The Pin in the Grenade
Should you care what happens in the Middle East this week? Does it matter that our government is refusing to talk with all parties involved? Here are some of the possible scenarios that could result from unrestrained military action in Lebanon by Israeli forces in the coming hours or days. And if you read William Rivers Pitt's piece to its conclusion, it gets even worse. You decide: given what's at stake, is the Bush administration doing enough?
If conflict between Israel and Syria breaks out, the fighting will in all likelihood not stay between them alone. Syria and Iran signed a mutual defense pact not so long ago, which means fighting one could be tantamount to fighting both. While Israel's military capabilities are undeniably substantial, a war against Syria or Iran, or both, would be no simple task.Beyond the dangers involved in such a clash lies the potential for a widened conflict that draws the United States in. Iran's batteries of Sunburn missiles, if unleashed from their mountainous shoreline overlooking the Persian Gulf, could attack heavy American warships patrolling those waters. The Sunburn has the capability of defeating Aegis radar systems, so damage to the American fleet could be severe. Iran likewise has the ability to, overnight, bring their fight against Israel to the American soldiers in Iraq; Iran's Shiite allies all across Iraq can introduce a whole new front in that struggle.
There are also economic ramifications to consider. If Iran is attacked, or if their government chooses to squeeze the Western world, they could decide to turn off the petroleum spigot. Gas prices in America climbed again through the middle of July, but a disruption of petroleum distribution on this level would send those prices skyrocketing and badly shake the global economy.
Syria, if pressed into a corner by Israel's effective attacks, could choose to break the seal on the final and most dangerous option: their stockpile of chemical weaponry. If gas bombs are used against Israeli troops, and explode within Israel's borders, the situation will spiral completely out of control. Israel would erupt in rage and visit a terrible retribution on both Syria and Iran.
Comments
Sadly I've come to believe these scenarios are what the Bush administration would like to come about.
Posted by: fletch | July 25, 2006 8:27 PM
I think William Pitt needs to take his head out of the sand.
His propitiative attitude toward the Hezbollah sounds so very much like that master of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain.
Shame on those Poles, and Belgains for resisting Hitler! He was only trying to ensure that his people had a place in the sun!
Them that doesn't care to read history are sure to re-experience it again.
These are the same people who would have gladly given us over to the Crown when we were struggling to free ourselves from the tyranny of a distant and unresponsive English government.
Posted by: David St Lawrence | July 25, 2006 10:06 PM
Yes, the Bush administration is doing the right thing and the same thing it has been saying from the beginning.
Got to love the Lebanese - "Please help us, Israel is destroying us and our country!" Rest of world - "Will you release the Isreali hostages and stop firing rockets?" Lebanese - "Um ... No."
The Lebanon scene sure has stolen the spotlight from Iraq, where this type of front has been and still is going on. Where's WWIII from Iraq? We don't see it.
Do we stop at political borders when executing our military objectives? That would be kind of like trying to scoop up water with your fingers far apart. Why not be consistent, thorough, and determined in our policy?
What does this guy propose? Walk softly here in this particular spot to the advantage of our enemies. There's a problem in the Middle East and previous efforts haven't found a solution. This administration wants to try a new one, which brings only my admiration for being so bold.
Posted by: Jim | July 26, 2006 12:17 AM
An important post, Fred. Thank you for it.
Posted by: patry | July 26, 2006 11:20 AM