mean, in this case, Israel, the US and their allies – does this by manipulating the geo-political situation of the day to its best advantage. Rather than simply using brute force alone in order to attain their goals, the West, restricted by international norms of behaviour which the West purport others should stand by, use other influences to produce outcomes favourable to them. They supply finance and arms to selected nations and non-state players as the circumstances of the day might dictate – circumstances which might literally change overnight depending on which way the regional political winds are blowing at the time.

In order to analyse and understand what is happening today in the Middle East, one needs to be aware of what the endgame is for the players.

For Israel the endgame is simple; to realise their dream of creating a Greater Israel that consists of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and south Lebanon up to the Litani River and be surrounded by Arab countries that are pro-Western with non-theocratic secular governments willing, at least, to accept the fait accompli of the existence of the Israeli state.

On the other side of the coin are the Arab peoples who live next door to, and side by side with, Israel, many of whom the Israelis wish to displace in order to realise a Greater Israel. It is this that is at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East.

Israel’s birth in 1948 came at the expense of the Palestinian people that had lived there for centuries alongside Palestinian Jews. The influx of Jewish people, mostly from Europe after the Second World War, then forced the Palestinian Arabs to flee as the Zionists used violence to occupy what they believed are their God-given lands. Many Palestinian Arabs fled before the advancing Israelis while others were pushed out once the Israelis arrived. Those that resisted were either killed in battle or in some cases murdered after capture during a horrific period of ethnic cleansing. Many Palestinians sought refuge in neighbouring Arab countries including Lebanon, Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and Syria as well as throughout the world.

Between 1948 and today Israel has continued to embrace an expansionist policy aimed at ultimately creating a Greater Israel. Having provoked the 1967 war, the Israelis were able to occupy the Golan Heights, which they later annexed to Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Resistance to occupation in the Gaza Strip eventually led to Israeli withdrawal in September 2005 which resulted in more Israeli settlement building in the West Bank. Israeli Zionists are now seeking an opportunity to re-occupy the Gaza Strip with a view to ultimately expelling the Arabs, mostly refugees and their descendents,  that live there and annexing it to Israel. Hamas, a Sunni dominated organisation, currently govern the Gaza Strip and are resisting Israeli provocation and attempts to ghettoise and blockade the enclave.

Meanwhile, to the north of Israel is Lebanon. Close to the border with Israel in Lebanon is the Litani River whose waters the Israelis have had their eye on for decades. As a result, the Israelis have attempted on several occasions to find reasons to invade south Lebanon with a view to eventually annexing to Israel. Resisting Israeli advances on south Lebanon are Hezbollah. Hezbollah are a predominately Shiite Muslim organisation. They rely on other Shiite nations for support; hence their close ties with Iran and the Syrian government, both of which are also predominately Shiite. (Syrian President Bashir al-Assad belongs to the Alawite sect of Islam which is a branch of the Shiite group though some 74% of Syria's population is Sunni but mostly secular.)

While the Shiites are the minority Islamic grouping on the planet, they are potentially, at least at this moment of time, the most threatening to the Israelis. Hezbollah are extremely well organised, are a force, as Israel has already discovered, to be reckoned with, and have much influence in Lebanese politics. Iran, their main benefactors, is able to arm and equip Hezbollah with all that they need to give Israel a hard time. However, these supplies from Iran can only get to Hezbollah via a Syria controlled by al-Assad, hence Israel’s – and the US’s – determination to oust al-Assad.

Meanwhile, hardline Sunni Muslims are finding their power also growing. Radicalised by more than a decade of war against America in various theatres mainly in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa, young Sunni Muslims from all over the world are flocking to various causes wherever there is a fight on against the West. At the moment that fight is centred mainly in Syria (though there are plenty of other smaller wars going on elsewhere that foreign Islamic fighters are attracted to). This pan-Islamic jihad is driven mainly by the ideology of Shia thought and dreams of a theocratic government bound by Sharia law as an alternative to Western-style democracy and secular corruption. They see Israel as being a part of that corruption particularly as Israel is persecuting their Palestinian Sunni brothers. The upshot is; that both Shiites and Sunnis are Israel’s enemies but, of the two, the Shiite organisations are the more pressing to deal with.

What Israel is pressing for now is to provoke a confrontation that will involve Israel, the US and their allies taking on all of their enemies in one final all-out war. Certainly, the combined forces of Israel, the US and their allies have the wherewithal in terms of military power to take on Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran between them but the big questions are; how would such a confrontation be instigated and would it be supported by public opinion? However, the really big question is; how will Israel’s enemies react?

Israel cannot be certain what weapons Hezbollah actually has and, if Israel attacks, Hezbollah will almost certainly retaliate. Israel knows this and would therefore initiate their attack with a massive all-out pre-emptive strike against all of Hezbollah’s known weapon and communication centres and as many of its other institutions as possible. Likewise, Israel will launch a similar strike against Hamas. In both instances Israel will likely follow up with a full-on invasion of both the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon, possibly with US support, especially in Lebanon. The West Bank will likely also be fully occupied and the Palestine Authority’s governance suspended.

While Israel is busy dealing with its neighbours, the US will be taking on Iran with a devastating attack aimed at regime change by capitulation. Iran is far too big to invade and occupy and the US will rely on fire power alone to bring Iran to its knees and demand a government be installed that the US will approve of under threat of further devastation.

How will all this be initiated?

There are a whole range of scenarios that are possible. Much will depend on how the civil war in Syria progresses. If it looks, as indeed it does, that al-Assad is getting the upper hand against the rebels and the jihadists, then the US may decide to intervene, thus provoking Iran into some sort of response which, in turn, might trigger a direct retaliation by the US. The US already has its weaponry in place in the Gulf to take on Iran. Israel too might consider more strikes at Syria in order to further provoke Syria, Iran and Hezbollah – especially if they launch such attacks against Syria by over-flying Lebanese airspace.

What happens next is anybody’s guess, but one thing if for sure; whatever happens you can be quite sure that Israel will take full advantage of it to advance their agenda for a final confrontation against all of their enemies. And, despite President Obama seemingly being reluctant to go in to battle for Israel at the moment, you can be sure that when push comes to shove and the war is on, the US will be there doing Israel’s bidding.

The future for the Middle East does not look good – no matter what way one looks at it.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013


According to a report in the Washington Post an Israeli official has said “that their fight was not against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or the rebels fighting his regime but against the Lebanese political and militant organization Hezbollah…”

So I guess the US would have no problems then if the Syrians blew up a munitions storage facility inside the US in order to prevent them being transferred to Israel.

Arrogance and hypocrisy; the values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’.


For an interesting article on this very subject, have a read of this.

Monday, May 06, 2013


After the end of the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel when Israel attempted to destroy Hezbollah but miscalculated Hezbollah’s tenacity to resist, Hezbollah was rearmed by Iran via Syria. While some of those rockets are now stockpiled in Syria, many are in storage bunkers in south Lebanon. These new rockets are far more advanced than the ones Hezbollah used during the 2006 war.

The Israeli war against Hezbollah ended in humiliation for Israel since its war aims of both destroying Hezbollah and occupying south Lebanon up to the Litani River were never realised. Israel’s defeat was accompanied by international criticism about the way it conducted its war against the Lebanese people and particularly the deaths of so many Lebanese civilians.

In the intervening period Hezbollah has rearmed and regrouped and has sided with Bashir al-Assad in his fight against Syrian rebels and international jihadists. Iran also supports al-Assad. The resulting set of circumstances amidst the ongoing civil war in Syria has provided Israel with new opportunities to realise its long held ambitions of finding an excuse to take on all of its enemies. By attacking targets in Syria by over-flying Lebanon on the pretext that they are destroying weapons that may be transferred to Hezbollah, the Israelis hope to provoke retaliation from Hezbollah and/or Syria and Iran that would provide the Israelis with a casus belli to once again attack Hezbollah and all their other enemies with the ultimate aim of dragging the US to take on Iran.

Israel has a long history of pre-emptively attacking its enemies and, since Hezbollah still has its arsenal intact inside Lebanon, it may well be only a matter of time before the Israelis decide to attack Hezbollah again on the pretext that the volatile situation in Syria is too much of a risk to Israel security if the conflict spills into Lebanon. The chutzpah here, of course, is that it was the attacks by Israel on Syria from Lebanese airspace that has escalated the crisis – which, in turn, is just what Israel wanted.

Israel is unlikely to make the same mistakes as it made in the 2006 war which was to grossly underestimate Hezbollah’s ability to resist an Israel attack. The world can expect to see an attack on Lebanon of such voracity that it could trigger other conflicts around the region. There will be no half measures from the Israelis as they attack in full force using everything they have. However, the one thing they don’t seem to have just yet is the full blessing of the US though it does seem as this may be only a matter of time. Clearly, the attacks against Damascus recently have had the full blessing of Obama so clearance to attack Hezbollah may not be too far away.

Once again the prospect of a full-on confrontation with Iran and all of Israel’s enemies looms on the horizon. The people of the world should take to the streets and demand an end to Israel’s folly and America’s subservience to Israel’s ambitions.

Sunday, May 05, 2013


It’s clear that Israel’s strategy is to use the Syrian Civil War to deliberately provoke Hezbollah. The provocation is designed to goad Hezbollah into retaliation for over-flying Lebanon while on their way to apparently destroy weapons that the Israelis say are bound for Hezbollah.

The strategy has worked before. In 2006 the Israelis flew low level high speed jet sorties over Lebanon. Hezbollah responded by launching rockets into Israel. The situation then quickly escalated when the Israelis prepared reconnaissance patrols into south Lebanon. This resulted in an Israeli patrol unit being attacked close to the Lebanese border when three Israelis were killed and two others taken either dead or mortally wounded. The result was a war that the Israelis hoped would put an end to Hezbollah once and for all. However, Hezbollah turned out to be far more tenacious than the Israelis imagined and the war ended when the US under Bush and Condoleezza Rice were no longer able to support Israeli aggression due to international pressure to stop the war as hundreds of Lebanese civilians were being killed. 44 Israeli civilians were killed and 121 Israeli military personnel died. While many Lebanese civilians lost their lives and there was horrendous damage done to Lebanon’s infrastructure, Israel, considering its war aims were to destroy Hezbollah and occupy south Lebanon up to the Litani River, suffered a humiliating defeat. Now the Israelis are trying a different tack except this time their war aims are far grander and they hope to include the US.

The Israelis are clearly hoping that Hezbollah Syria and Iran will retaliate in some way to Israeli provocation. So far, Hezbollah have resisted the temptation to launch any anti-aircraft missiles at Israeli aircraft overflying Lebanon and/or launch rockets against Israel in an attempt to deter Israel from further aggression.

As for Israel’s claims that their raids against weapons dumps in Syria are aimed at preventing weapons from reaching Hezbollah, this too is simply part of an overall strategy designed to demonise the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance for propaganda purposes for when a wider regional war breaks out. It also provides a reasonable casus belli for when such a full on regional war does break out. The fact is, there would be no way that President al-Assad would want to provoke Israel by allowing any WMDs to be transferred to Hezbollah and Israel knows this. There is also no way that al-Assad would want to incur America’s wrath by using chemical weapons against anyone. Again, the Israelis know this. Yet it is the Israelis that are pushing this to the very edge.

Israel is desperate to initiate a regional confrontation with all of their enemies that will allow them to pursue their territorial expansionist ambitions which will result in the long term in realising their dreams of a Greater Israel. There are a number of doors through which Israel can pass through in order to kick off their long sought after war. The civil war in Syria is just another door.  

Saturday, May 04, 2013


Israel has launched attacks against Syria in a clear attempt to escalate the war to bring in the US and their allies the UK and France.

Not only have air strikes been made on as yet undisclosed targets in Syria, but the Israelis flew to their weapons launch points (apparently the Israeli aircraft didn’t actually enter Syrian airspace but used stand-off weapons) after flying in Lebanon airspace in an attempt to provoke Hezbollah as well as the Syrian government.

The strike comes at a point in the war when Israel has accused al-Assad forces of using chemical weapons. Israel is hoping that Obama will believe the Israelis and make good on his promise that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians would be a ‘red line’ as far as the US are concerned. So far, Obama isn’t biting. The Israelis seem to think they can shove the US along a bit by showing in effect that, if the US won’t do anything about Syria’s ‘WMDs’, then they will. And, just to rub salt into the crisis, they’ll do it over Hezbollah’s heads.

It’s unlikely that this alone will spark off a regional war that Israel seeks, but it’s certainly a step in that direction.