Hezbollah: Mission accomplished

Defying U.S., Hezbollah stronger than ever

[-] Text [+]

By Tom Perry - analysis

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah is set to achieve its long-held goal of winning the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel this week, emboldening the Iranian-backed group which has emerged even more powerful from recent conflicts.

Two years after standing its ground in a 34-day war with Israel, Hezbollah has reinforced its military wing and routed its U.S.-backed adversaries in Lebanon -- defying the United States, which sees it as a terrorist group and proxy of Tehran.

Hezbollah is now seeking reconciliation with its Lebanese rivals, hoping to cool sectarian tensions inflamed by its May takeover of Beirut. Those enmities could pose a threat to both the Shi'ite group and Lebanon if left unhealed.

"Hezbollah, far from being weakened in the 2006 war or in the subsequent political battles in Beirut, is stronger than ever," said Andrew Exum, a researcher on the group based at Kings College, London.

For Iran, the stature of a group established with the help of its Revolutionary Guards in 1982 is a great asset in its own confrontation with the United States and other powers over its nuclear ambitions and influence in the Middle East.

Hezbollah has replenished and expanded its arsenal since the 2006 war. Estimated to have received military and other aid worth several billion dollars from Iran, it is seen as one of the region's toughest fighting forces despite the February assassination of its commander, Imad Moughniyah.

Hezbollah brought some of its military power to bear on the streets of Beirut in May when it briefly took over Muslim areas of the city, effectively imposing its terms for an end to 18 months of political conflict with the governing coalition.

"Hezbollah is now certain that its position is guaranteed by the (Lebanese) military and the government," said Suleiman Taqieddin, a columnist with as-Safir newspaper, which is sympathetic to the opposition alliance led by Hezbollah.

A Qatari-mediated agreement after the street fighting met the main demands of Hezbollah and its allies -- a domestic triumph for a group which commands the loyalty of a majority of Lebanese Shi'ites, the country's biggest single community.

But the Doha settlement sidestepped many issues at the heart of conflict in Lebanon, including the fate of Hezbollah's arms. Having shaken off foreign and local pressure to disarm, nobody expects the group to give up its guns any time soon.

But with sectarian animosity at its worst since the 1975-90 civil war, Hezbollah's military clout is also a threat to the group's standing in the medium term, said Nabil Boumonsef, a columnist with the pro-governing coalition an-Nahar newspaper.

SEEKING RECONCILIATION

"In the same measure as Hezbollah is strengthened by its weapons, it is weakened internally because it inspires the fear of all. Weapons in Lebanon cause fear and will draw in more weapons," he said.

Seeking to ease tensions, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has stressed the need for reconciliation with rivals, the most prominent of whom is Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri.

Nasrallah has tried to use the prisoner swap with Israel that is expected to take place on Wednesday as a platform for internal rapprochement, calling it "a national accomplishment".

Hezbollah is to exchange two Israeli soldiers for five Lebanese said by Nasrallah to be the last held by Israel. The soldiers -- believed dead although Hezbollah has not said so -- were seized in a cross-border raid which sparked the 2006 war.

"This occasion is a unifying, national occasion," Nasrallah has declared.

But full reconciliation needs the support of Hariri and his foreign backers, including Saudi Arabia. The Sunni-ruled kingdom, which has its own Shi'ite minority and is concerned about the spread of Iranian influence, may not see acquiescing in Lebanon's new power balance as in its interest.

Even though a national unity government was formed last week after weeks of wrangling, sectarian tensions still smolder.

"Hezbollah's early May actions inflamed the Sunni 'street' in Lebanon and contributed to a dramatic increase in sectarian tensions," said U.S. Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald Kerr.

"Lebanon has seen an upswing of rearmament among all factions during the last year or more and the events of early May will no doubt increase this trend," he said in a May 29 address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"The way ahead in Lebanon is uncertain."

Original article posted here.

Brokering peace (without and despite the United States): Lebanon

What the Moron's Middle Eastern policy has created: a strong threat to Israel.

Did Hezbollah Thwart a Bush/Olmert Attack on Beirut?

A Sudden Case of Cold Feet

by Franklin Lamb

This week Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that 'Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese and it had wanted to take the government it could have done it,' He said Hezbollah, continued to pose a 'significant' threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory.'

Yadlin was putting it mildly.

But what Intelligence Chief Yadlin did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how 'significant' but also 'immediate' the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was he willing to divulge the fact that he received information via US and French channels that if the planned attack on Lebanon's capitol went forward that Tel Aviv was subject, in the view of the US intelligence community to 'approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day'.

The Israeli Intel Chief also declined to reveal that despite Israel's recent psyche-war camping about various claimed missile shields 'the State of Israel is perfecting', that this claim is being ridiculed at the Pentagon. 'Israel will not achieve an effective shield against the current generation of rockets, even assuming no technological improvements in the current rockets aimed at it, for another 20 years. And that assumes the US will continue to fund their research and development for the hoped for shields' according to Pentagon, US Senate Intelligence Committee, and very well informed Lebanese sources.

The planned attack on Beirut

According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the Bush administration initially green lighted the intended May 11 Israel 'demonstration of solidarity with the pro-Bush administration militias, some with which Israel has maintained ties since the days of Bashir Gemayal and Ariel Sharon.

In the end, 'the Bush administration got cold feet', a Congressional source revealed. So did Israel. Israel was not willing to proceed with the original Bush Administration idea which was to have Bush attend the May 15 Israel anniversary celebrations following the Israeli attack meant to hit Hezbollah hard, and give Bush the credit for coming to the dangerous region. The message was to be that Bush comes to the rescue 'on horseback and leads the US Calvary charge straight out of a B western movie where the bugle would sound and flag would be unfurled and the white hat good guys would show their stuff before riding into the sunset and back to Texas, leaving the results to the likely Obama administration to sort out.

The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.

Also presumably disturbing to Israel was the report it received that Hezbollah 'had once again in all probability hacked its 'secure' military intelligence communications and the fear that the information would be shared with others.

The Hezbollah rout of the militias in West Beirut plus the fear of retaliation on Tel Aviv, ruining 60th anniversary celebrations, forced cancellation of the supportive attack.

Israel limited its actions to sending two F-15's and two F-16's into as far North as Tyre, one more of literally hundreds of violations of Lebanese airspace, sovereignty and SCR 1701.

Clearly frustrated, Cabinet Minister Meir Sheetrit said Israel should not yet take any action now, but warned' those things could change if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon.' a few minutes earlier he had declared that Hezbollah had done just that and had treated the Lebanese army as a doormat.

Later in the Sunday cabinet meeting, Minister Ami Ayalon called for an emergency meeting of the political-security cabinet to discuss 'the ongoing crisis in Lebanon and why Israel was not assisting friendly forces.' Minister Yitzhak Cohen (Shas) said that 'Israel must immediately ask the [United Nations] Security Council to hold renewed discussions over resolution 1701.' The minister was referring to the resolution that stopped the Israeli actions against Lebanon during the 34-day between in 2006, maintaining a fragile cease-fire.

Finally Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert informed Israeli supporters in Lebanon, through the media, and presumbly other means that' Israel was following the violence in Lebanon closely, but would refrain from intervening. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio Sunday that Israel was prepared for the possibility that the situation in Lebanon will deteriorate into another civil war (meaning future opportunities for Israeli influence and interventon in Lebanon) and that the current fighting could end with a Hezbollah takeover of the government. 'We need to keep our eyes peeled and be especially sensitive regarding all that is happening there,' Vilnai told Army Radio.

The Bush administration, also disappointed, switched tactics and is opting for domination of the narrative of the fairly complicated events of the past week and using their media and confessional allies to launch a media blitz (minus Future TV for a few days} to flood the airways with:

· Hezbollah staged a coup d'état. Even Israel, if not the Bush administration, concedes Hezbollah has no interest in taking over the Government. (One observer, paraphrasing Winston Churchill's comment, deadpanned, 'Some Hezbollah Coup! Some Hezbollah Etat!')

· Hezbollah brought it forces from the South and occupied West Beirut: Hezbollah not only did not bring their forces from the South to Beirut (rather they remained on alert for an Israel attack down South)

· Hezbollah broke its pledge not to use Resistance arms against Lebanese militias and shot up West Beirut.

The facts are very different when viewed close up on the streets here.

When the Lebanese Resistance took the decision during the early hours of Friday morning to engage in civil disobedience, it delayed its actions so as not to preempt the Labor movement strike for higher wages which it supported. When the marching Strikers were prevented from moving into West Beirut the Opposition extended its civil disobedience manifestation.

Various militias, including the smartly outfitted Hariri 'Secure Plus' with its distinctive maroon tee-shirts and beige trousers, (now know locally by some as 'Secure Minus') a hoped for future Blackwater operation in Lebanon disintegrated surprisingly quickly because many of its green recruits brought down from Tripoli felt misled and betrayed regarding their job description as they were handed weapons an instructed to fight Hezbollah. Snipers from anti-Opposition factions killed civilians from rooftops in Beirut trying to ignite a civil war.

Hezbollah, acting in self defense, according to various officials, quickly clamped down on the trouble makers, took control of the streets, within hours handed them over to the army, and virtually evacuated West Beirut, retaining one position near Bay Rocks manned by unarmed representatives.

Meanwhile the Hariri influence has been greatly weekend in Akkar near the Palestinian Refugee camp of Nahr al Bared and in the Tripoli area. According to some political analysts, including, Fida'a Ittani, a regular columnist for the independent pro-opposition newspaper Al-Akhbar, wrote on May 14, the Future Movement, defeated in Beirut, no longer has any serious influence in the north.

Several Salafi al Qaeda admiring movements are present in Lebanon and like Fatah Islam's declaration this week that they will fight for the Sunnis, they vary in their attitudes from silent opposition to Future leader Saad Al-Hariri to fully supporting him as the leader of the Sunnis. These groups are valued by certain 'leaders' in Lebanon because are the only ones with coherent structures at the ideological, political, technical, and field levels.

Judging from Saad Hariri's confused statements at his subsequent news conference and statements by other parties, the bitterness of promised but unforthcoming assistance was evident.
For two days following the debacle of his forces imploding the head of the Future Movement said nothing. Finally on the 14th he broke his silence. The Halba massacre, committed by Hariri's Mustakbal militiamen which brutally and barbarically murdered 11 people from the opposition did not seem worthy of discussion as he spoke. In a press conference on Tuesday, Hariri simply ignored what all the Lebanese had seen on TV from weapons, ammunition and alcohol found in Future movement offices, and instead listed a series of delusions. 'We awaited an open war on Israel, and yet here is an open war on Beirut and its people' he stated. Some interpreted this rather odd statement either as a subconscious slip of the tongue on Hariri's part expressing his frustration that the Israelis help did not arrive or that his reported earlier incoherent state persisted.

Hariri's original speech was so confused that the Saudi channel al-Arabiyya stopped broadcasting it and only read excerpts from what he said, without showing his recorded speech.

When American criticism resumed, and Hezbollah fighters withdrew from the alleys surrounding his house, Hariri was urged to stand up and speak again, this time with a stronger tone, saying 'This has been decided by the Iranian and Syrian regimes that wanted to play a political game in Lebanon's streets. For us nothing has changed. We will not negotiate with someone having a pistol pointed to our heads.'

Anger at the Bush administration and Israel by certain warlords in Lebanon must feel much like the frustration of Secure Minus personal who rushed from Tripoli and felt misled, abandoned and cheated.

Franklin Lamb can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Original article posted here.

The Lebanese strife

A deadly miscalculation in Lebanon

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - The Lebanese government made a fatal underestimation of how far leaders of the Shi'ite group Hezbollah would go to preserve what they believe are their rights, such as an intelligence network and the freedom to carry weapons.

The result is at least 81 people dead in clashes across the country since violence erupted on May 6; a political and military victory for Hezbollah and Iran and a stinging setback for the government and Saudi Arabia.

The crises was sparked last week in Beirut when the government of Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora ordered the communication and surveillance network at Runway 17 of Beirut Airport be dismantled, claiming it was "illegal and unconstitutional".

The decision was taken at a cabinet meeting on May 6 that lasted until 4 am, lobbied for by Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh. The network is one of the primary espionage tools used by Hezbollah in its war against Israel, keeping tabs on comings and goings at Beirut Airport.

Adding insult to injury, the Lebanese government dismissed Wafiq Shuqayr, the Shi'ite security commander of the airport, for planting the system in accordance with Hezbollah's wishes, supposedly behind the back of Siniora.

Hezbollah cried foul, claiming the network had been in place for years, adding that dismantling it was a red line because otherwise Beirut Airport would be "transformed into a base for the the CIA, the FBI and Mossad, referring to American and Israeli intelligence.
Hezbollah secretary general Hasan Nasrallah spoke just hours after the crisis started, saying the communication system and Shuqyar were "red lines" that could not be crossed. He reminded his audience that when Siniora became prime minister in 2005, one of the main points of his political program was "supporting the resistance" and giving it (Hezbollah) a free hand to wage its "war of liberation" against Israel in any way it saw fit.

Veteran Shi'ite cleric Abdul-Amir Qabalan, deputy chairman of the Higher Shi'ite Council, contacted the Lebanese government and advised it to back down, warning that Nasrallah must not be provoked and that he would not stand by and watch his security system being torn down. Qabalan said, "Touching this [communication] system affects our nationalism, integrity and loyalty to the nation."

The government refused to change course, arguing that security must be monopolized by the state and that it was inconceivable that a non-state party like Hezbollah could run a parallel security system at Beirut Airport.

In this stubbornness, the government failed to anticipate the value Hezbollah places on what it believed its key rights. Worse, Defense Minister Elias al-Murr, Interior Minister Hasan al-Sabe and Public Persecutor Said Mirza were tasked to create a team to look into other security violations committed by Hezbollah.

Engineering the escalation was Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, a one-time Nasrallah friend now turned enemy, who knew that within 48 hours the United Nations Security Council was due to discuss resolution 1559, regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, which has yet to be fully implemented.

Nasrallah angrily replied that "we will cut the arm" of whoever tries to dismantle the arms of Hezbollah, claiming that security networks were weapons, just like missiles and guns. He then reminded that in the past, he would always say that "our weapons will never be used internally", but this time he warned that "weapons will be used to guard weapons".

He was not understating the situation. By the evening of May 7, all hell had broken lose in Beirut.

Hezbollah troops took to the streets of the capital and were confronted by armed men loyal to parliamentary majority leader Saad al-Hariri and Druze leader Jumblatt. Road blocks were set up all over the city, bringing back haunting memories of the 17-year civil war that ended in 1990, and snipers showed up on rooftops.

The Hariri-led March 14 Coalition cried foul, claiming that Hezbollah had launched a coup and taken over the (in the lightening speed of six hours). Parallels were drawn between Hezbollah's behavior in Beirut and the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007.

Nasrallah denied a coup was in the making, saying, "Had we wanted a coup, they [government leaders] would have woken up to find themselves in jail, or [thrown) in the sea."

Hezbollah fighters did storm entire neighborhoods of Beirut loyal to Hariri, aided by Amal militiamen loyal to the Shi'ite speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri, an ally of Nasrallah. The poor training and weaponry of the Hariri team was no match for the sophisticated war machine of Hezbollah, which managed to ward off a massive Israeli attack in 2006.

So amateurish were Hariri's men that it almost seemed as if they had no arms at all. They were round up in hours, disarmed and handed over to the Lebanese army. Rather than take control of the districts - to prove that this was not a coup - Hezbollah fighters called up the army, a third party, asking it to take control.
Vandalism did take place, and so did an ugly exchange of words between Hezbollah's team, who are all Shi'ite, and Hariri's men, who are all Sunnis. One of the most telling acts was shutting down all of Hariri's media outlets, which were very active in spreading anti-Hezbollah propaganda, including Future TV, Future News, Orient Radio and Future Newspaper. All of these were taken over by Hezbollah and then handed to the army, yet hoodlums did manage to break into Future TV and set one floor ablaze.

Many saw this as a proxy war between the Saudi Arabia-backed March 14 Coalition and the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Telecommunications Minister Hamadeh said the entire crisis was the doing of Tehran. His boss, Jumblatt, went even further, asking for the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador from Beirut.

Jumblatt's tone changed, however, 48 hours into the confrontation, when the fighting ended in Beirut and shifted to Druze villages overlooking the Lebanese capital. Hezbollah fighters surrounded his palace in Beirut, near the American University of Beirut, but did not invade. It was clear for Jumblatt, one of the United States' main and newfound allies in Lebanon, that it was pointless to resist Hezbollah.

Jumblatt got on the phone with Nabih Berri, the Nasrallah-allied speaker of parliament, and said, "I am a hostage now in my home in Beirut. Tell Sayed Hasan Nasrallah I lost the battle and he wins. So let's sit and talk to reach a compromise. All that I ask is your protection."

Nasrallah and Jumblatt had been good friends and strong allies during the heyday of the Syrian presence in Lebanon. The Druze leader had positioned himself as one of the main protectors of Hezbollah arms throughout the 1990s. A political animal, however, he changed sides when it was clear the Syrians had fallen out with Washington after the Iraq war and he transformed himself into one of the loudest critics of Syrian power in Beirut.

He put his full bet on the Americans, patched up with the George W Bush White House (which he had once accused of staging the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington) and became an aggressive critic of Nasrallah. In his speech on the eve of hostilities, Nasrallah said that the plan to transform Beirut Airport into a base for the US Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mossad was the brainchild of "the government of Walid Jumblatt".

Intense fighting between Druze forces and Shi'ite militiamen raged on in the villages of Shouf, the towns of Aley and Shuwayfat, raising red sirens throughout Lebanon. This is where heavy fighting had taken place in the civil war - and although the war ended nearly 20 years ago - the wounds have not healed.

Two Hezbollah members were killed in the Druze districts, and another disappeared, prompting Jumblatt to give an urgent press conference, accepting blame for the entire ordeal and calling on his troops to lay down their arms, avoid a sectarian outburst, and transfer order of the districts to the Lebanese army.

Jumblatt added, "I must admit that the Iranians are smart and they knew how to play it in Lebanon. They chose a time when the US is weak in the Middle East and did it."

Calm was restored to Beirut when the government, with as much face-saving as possible, revoked its earlier decisions by transferring the issue of the communication system, and the security commander of Beirut Airport, to the army. Instead of executing the orders Army Commander Michel Suleiman, a neutral third party, declared both null. It is still unclear if the Siniora cabinet will issue a formal apology for its actions, as the Hezbollah-led opposition is requesting.

Regardless, it was a political and military victory for Hezbollah.

The March 14 claims it was a moral victory for itself as well, saying that they had helped prevent a civil war by backing down on their earlier legislation. To date, while fighting continues in the Druze mountains, and has even reached as far north as Tripoli, the government has not resigned. Not even has Interior Minister Hassan al-Sabe, who is a member of March 14.

Rumors circulated in Beirut that Siniora wanted to step down when the fighting was at its peek, but was prevented from doing so by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, enraged by what was happened in Beirut, realized that Iran - and the Syrians - had taken the upper hand in Beirut.

True, Hezbollah has restored all "occupied" districts to the army, but it is clear they were far superior in power, training, arms and logistics to Saudi Arabia's proxies in Lebanon. Additionally, they have done it once. Nothing prevents them from doing it again at any time the Saudi-backed government tries to dismantle, crush or curb Hezbollah's influence.

When a coup is not a coup
Speaking at the southern village of Bint Jbeil in 2005, Nasrallah once said, "There is talk of disarming the resistance. Any thought of disarming the resistance is pure madness. We do not want to attack anyone. We have never done so. And we will never allow anyone to attack Lebanon. But if anyone, no matter who, even thinks about disarming the resistance, we will fight him like the martyr-seekers in Karbala."

That sums it up. Nasrallah will not allow anybody to touch the arms of Hezbollah and is willing to fight to maintain his status, and that of his party, in the Arab-Israeli conflict. His supporters argue that as a pragmatic leader, and a cunning statesman who excels in psychological warfare, he does not want to rule Beirut.

He is neither interested nor politically able (although it would be easy, in military terms). He realizes that the confessional system of Lebanon is too complicated for such a task, and said it bluntly last Wednesday, "If they told us to come take over, we would say 'no thank you'."

Had he wanted a real coup, he would not have transferred control to the Lebanese army, nor would he have laid down his arms in Beirut. He would have invaded and stormed the homes of Jumblatt and Hariri and arrested both of them, along with Siniora, and set up a new government, to his liking, and to that of Iran. But that is an illogical scenario that would never pass.

What he did last week in Beirut was show his power - flex his muscles - and tell the world, "I am still here. Still in control and still powerful - or as some would say, king - in Lebanese politics."
It was a rude wake-up call to all those who imagined he would never go this far to bring his message to the region and the international community.

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.

Original article posted here.

The latest pretext for the next failed intervention in the Middle East

International alarm at Hezbollah "coup" in Beirut

By Andrew Roche

LONDON, May 9 (Reuters) - The takeover of the Muslim half of Beirut by Hezbollah triggered alarm in the Arab world and the West on Friday, and the embattled Lebanese government called it an armed coup by the Iranian and Syrian-backed group.

The U.S. government on Friday restated its "unswerving commitment and support" for the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Egypt and Saudi Arabia called on Arab foreign ministers to meet urgently.

In Lebanon's worst internal strife since the 1975-90 civil war, gunmen battled on Beirut's streets this week.

A deadlock between the Hezbollah-led opposition and Siniora's anti-Syrian cabinet, backed by Washington and its Arab allies, has paralysed the country and left it without a president since November 2007.

The White House said it was "very troubled" by Hezbollah's actions and urged Iran and Syria to halt their support for the Shi'ite militant group.

The European Union, Germany and France urged calm and a peaceful resolution.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would telephone Middle Eastern leaders to discuss the crisis, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

"I would restate our unswerving commitment and support for the Siniora government," he said.

"They are doing all the right things ... Its use and deployment of the military serve the best interests of the Lebanese people and Lebanon."

McCormack told reporters he was "not aware of any contemplation" of deploying U.S. forces in the area.

He denounced Hezbollah as "armed gangs ... using violence and the threat of violence, to achieve some political end" which would only harm the Lebanese people.

McCormack said the United States had encouraged parties with influence on Syria and Iran to "tell them that they should use whatever leverage they have with Hezbollah, to tell them to pull back from these kinds of actions".



CRISIS TALKS URGED

Siniora's governing coalition pointed the finger clearly at Hezbollah's backers.

"The armed and bloody coup which is being implemented aims to return Syria to Lebanon and extend Iran's reach to the Mediterranean," it said in a statement read by Christian leader Samir Geagea.

Syria said the issue was an internal Lebanese affair while Iran blamed "the adventurist interferences" of the United States and Israel for the violence.

Saudi Arabia is a main backer of the Sunni-led government in Lebanon.

"Egypt and Saudi Arabia have applied for an immediate meeting of the council of foreign ministers of the Arab League member countries," Egyptian state news agency MENA quoted an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman as saying.

"The meeting is expected within the coming two days," he added.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said Hezbollah was leading Lebanon "to the verge of a civil war".

"It has nothing to do with Israel. It's an internal split," Peres said. "It's a tragedy for them. It's a tragedy for all of us." Two years ago Israel went to war with Hezbollah after it captured two Israeli soldiers.

France offered to help warring factions meet for talks, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said.

"We call on everyone, each party, each force, to immediately stop the fighting and return to dialogue. We demand the barricades be lifted and the airport reopened," he added.

France and Italy said they were preparing evacuation plans for their nationals in Lebanon. Britain, France and Slovenia issued warnings against travelling there.

Hassan Nasrallah on developments in Lebanon

Normal Finkelstein on Hezbollah and Lebanon: Bringing the truth as undiluted as possible. A must listen.

Hezbollah consolidates power in Lebanon, embarassing the Moron and his idiot Middle East policy

Mossad v. Hezbollah

The 'known unknowns' of the Mugniyah killing

By Ramzy Baroud

We know well who killed top Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyah on February 12 in Damascus.

Although in the US media only journalists like Seymour Hersh have the nerve to point out the obvious, the Israeli media has not shied away from evidence of Israeli intelligence's involvement in this well-calculated assassination.

The major Israeli daily newspaper Maariv shared the views of many others when it concluded that: "Officially, Israel yesterday denied responsibility for the killing. But experts say the brilliant execution of the attack was characteristic of the Mossad."

The Financial Times reported on the "triumphant mood" of the Israeli press which hailed "the demise of one the country's most feared adversaries" and quoted an Israeli paper stating "the account is settled".

The Financial Times also quoted a most telling analysis offered by one Israeli commentator: "Mugniyah's assassination is perhaps the hardest blow Hezbollah has taken to this day. Not just because of his operational abilities, his close ties to the Iranians, and the series of successful terror attacks that he carried out. But because he was a symbol, a legend, a myth."

Donald Rumsfeld is no longer in public eye but his "wisdom" lives on. "We also know there are known unknowns," he once told perplexed reporters. Precisely, the "known unknown" in this case is that the Israeli Mossad killed Mugniyah, and killed him for specific political reasons at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government's point of view.

Let's first look at the timing.

President George W Bush's second term in office will expire in one year. For the president who has unconditionally rubber-stamped Israeli policies, one year is not enough to set long-term goals, but it's enough to ignite chaos.

"If you want chaos, then we welcome chaos. If you want war, then we welcome war. We have no problem with weapons or with rockets which we will launch on you." These were the words of Lebanon's MP Walid Jumblatt of the ruling March 14 Coalition, directed at the Hezbollah-led opposition a few days prior to the third anniversary of Rafiq Hariri's assassination. Considering the military strength of Hezbollah within Lebanon, it isn't difficult to guess where the MP's rockets would come from.

Indeed, the internal disunity and open hostility - notwithstanding the political impasse over the future of the country's parliamentary and governmental organization - all point at the readiness of Lebanon to descend into chaos. This is good news for Israel and the Bush administration. A civil war could achieve what Israel's botched, illegal war of 2006 could not.

The 34-day war, celebrated by Hezbollah as a victory, was a massive setback to Israel's regional designs and to those who wanted Hezbollah removed from the country's political equation. The war backfired, achieving the exact opposite: Hezbollah emerged triumphant. More recently, Israel's own investigation into the war admitted, if somewhat circuitously, Israel's defeat.

The Winograd Commission's report indicted the army, and largely absolved Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It described the war's failure as a "serious missed opportunity". The report didn't chastise the war, but decried its lack of effectiveness and poor execution.

How could Olmert correct the mistakes of the war without waging another? And what better timing for war than a moment when Hezbollah and its rivals in Lebanon are engaged in one of their own?

But the assassination of a high-profile person like Mugniyah was not merely an opportunity to boast over a classic Mossad operation. It was a major ingredient in a larger scheme, the end result of which may be war with both Lebanon and Syria - with the hope of getting Iran involved.

Israel didn't hide its disappointment over the US's National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran is no longer in the nuclear weapons manufacturing business. It simply meant that the US will not attack Iran at this time. But for Israel, "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" - another Rumsfeld quote. Fearing that unchecked Iran could dominate the region, Israel, with Bush's green light, is now ready for escalation.

Israeli officials and pundits - and their friends in the US government and media - are building a case for a confrontation with Iran. On a recent trip to Germany, after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Olmert was "sure" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. "The Iranians are moving forward with their plans to create a capacity for non-conventional weapons," he told reporters.

Israel, however, is neither capable, nor willing to face Iran in a conventional war.

But going after Hezbollah as they have done unsuccessfully in the past could be disastrous. Thus there is a need for a new tactic. Last September, Israel experimented, once again, with the idea of bombing Syria. US media parroted ridiculous claims that the bombings targeted "secret" Syrian nuclear facilities, courtesy of North Korea. What Israel wants is an easy victory over Syria, which will block Iranian military supplies to Hezbollah, and deny Palestinian opposition parties a save heaven in Damascus, the last Arab capital willing to provide them with a political platform. Facing an internal challenge at home and without Iran's help, Hezbollah cannot withstand a fight on two fronts.

For Israel's scheme to succeed, the internal conflict in Lebanon must escalate and internal cohesion must not be achieved, a mission entrusted to the "mysterious" car bombings that have been blamed squarely on Syria and its Lebanese allies.

By gloating, yet without revealing much about the assassination of Mugniyah, Israeli commentators might have lost sight of the great gamble of their government. Hezbollah's response, articulated by their leader Hassan Nasrallah, was a vow for an "open" war. The group will most likely avoid border clashes, and take the war against Israel to the international arena, just as Israel has. And like Israel, it may gloat in private but officially refrain from sponsoring whatever operations are carried out.

The course of future events is now more predictable, although whether such tit-for-tat behavior will work in Israel's favor remains in the realm of "unknown unknowns". Maybe Rumsfeld had it right after all.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Original article posted here.

Good thing Israel crushed Hezbollah in its war last year. Ooops

Hezbollah raises specter of long Lebanon power void

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanese opposition group Hezbollah said on Sunday that failure to reach agreement on a new president in the week ahead could leave the divided country without a head of state for a long time.

Deputy Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Kassem also said the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora had no right to assume the powers of the presidency, which has been vacant since Friday when Emile Lahoud's term ended.

Parliament has been called to convene on Friday -- the sixth attempt to elect a replacement for the pro-Syrian Lahoud.

Kassem's comments raised the prospect of a protracted stalemate over the fate of the presidency if the anti-Syrian governing coalition and the opposition, backed by Damascus, cannot agree on a new head of state.

Although there has been no deal on Lahoud's successor, neither side has carried out threats of unilateral action that would have escalated their year-long power struggle and could have triggered violence.

Their rhetoric has also been calm, signaling a decision to contain the worst crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.

"SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY"

"Come, let's seize this opportunity," Kassem said in reference to Friday's election. Addressing the governing coalition, he said: "If you are serious, we can achieve the election within a week. Otherwise the period will be long."

According to the constitution, the government assumes presidential powers in the absence of a head of state. But the opposition disputes the legitimacy of Siniora's government because all of its Shi'ite Muslim ministers quit a year ago.

"We are facing a double vacuum -- presidential and governmental," Kassem said in an address to Hezbollah followers. "This government is illegitimate and unconstitutional. It doesn't exist, so it can't rule and it can't exercise the role of the presidency."

The post is set aside for a Maronite Christian under a political system that divides government along sectarian lines. Leaving the position empty is a blow to Christians in the only Middle East state where the job is reserved for them.

"We are now in a transitional period that could lead us to stability or could lead us to chaos and infighting, God forbid," said Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, head of the Maronite church.

"Therefore, everyone, especially decision-makers and those with responsibilities, must prove that they have seriousness and true nationalism," he said.

Original article posted here.

Not the cocky bluster that we are used to from Israel. Maybe now they can start getting a little sense now that big brother is getting his ass kicked

Israel and Hezbollah agree exchange

Israel's 34 day war with Hezbollah began after two Israeli soldiers were captured in a raid [File: EPA] Lebanon's Hezbollah movement has agreed to hand over the remains of an Israeli in exchange for a Lebanese prisoner and the bodies of two of the group's fighters. "An exchange of bodies and a prisoner swap could take place this afternoon at the Naqoura crossing between Israel and Lebanon," a Lebanese security source said on Monday. The two dead Hezbollah fighters went missing last summer during the 34 day war between the Shia Muslim group and Israel in southern Lebanon. The conflict began in July 2006 after the Lebanese movement captured Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, two Israeli soldiers, in a cross-border raid. An army report released last December said that the two soldiers were wounded, one seriously and the other only moderately, during their capture. Identity unclear The identity of the Israeli body, that has arrived at the border in an ambulance accompanied by Hezbollah vehicles, was unclear. "Up to now no one even knew that Hezbollah were holding the body of an Israeli. We don't even know if it is a civilian or soldier," Al Jazeera's Rula Amin said from the Naqoura crossing. She said that the deal was organised by a German mediator and only finalised last weekend. Asharq Al-Awsat, an UK-based Arabic newspaper, reported on Sunday that the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah had been handed to Iran and could be freed as part of a German-brokered exchange. It quoted a source identified as a high-ranking official in the office of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, as saying they had been transferred by the country's elite Revolutionary Guards. Last week, Germany decided last week to free an Iranian agent jailed for life for the murder of four Kurdish dissidents in 1992 and the newspaper suggested that this could have been part of the deal. A senior Israeli government official dismissed the Asharq Al-Awsat report as "nonsense" and said it was an "attempt to dissiminate disinformation on this extremely sensitive issue." Germany also dismissed suggestions that the agent was released as part of a deal with Tehran. Prisoner release Israel has also been seeking the return of the bodies of five soldiers who were killed during Israel's 1982 war in Lebanon. In 2004, Israel freed nearly 450 prisoners, most of them Palestinians and Arabs, in exchange for Elhanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers. As part of the swap, Israel agreed to free Samir Kantar, a Lebanese prisoner, at a later date in return for information on the fate of Ron Arad, an Israeli air force navigator who has been missing since October 1986 when his plane was shot down over southern Lebanon. Kantar received jail sentences totalling 542 years from an Israeli court in 1980 for killing a scientist and his four-year-old daughter as well as an Israeli policeman. Original article posted here.

I guess Israel's war didn't crush Hezbollah's will to resist

Hezbollah video game targets Israel



The Lebanese armed group Hezbollah has launched a new computer game with Israel as the enemy.

Special Force 2 is just the latest way the Shia group is capitalising on what it calls its "victory" in last year's war with Israel.

Players take on the role of a Hezbollah fighter, having to first capture Israeli soldiers, then hit tanks, helicopters and gunboats with missiles.

But it is more than a game.

The military efficiency of the game's protagonists reflects the way Hezbollah views its fighters' performance in the war.

Culture of resistance

And the game's makers say the aim is to present what they call a culture of resistance to younger generations.

Hasan told Al Jazeera that he was able to feel what the fighters were going through in the game.

Players take on the role of a Hezbollah fighter
capturing Israeli soldiers and hitting tanks
"It also got me to thinking how we can continue in their footsteps," he said.

The videogame and a museum built in the southern suburbs of Beirut to commemorate the war are part of Hezbollah's media campaign as it engages in a different struggle.

Some Lebanese blame the group for sparking the conflict with Israel by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and have called for its disarmament.

But Hezbollah denies its media campaign has anything to do with the political crisis.

The game's makers want to build a culture of
resistance in younger generations [Reuters]

Trad Hamadeh, one of Hezbollah's two representatives in Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's cabinet until he quit as labour minister in November, said: "We want to show the realities of the war.

The dispute [with Lebanese groups] is purely political and I am sure we will be able to find a settlement."

Original article posted here.

A perfect title

The $63 billion sham

By Derrick Jackson

SECRETARY OF STATE Condoleezza Rice said the United States wants to send $63 billion in military aid and weapons to the Middle East to "bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran."

Talk about wriggling in quicksand. Having destroyed Iraq to save us from horrors that did not exist, Rice now wants to save us from Iran's future nukes by selling American weapons of mass destruction. Over the next decade, the Bush administration wants to give Israel $30 billion in military aid, a nearly 43 percent increase over what that nation received over the last 10 years, according to The New York Times. We want to give $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. We want to give Egypt $13 billion.

Do you feel safe?

"This is throwing bad money after worse money," said Frida Berrigan, senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation. The program was formerly known as the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute. "You can see the whole arms package as a buyoff of Arab nations for what we've done in Iraq.

"Justifying the sales because these countries feel threatened by Iran doesn't hold water. Iran is five to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. That gives the United States and its partners more than enough time to come up with diplomatic solutions," Berrigan said. "This is just going to reinforce Iran's desire to have a nuclear weapon."

The United States had already set records for global arms sales. The New York Times reported in November that the Bush administration and American military contractors doubled arms sales from $10.6 billion to $21 billion from September 2005 to September 2006. Berrigan estimates that the latest proposal will increase military aid and weaponry by another 25 percent.

This is a bipartisan craziness that never ended despite the end of the Cold War. Under the dual guise of national security and protecting American jobs, the first President Bush and President Clinton aggressively promoted US arms sales to more than twice their level of the last years of the Cold War.

Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Reagan, told the Globe in 1996, "The brakes are off the system. . . . There is no coherent policy on the transfer of arms. It has become a money game; an absurd spiral in which we export arms only to have to develop more sophisticated ones to counter those spread out all over the world. . . . It is a frightening trend that undermines our moral authority in the New World Order."

The absurd spiral did nothing for regional stability, democracy or stop terrorism from spreading to American shores. Saudi Arabia was a big buyer under Clinton. It remained a "problematic ally," according to the 9/11 commission. This week, the US envoy to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, could not decide whether Saudi Arabia was "a great ally" or "undermining" the United States in Iraq.

There is no hint of a coherent policy. Under the president, 80 percent of nations that received arms from America in 2003 were classified by the State Department as being either undemocratic or having a poor human rights record, which covers all the Arab countries in the new deal. Israel is a democracy, but in its 2006 country profile, the State Department cites a source that determined that 322 of 660 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military "were not engaged in hostilities when killed and 141 were minors."

This latest deal is so over the top that Israel is not opposing the $33 billion to Arab states because it gets $30 billion to maintain its military edge. En route to the Middle East this week, Rice denied that the military package was an attempt to buy allies with bombs. She also denied that the United States was relaxing its standards for democracy and human rights.

But a report by the Economist Intelligence Unit said that "the weak response in the Middle East to pressures for democratization, as well as the experience with imported political change in Iraq, is making a mockery of George Bush's 'freedom' agenda." Reuters this week quoted Paul Salem, director of the Middle East Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as saying that the arms deal meant Bush's effort to spread democracy in the region was "more than dead."

Berrigan said, "We've created a black hole in what used to be a country and this is supposed to be the solution? More military aid and more high-tech weaponry? The best case scenario is that Congress exercises its power and keeps this from happening."

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

Original article posted here.

Why weazl loves the Asia Times: Western media would never print speculative articles about Middle East geopolitical strategy

War games, mind games or the real deal?

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - One year ago this Thursday, war broke out between Israel and Hezbollah. Ostensibly, the Israeli objective was to free two soldiers captured by Hezbollah. After the fighting began, Israel announced its true objective: to eradicate Hezbollah and its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah.

The war lasted for 33 days and failed to realize any of Israel's objectives, except destroy Lebanon, the already troubled country whose capital was once known as "Paris of the Middle East". It shattered the myth of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) being an invincible army and did wonders to Nasrallah's popularity in the Arab world after he promised - and delivered - to "bomb Haifa and beyond Haifa".

Twelve months later, the Israeli soldiers are still in Hezbollah's captivity and Hezbollah is still alive - and very active - in Lebanon. The only new reality is the stationing of 15,000 United Nations troops in south Lebanon, according to UN Resolution 1701, to prevent the outbreak of further hostilities.

When the war ended last August, many speculated that the ceasefire was only temporary and that Israel would use it as a grace period to rearm, reassess, and re-invade Lebanon.

Israel's military history shows that the Jewish state does not tolerate failure, and nor does the United States. That war, many believed, was a proxy one being fought by Israel on the behalf of the US. The Americans seemed more interested in defeating Hezbollah than Israel was. As far as the Israelis are concerned, a Hezbollah that operates within Lebanese territory and does not fire rockets at Israel is a Lebanese problem. They can live with it. As far as the US is concerned, the very existence of Hezbollah is an obstacle for its new plans for the Middle East.

The US State Department wanted the summer war because it had embraced and adopted the pro-Western cabinet of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora. According to the US, this government would help curb Iranian influence in the region, prevent the spread of Shi'ification, strengthen the position of Saudi Arabia, and weaken Syria. For it to succeed in all of the above, it had to get rid of Hezbollah.

The White House wanted this war because it could not tolerate a powerful entity like Hezbollah, which is independent from US control, operating in the Greater Middle East. President George W Bush feared that the success story of Hezbollah and Nasrallah - and their survival - would inspire similar groups to rebel against the US in failed states such as Somalia or, even worse, Iraq.

The situation in Iraq, after all, is identical to the one in Lebanon when Hezbollah was born in the 1980s. There are occupation, chaos, frustration and civil war. There are an abundance of arms, no strong central government, and plenty of Iranian influence. The Mahdi Army, for example, with its young leader Muqtada al-Sadr (who claims to be inspired by the Nasrallah model), is very capable of becoming another Hezbollah.

The Pentagon wanted this war because it was planning for a war with Iran before Bush's term expired in 2009. It wanted to test the pulse of Iranian power through Hezbollah. After all, all of Hezbollah's training, experience and arms come from Tehran.

By all accounts, the Pentagon was not pleased at the results of Lebanon 2006.

The fact that the IDF, being the strongest US-trained army in the region, could not make its way through a tiny country like Lebanon spoke volumes about how powerful Iran actually is. For years the US has suffered from faulty intelligence reports on Iran, attributed mainly to the absence of a US embassy in Tehran. In the 1980s it received reports on Iranian power from parties that wanted to portray the Islamic Republic as a weak nation.

They included, among others, members of the Iranian opposition overseas, and Saudi Arabia. The Americans were made to believe that Iran could be invaded and defeated in a breeze, explaining why they encouraged their ally at the time, Saddam Hussein, to invade in 1980. They told him the war would be quick and an easy victory for the strong Iraqi Army. They were wrong, and that war lasted for eight years and failed to bring down the Islamic Republic.

History repeated itself in cruel ways in 2006. This time the US encouraged Israel to attack Iran - by proxy - only to come out with the same conviction Saddam learned - the hard way - about the reality of Iranian power.

The summer war ruined Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and led to the downfall of his chief of staff, Dan Halutz, and defense minister Amir Peretz, who were blamed for improperly planning the Lebanon war. This reality makes it difficult for anybody to take Olmert's peace initiatives seriously. A defeated man like him cannot relinquish the Golan Heights to Syria, for example, nor can he make peace with the Palestinians. The Israeli street and domestic public opinion will not let him. He needs to right the wrongs done to his image by the Lebanon war of 2006.

Olmert seemed to have different thoughts, however, when being interviewed by the Saudi channel Al-Arabiyya (an interview that could not have taken place without the approval of Saudi authorities). He said: "Bashar al-Assad, you know that I am ready for direct talks with you. I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war." Olmert added, "I will be happy if I could make peace with Syria. I do not want to wage war against Syria."

It takes war heroes to make peace in the Middle East. Everybody in the region knows that, especially the Israelis. Anwar al-Sadat could not go to Camp David in 1978 before having waged war against Israel in October 1973. Nor could Yitzhak Rabin go to Oslo in 1993 before having proved his credentials in every Arab-Israeli war since 1948. Olmert is simply no Rabin or Menachem Begin. He cannot talk peace before winning a war, otherwise the Israeli public will accuse him of selling out to the Arabs.

He needs a Round 2 with Hezbollah. If it does not happen, then he must create it. Hezbollah chief Nasrallah realizes this threat and is very keen, at every juncture, to express support for the UN troops stationed in Lebanon to show the world that he is not interested - at this stage - in going to war once again with Israel because the last war was too costly for Lebanon.

When a terrorist attack targeted a Spanish contingent of UN troops this summer, Hezbollah immediately denounced it and distanced itself from any violence against the UN. Hezbollah leaders fear that somebody will attack Israel - or Israel will feign an attack - and then blame it on Hezbollah, using the ordeal as a pretext to relaunch war against Lebanon. This time, unlike the case in 2006, the Israelis will be more prepared for Hezbollah.

Amid all of this tension comes a puzzling factor - increased media talk about a military confrontation between Israel and Syria. That would have been possible in July 2006. As the war dragged on in Lebanon, Olmert found it increasingly difficult to explain to the Israelis why his army was not winning a battle against a small group of guerrilla warriors. It was feared that if pressure rose within Israel, Olmert would attack Syria to prove to the Israelis that he was serious and capable of fighting the problem (Hezbollah) and its backers (Syria and Iran).

Part of that argument still stands. Olmert is still in a difficult position and, on the anniversary of the war, has solved none of Israel's worries with Hezbollah. A Round 2 with Lebanon, however, would seem more likely than a Round 1 with Syria. The Syrian Arab Army, although untried in battle for many years, is well armed and well trained. It can fire real missiles at Israel - not just Katyusha rockets. It has a military pact with Iran. There is no real reason to attack Syria unless Olmert wants to fabricate an excuse to go to war against the Syrians.

That can easily be done in a variety of ways. One way would be if an attack were launched against Israel by one of the many armed groups in Palestine. This attack would be blamed on Hamas, which is supported by the Syrian government. Already there is a campaign to root out Hamas from within the occupied territories, with Israel attacking it from outside and Fatah fighting it from within.

Proponents of the Israel-versus-Syria war claim such a conflict would lead to a weaker Damascus and the flushing out of Hamas. All of that, naturally, would incapacitate Hezbollah. Another way to wage war on Syria would be if hostilities were created on the Lebanese-Israeli border, and then blamed on Damascus.

On July 11, the Jerusalem Post quoted a recent intelligence report saying that war with Syria is possible if Olmert does not find a peaceful solution for his problems with Syria. The newspaper added that if war were to break out, it would be many times worse for Israel than its confrontation with Hezbollah last year.

Some people believe that Syria is the one interested in war, not Israel. They point to an alleged massive Syrian troop buildup along the Golan Heights. Supporters of this argument claim that such a war would do wonders for Bashar al-Assad's government in Damascus (just as the October 1973 war served his father's career) and make it increasingly difficult for Arab countries allied to the US, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon or Egypt, to support any anti-Syrian maneuvering in the international community, or through the UN.

In his inauguration speech at the new Syrian Parliament in May, Assad noted that war was possible with Israel because "there is no progress in the peace process and there is not any contact with Israel, whether secretly or publicly, because Israel is not ready for the just and comprehensive peace which needs strong leadership that can take decisive decisions".

The deputy chief of staff of the IDF, Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky, came out this week, however, saying the opposite, claiming that war with Syria is unlikely. He added, however, that Israel is ready to counter any attack, coming from Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran.

"I hear the voices but to the best of our assessment, which is also my personal assessment, we do not expect a war this summer from Syria," Kaplinsky said. Israel's mobilization on the Syrian border was in response to Syrian troop movement, he added, calling it a "defensive" measure. He also noted that "Hezbollah is rebuilding itself. But we are ready for all possible scenarios."

Part of this preparation is training 70% of Israel's reservists and exercising military units along the Golan. One of Israel's most famous units, the Golani Brigade, has just completed high-profile war games. Guy Hazoot, the officer in charge of the 91st Division deployed along the border with Lebanon, noted: "The worst case is war, and we have to be prepared for the worst case."

According to further press reports from United Press International, quoting "well-informed sources in Washington", a "confrontation between Syria and Israel may happen this summer".

Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy under former US president Bill Clinton, was quoted in the online edition of Yedioth Aharanot saying that there is "a risk of war" between Syria and Israel this summer. He added, "The Syrians are positioning themselves for war."

Somebody out there, either on the Israeli side or the Syrian one, has read his Middle East history too well. In May and August 1973, Sadat repeatedly threatened to go to war against the Israelis. Frantic, Israel would mobilize to fight, and Sadat would do nothing. Every time, the mobilization would cost Israel about US$10 million. Because he always threatened to go to war against Israel and never did anything, nobody believed him when he threatened war in 1973. That is exactly what Sadat wanted.

One week before the war on October 6, 1973, the Egyptian Army began moving toward the Suez Canal. Israeli intelligence, detecting large troop movement toward the canal, did not do anything in response, thinking this was one of Sadat's many failed promises of war. He needed these gestures, they believed, to build his reputation in the Egyptian street. Movement of the Syrian Army toward the Golan Heights at the same time was puzzling but not worrying because Israeli was convinced that Syria would not go to war without Egypt. That explains, among other things, why the Israelis were caught off guard on October 6, 1973.

And today, the mobilization of troops has become an old joke in Syrian-Israeli relations. Whenever one party mobilizes, the other goes on alert, and nothing happens. Will it be different in 2007?

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.