Forgive my slowness . . .

Other than a post expressing general support for Israel, I haven't had much to add to the discussion of the Israel/Hezbollah war. This is not because of any lack of interest, but because I'm not much of an expert on these things, I don't think I really have much to contribute. Once again, I lack access to inside information, and this makes me naturally hesitant to second guess people who not only have such access, but who are operating in the heat of battle.

I got an email asking me why I missed the Hezbollah/Iranian/Iraq (via Moqtada al Sadr) connection, and I explained that I discussed the Iranian connection before, as well as Hezbollah's connection with al Qaida.

The emailer left me with this interesting aside:

You can thank Jimmy Carter for his work in the creation of modern day Iran.

In yesterday's Inquirer, Trudy Rubin made a very interesting point:

Suddenly, the G-8 agenda shifted from how the world community might press Iran to freeze its suspect nuclear program to how to prevent new Mideast wars from exploding.

Iran was delivering a warning to Washington via proxies, without firing a gun.

The Lebanese movement Hezbollah gets money, arms and guidance from Iran, and would not have conducted such a dramatic raid into Israel without at least consulting with Tehran. Israel claims the Hezbollah rockets that hit Haifa came from Iran.

As for Gaza's Hamas, it has leaders in the Syrian capital, Damascus, where they can consult with visiting Iranian officials. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been courting support with the "Arab street" (whose Sunni Arabs are normally hostile to Persian Shiite Muslims) by spouting hard-line rhetoric about Israel.

Meanwhile, thanks to the United States, Iran can exert powerful influence in Iraq, where Shiite parties allied to Iran now run the government, and in Afghanistan, whose leaders are also close to Tehran. By ousting Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - Iran's greatest enemies - Washington made Iran into the superpower of the region.

Rubin is of course anti-Bush (a bias she freely admits), but it would be foolish to conclude that renders her entire analysis wrong.

What I'd like to know is, what's going on with Saudi Arabia?

There's some interesting top-level hobnobbing with Iran right now.

But trying to analyze these things from a position of ignorance is like spitting in the wind.

(At times like this, I wish I had access to information.)


NOTE: My slowdown worsens. I have to spend all day in New Jersey, and I'll be lucky if I even get to open this blog again before midnight.

Sigh.

(Who ever said life was fun?)

UPDATE: Captain Ed discusses a NYT report indicating that Saudi Arabia thinks Iran is a bigger threat than Israel:

What is clear is that even the various kleptocracies in the region have becomed unnerved by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and brazen pursuit of nuclear weapons. The fall of Saddam Hussein removed the one military force that could stack up against Israel, and the American occupation puts Israel out of reach for most of the rest of the Arab nations. That makes any nation that deliberately invites Israeli and American retaliation a little less than rational, and the nutty rhetoric coming from Teheran only means that the Americans will stick around a little longer.

Iranian provocation threatens to engulf all of the Arab nations in a war they cannot hope to win. Why should they back Hezbollah's play, when Sheikh Nasrallah and Iran didn't bother to consult them?

For all their talk, the Arabs understand that Israel really presents no long-term threat to their own regimes.

That is certainly true, and I'd like to hope that most of the tough talk is just talk. (Via Pajamas Media.)

posted by Eric on 07.17.06 at 10:54 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3848






Comments

Nor does Trudy Rubin's anti-Bush bias permit her to make sense.

Does she expect us to believe that Syria had no friendly relations with Saddam? That is simply false. The munitions would be pouring into Syria and through them to Hezbollah even faster than they are now were Saddam still in power.

And she claims "Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - Iran's greatest enemies". Really? I don't recall Iran seeking to wipe Iraq off the face of the earth as they do Israel, nor referring to Saddam as "great Satan". I'm guessing that Israel and the US are now, and have been for some time, Iran's greatest enemies.

pikkumatti   ·  July 17, 2006 01:04 PM

I don't agree with the way she stretches the facts to support her antiwar position, but I think she's right about Iran being the strongest player in the region right now. (I don't think that is the fault of the U.S. though.)

And don't forget the Iran Iraq War --

"the longest conventional war of the 20th century", and cost 1 million casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Eric Scheie   ·  July 17, 2006 06:30 PM

Thanks, Eric. I am of course aware of the Iran-Iraq war of the '80s. But I doubt that either side was really all that worried about their own casualties in that one, given their nature.

And I find it hard to believe that Saddam's Iraq and Iran would not be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder against Israel and the US.

pikkumatti   ·  July 18, 2006 11:42 AM

pikkumatti-I don't know. I've read compelling reports to the effect that Saddam kept up the appearance that he had WMDs solely to fool the Iranians. Those two nations (especially with Saddam in charge) hated each other impressively.

Jon Thompson   ·  July 18, 2006 03:10 PM

I find it hard to believe some 130 million plus Arabs with all their oil riches can claim to be victimized by 4.8 million Isrealis.
Hugh

Hugh   ·  July 18, 2006 08:53 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits