"I believe it would be wise for Israel to limit its operation today to one that can lead to a ceasefire in order to immediately to switch to a more extensive and sustained strategic operation to finish Hezbollah over the years to come."
What strategic operation would that be, Ariel? You seem to suggest that deployment of the Iron Beam will achieve that. Really? With Hezbollah remaining in place?
You then go on to say that since Iron Beam is the solution, we must curry favor with countries that have the capacity for mass production. Are you suggesting China? Because if you are searching for mass production then China is your friend. However, this is not an issue. We are not talking about millions of widgets. Not even tens of thousands. We may need a few thousand units, but most likely a couple of hundred, well within Israel's capacity to produce. Take the production of the Merkava tanks as a reference point.
"Second, the Islamic Republic’s leadership is expected to enter a chaotic period of transition."
Israel cannot base its strategy on wishful thinking. We've had enough of that.
"If we do not want to repeat this conflict with Hezbollah every two decades we will need to lay the foundations for a post-Hezbollah Lebanon."
That's not our foundation to lay.
Israel needs to do one thing: crush finally and absolutely anyone who takes arms against us.
Thank you, Ehud - very good points. Let me try and answer them:
1. I believe the best possible outcome for us now is to force Hezbollah to return past the Litani and for Lebanon to abide by 1701. To do so we need to stay below the escalation threshold of a ground invasion, as we are doing, and not be tempted to do what is being called for in many circles: a full ground invasion of Lebanon. This is a policy choice, since I am sure the army can take Lebanon if tasked to do so.
I say this because there is a notion floating about that by attacking Lebanon we can get Hezbollah to break from Hamas and in doing so put pressure on Sinwar. I do not believe a man willing to sacrifice his people will think twice about sacrificing Lebanon.
2. Importantly, I do not think we should imagine for a second Hezbollah will lay down its arms - nor that we can 'minimize the conflict' as we did in the past 18 years since the last war. We need to prepare, and for that we need the US and Germany's manufacturing capacity for Iron Beam. Possibly Italy and France as well. Absolutely not China. Mass production of military equipment is not something anyone is suggesting - the West has those manufacturing capabilities but are currently focused on stopping the Russians from invading NATO and its allies.
3. The transition in Iran can be made more chaotic if we invest our energies in making it so. The more chaotic, the less patience for overseas adventures. We need to do what we do best in stirring that pot.
4. Israel shares with the nearly 70% of non-Shiite Lebanese the incentive to free Lebanon from Iranian influence, and are uniquely suited to parlay with them. Until we shift our strategy from one of 'opposed them all' to that of 'divide and conquer' we will be at war with Lebanon and Iran as opposed to just Iran.
You make your case well, Ariel. However, I feel that you are answering my points by restating your original ones. Still, I appreciate the give-and-take and think that we may have done a small service to our readers.
Fwiw my theory is that the tentacles of the United States reach deeper into things that are profitable than we can fathom. How else to explain the restrictions on Israel fighting back within Lebanon
That many employees with eyes and ears upon Lebanon yet America does not know 👀 yet Israel can listen to whispered threats sideways through a basement air shaft from the next country over as Jews inserting themselves to the most suspicious Nation besides North Korea.
America definitely has interests in Lebanon that are often contradictory to those of Israel. Which is why Israel needs to make the case to America that it will profit far more from a Iran-free Lebanon than from a hotbed of conflict.
I agree with your premise, but realistically, how much good standing does Israel have at this stage? Hasn’t that ship already sailed?
And either way, what would going slow actually look like?
And, importantly, who would actively support, finance and arm a currently weak Lebanon in what could only become a civil war? This would mean going up against an already compromised and humiliated Islamic Republic who may, for all the reasons you laid out in the article, be at the Allah-inspired it’s-now-or-never stage of things?
Thank you Guy - for the comment and the important questions.
Israel has currently lost the little support it had from most of the world, let alone most of our European allies who have the manufacturing capacity we need for munitions. It is true that nearly all of our weapons currently come from the US and Germany, but if we are going to truly take the war to Iran and its proxies we will need to expand production - and for that we need allies able, legally, to sell to us.
Going slow and steady is a policy choice. It is a full on declaration that Israel is dedicating itself to an Iran-free Levant, no less bombastic than that made by Iran about Israel. It will require Israel to make it a foreign and trade policy priority, and to buy political capital wherever possible to motivate its allies and customers to join in this press. It may require a significant additional investment in arming and supporting minority groups across the middle east who oppose Iranian influence: Maronites, Kurds, Assyrians, etc. And it would require a sustained public diplomacy push to explain why this is a decolonial priority.
Given the panic the current war is raising across the world, Israel is uniquely suited to negotiate with global powers to trade its current restraint for their support in these sustained efforts. Give a little now, to get a lot more later.
Thought provoking.
A few notes:
"I believe it would be wise for Israel to limit its operation today to one that can lead to a ceasefire in order to immediately to switch to a more extensive and sustained strategic operation to finish Hezbollah over the years to come."
What strategic operation would that be, Ariel? You seem to suggest that deployment of the Iron Beam will achieve that. Really? With Hezbollah remaining in place?
You then go on to say that since Iron Beam is the solution, we must curry favor with countries that have the capacity for mass production. Are you suggesting China? Because if you are searching for mass production then China is your friend. However, this is not an issue. We are not talking about millions of widgets. Not even tens of thousands. We may need a few thousand units, but most likely a couple of hundred, well within Israel's capacity to produce. Take the production of the Merkava tanks as a reference point.
"Second, the Islamic Republic’s leadership is expected to enter a chaotic period of transition."
Israel cannot base its strategy on wishful thinking. We've had enough of that.
"If we do not want to repeat this conflict with Hezbollah every two decades we will need to lay the foundations for a post-Hezbollah Lebanon."
That's not our foundation to lay.
Israel needs to do one thing: crush finally and absolutely anyone who takes arms against us.
Thank you, Ehud - very good points. Let me try and answer them:
1. I believe the best possible outcome for us now is to force Hezbollah to return past the Litani and for Lebanon to abide by 1701. To do so we need to stay below the escalation threshold of a ground invasion, as we are doing, and not be tempted to do what is being called for in many circles: a full ground invasion of Lebanon. This is a policy choice, since I am sure the army can take Lebanon if tasked to do so.
I say this because there is a notion floating about that by attacking Lebanon we can get Hezbollah to break from Hamas and in doing so put pressure on Sinwar. I do not believe a man willing to sacrifice his people will think twice about sacrificing Lebanon.
2. Importantly, I do not think we should imagine for a second Hezbollah will lay down its arms - nor that we can 'minimize the conflict' as we did in the past 18 years since the last war. We need to prepare, and for that we need the US and Germany's manufacturing capacity for Iron Beam. Possibly Italy and France as well. Absolutely not China. Mass production of military equipment is not something anyone is suggesting - the West has those manufacturing capabilities but are currently focused on stopping the Russians from invading NATO and its allies.
3. The transition in Iran can be made more chaotic if we invest our energies in making it so. The more chaotic, the less patience for overseas adventures. We need to do what we do best in stirring that pot.
4. Israel shares with the nearly 70% of non-Shiite Lebanese the incentive to free Lebanon from Iranian influence, and are uniquely suited to parlay with them. Until we shift our strategy from one of 'opposed them all' to that of 'divide and conquer' we will be at war with Lebanon and Iran as opposed to just Iran.
You make your case well, Ariel. However, I feel that you are answering my points by restating your original ones. Still, I appreciate the give-and-take and think that we may have done a small service to our readers.
https://merip.org/2024/04/beirut-and-the-birth-of-the-fortress-embassy/
Fwiw my theory is that the tentacles of the United States reach deeper into things that are profitable than we can fathom. How else to explain the restrictions on Israel fighting back within Lebanon
That many employees with eyes and ears upon Lebanon yet America does not know 👀 yet Israel can listen to whispered threats sideways through a basement air shaft from the next country over as Jews inserting themselves to the most suspicious Nation besides North Korea.
America definitely has interests in Lebanon that are often contradictory to those of Israel. Which is why Israel needs to make the case to America that it will profit far more from a Iran-free Lebanon than from a hotbed of conflict.
I agree with your premise, but realistically, how much good standing does Israel have at this stage? Hasn’t that ship already sailed?
And either way, what would going slow actually look like?
And, importantly, who would actively support, finance and arm a currently weak Lebanon in what could only become a civil war? This would mean going up against an already compromised and humiliated Islamic Republic who may, for all the reasons you laid out in the article, be at the Allah-inspired it’s-now-or-never stage of things?
Many questions in one comment.
Thank you Guy - for the comment and the important questions.
Israel has currently lost the little support it had from most of the world, let alone most of our European allies who have the manufacturing capacity we need for munitions. It is true that nearly all of our weapons currently come from the US and Germany, but if we are going to truly take the war to Iran and its proxies we will need to expand production - and for that we need allies able, legally, to sell to us.
Going slow and steady is a policy choice. It is a full on declaration that Israel is dedicating itself to an Iran-free Levant, no less bombastic than that made by Iran about Israel. It will require Israel to make it a foreign and trade policy priority, and to buy political capital wherever possible to motivate its allies and customers to join in this press. It may require a significant additional investment in arming and supporting minority groups across the middle east who oppose Iranian influence: Maronites, Kurds, Assyrians, etc. And it would require a sustained public diplomacy push to explain why this is a decolonial priority.
Given the panic the current war is raising across the world, Israel is uniquely suited to negotiate with global powers to trade its current restraint for their support in these sustained efforts. Give a little now, to get a lot more later.