DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 31, 2015, 12:00:25 AM
-
Iran weighs turning Hizballah's anti-Israel
missiles against ISIS to save Damascus and Baghdad
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
May 30, 2015
Hizballah's General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah frequently brags that his 80,000 missiles can reach any point in Israel. He may have to compromise on this. His masters in Tehran are casting about urgently for ways to save the Assad regime in Damascus and halt the Islamic State's inexorable advance on Baghdad and the Shiite shrine city of Karbala. According to debkafile's Gulf sources, Iran is eyeing the re-allocation of the roughly 1,000 long-range rockets in Hizballah's store for warding off these calamities.
Some would be fired from their pads in Lebanon, exposing that country to retaliation, after Beirut rebuffed Hizballah's demand for the Lebanese army to join in the fight for Assad.
Iran has not so far approved the plan. But if it does go through, Iranian spy drones operating over the war zones would feed with targeting data on ISIS and rebel positions and movements to the Hizballah rocket crews manning the mobile batteries of Fajr-5s - range 400-600 km; Zelzal-2s - range 500 km; Fateh-110s -range 800 km; and Shaheen 2s - 800-900 km.
Discussions in Tehran on this option took on new urgency Thursday, May 28, when White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that the United States "would not be responsible for securing the security situation in Iraq. Our strategy is to support the Iraqi security forces? back them on the battlefield with coalition military air power as they take the fight to ISIS in their own country," he said.
Tehran took this as confirmation that the US was quitting the war on the Islamic State in Iraq although the Obama administration?s decision was coupled with a free hand for the Baghdad government to do whatever it must to deal with the peril, including calling on external forces for assistance in defending the country.
In the Iraqi arena, Iran has thrown into the fray surrogate Shiite militias grouped under "The Popular Mobilization Committee." It is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who turns out to be an Iranian, not an Iraqi, and working under cover as the deputy of the Al Qods Brigades Commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
This grouping is too shady for President Barack Obama to accept as worthy of US air support. Therefore, the entire anti-ISIS campaign has been dumped in Iran?s lap. Loath to expose its own air force planes to the danger of being shot down over Iraq, Iran is looking at the option of filling the gap with heavy missiles.
In the Syrian arena, Tehran is under extreme pressure:
1. The Assad regime can't last much longer under fierce battering from the rebel Nusra Front, freshly armed and funded with massive assistance from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. To disguise this group?s affiliation with al Qaeda, the Saudis have set up a new outfit called "The Muslim Army of Conquest." In a few days it was joined by 3,000 Nusra adherents.
2. The Syrian army has lost heart under this assault and many of its units are fleeing the battlefield rather than fighting, with the result that Bashar Assad is losing one piece of territory after another in all his war sectors. Soon, he will be left without enough troops for defending Damascus.
3. Although Hizballah's leaders proclaim their determination to fight for Assad in every part of Syria, the fact is that the Shiite group is too stretched to support a wide-ranging conflict in Syria and defend its own home base in Lebanon at one and the same time.
4. Tehran is also considering rushing through a defense pact with Damascus to enable Assad to call on Iranian troops to come over and rescue him.
5. Saudi Arabia has singled out leaders of top Hizballah leaders for sanctions. This week, Riyadh impounded the assets and accounts of Khalil Harb and Muhammad Qabalan in Gulf banks. This act was taken in Tehran as a major provocation.
The names don't mean much outside a small circle in the region. However, Harb is Hizballah's supreme chief of staff whose military standing is comparable to that of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Ali Jaafary, while Qabalan is the organization's senior intelligence and operations officer and responsible for orchestrating Hizballah's terrorist hits outside Lebanon.
The Iranians are not about to let this affront go by without payback, which could come in the form of missile attacks by Hizballah on Saudi-backed groups in Syria.
http://www.debka.com/article/24633/Iran-weighs-turning-Hizballah?s-anti-Israel-missiles-against-ISIS-to-save-Damascus-and-Baghdad
-
Syria is far more important to Iran than Israel, and if Hezbollah had the power to send missiles into Israel, this would have already happened. Every organization in the Middle East, government or movement is run by pompous braggarts.
There is no chance that Syria will ever have a pro-US government, because the Syrians hate Israel for seizing the Golan and annexing it years ago. They is a major reason why Obama wisely kept the US out of any major faction in Syria.
The Saudis are Sunni fanatics, but so corrupt they make deals with the US anyway: they like getting paid in dollars. The Iranians are Shia fanatics, but their corruption is mostly internal. They are certainly more in favor of exterminating Dash, though.
-
if Hezbollah had the power to send missiles into Israel, this would have already happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/28/world/middleeast/ap-ml-israel-lebanon.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east-jan-june14-levinson_01-05/
-
These missiles can't do serious harm to Isis. About as bad as poorly aimed artillery.
Isis power does not depend on defending civilians from bombardment.
[][][][][][][][][]
What is our best choice?
Can we avoid a need to fight the winner eventually?
-
Hmm actually it's might end up like picking up the pieces. As they attack each other isis will likely eat alot of resources for it's trouble and the occupied area may rebel.
Unless i've been misinformed how unpopular isis is to everybody
-
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11351433_977692788930518_7484759535322425867_n.jpg?oh=7b308c73146978ec25f6b1fb9ae4bca7&oe=55EED3A0)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis/
-
These appear to be the same poorly made missiles that the Israelis wail are an "existential threat". They are more like dangerous toy rockets than actual weapons. They will prove as useful for defeating ISIS as they are to defeating Israel. Big Whoop!
-
No ,these are professionally made artillery rockets with the range to cross Israel and the payload to wreck a whole building.
But terrorizing the population or even killing quite a few of them will not phase Isis very much.
The ridiculous rockets of Gaza are another thing.
-
What is our best choice?
Our best choice is to not keep making the same mistake over and over.
We should not help, encourage, or aid the overthrow of secular strongmen,
because more often than not we end up with someone worse!
We got rid of secular strong man Saddam...
Iraq is now in chaos, more dominated by Iran, and ISIS may take over.
We helped get rid of and bombed secular Qaddafi.
Libya is now in chaos.
IslamoNazis murdered the US Ambassador to Libya.
ISIS or other IslamoNazis may take over Libya.
We have called for and aided in the secular Assad's overthrow in Syria.
Syria is in shambles....with over 220,000 dead and ISIS may take over Syria.
The only silver lining in any of these catastrophes is there
are a lot of crazy Muzzies killing other crazy Muzzies.
-
The only silver lining in any of these catastrophes is there
are a lot of crazy Muzzies killing other crazy Muzzies.
I don't suppose this is the original Obama plan.
When President Obama went to Egypt and made the speech that seemed to ignite the imagination of the middle east and North Africa, I think what it changed was the perception that the US was supporting the continuance of stable tyrants.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/newbeginning/transcripts/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
This might be the big agreement between President Obama and President Bush.
That we don't need tyrants to be stable.
-
The only advantage of tyrants is that they are stable. It helps if they are easily bribed.
-
The only advantage of tyrants is that they are stable. It helps if they are easily bribed.
yes...and some are not mass murderers.
Saudi Royalty may not be ideal, but probably better than ISIS or Taliban
-
They are assholes, but they are OUR assholes.
Eventually, the Saudi ruling family will be deposed. We are unlikely to like what comes after that.
Isis does not actually know how to run a country. Their approach to economics is to loot the rich and to loot the archeological treasures and the natural resources, like oil.
But in several years, this will run out, they will need drilling equipment and will rrum out of rich people to kidnap.
-
So President Professor's Foreign Policy would be largely like Rand Paul's? Let them kill, behead, burn, and mass murder until......they run out of victims?
-
What do you suggest? That the US actually INVADE Syria?
This country has already demonstrated its inability to reform Muslim nations. We do not have that ability.
The US could NEVER impose a government on Syria that the Syrians would like. Not unless we forced Israel to return Syrian territory. Since we won't do that, why waste our money and our soldiers' lives in another fruitless pursuit. Syria is not our war, we did nto start it and we cannot end it.
All we can do is support those who will prevent ISIS from controlling more territory.
-
What do you suggest? That the US actually INVADE Syria?
Nope, not in the least. But I would also neither advocate a policy that you and Paul are supportive of. oh vey. ::)
President Sirs would put the hammer down to any and all Islamic terrorist command & control locations, while using both CIA operatives and seal teams to execute those terrorists, with as much pin point accuracy as possible. Give them the clear message that if you're in charge, you're number 1 on our hit parade.
The WORST thing you can do, as the primary defender of this country, per the Constitution, is stick your head in the sand and think they'll just go away. This isn't about "reforming nations", this is about killing a global virus.....Militant Islamofascism or if you prefer, Radical Islamic Terrorists. We not just support those nations that also see the threat, its actively assisting them with the might of U.S military military power. Simple as that
-
You overestimate what seal teams are capable of doing.
-
You underestimate what America can do, when we put our minds to it. SEALs is just 1 component of a massive amount of options. And no, that doesn't include nukes or carpet bombing. Merely that we have a multitude of military options, at our disposal. The point here is making it clear who the enemy is....targeting them....and killing them....period
-
If this country were so capable, why is it that we are still in Afghanistan after 13 years and in Iraq after ten?
It is one thing to subdue an army. That is the easy part and the US military is quite good at it. Subduing a guerrilla movement is exceedingly difficult. When you kill one guerrilla, family members and others who had some close relationship to him join. The Revolutionary patriots managed to endure seven years by guerrilla tactics, and then won when the French blockaded Cornwallis and the Brits could not even rent enough troops to send more.
The problem is not that the US military is incapable, it is that the job of defeating a foreign enemy on his own soil is an extremely difficult one. Note that the Russians invaded and obliterated the Chechens at least twice, and I doubt that they have defeated the idea of Chechen independence.
The proper strategy is not to invade other countries unless they are very small, like Grenada or Panama.
As Eisenhower said "No land wars in Asia".
-
If this country were so capable, why is it that we are still in Afghanistan after 13 years and in Iraq after ten?
You can land that answer to the policies of this president, who instead of using our military they way its designed, would simply throw a few drones in their direction, doing not much more than irritating them. And I never claimed it would be easy, but nothing in life is usually easy, especially when its fighting/defending our freedoms & way of life.....especially in dealing with the threat of radical Islam. The main focus though is to have clear goals & objectives, which we have neither currently. Nor does that require "invading" other countries
But what we don't do is pretend the threat doesn't exist, until more buildings are taken down, or a dirty bomb is released in some metropolitan area in America
-
If an American boot hits foreign soil without the approval of the government of that country, that is an invasion.
The US military was not designed to overthrow Muslim countries and turn them into democracies. Such a design is pretty much impossible, anyway. The fault of the mess in the Middle East starts with covert operations dating back to the 1950's, and culminating with stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, which was both unnecessary and against the Koran. The US did not need to support Saddam in his war with Iran, but it did, and that was a stupid move,
The stupidest move of all was invading Iraq. There would be no Isis had Juniorbush not done this.
The main threat of Isis is to Middle Eastern countries. We should never ask the military to do the impossible.
That was what was asked of my generation in Vietnam. MacNamara knew it was impossible to win and so did LBJ. But they kept drafting kids and sending them off to die for no good reason. That is immoral. Invading Iraq was immoral.
The place to stop Al Qaeda, Isis or whomever is at the border, if the goal is to prevent American civilians from getting killed.
We can SUPPORT the local governments, but we are incapable of successfully exterminating Isis or Al Qaeda. It just can't be done.
-
We have SEAL's & CIA operatives all across the globe, especially in the middle east. Under your parameters, we're currently invading pretty much every country in the middle east. We have military &/or CIA assets in pretty much every hot spot on the globe. Those aren't "invasions". Invasion, is used by folks like yourself to imply some massive 10,000 soldier crossing the border.
Now, if you want to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-debate the merits about going into Iraq, start a new thread. But that's not the reason the middle east is blowing up like it currently is. It's CURRENT policy of plactating, appeasing, and spending more time working with our enemies than our allies. A few drone hits, here, combined with sticking our head in the sand, until they supposedly run out of local victims isn't a plan.
So, 1 more time.....this is NOT about invading any other country, or trying to reform any other government. ISIS is a global threat, targeting anyone that doesn't comply with their radicalized version of Islam. And if you actually believe they don't have their sights set on terrorizing & targeting the U.S., you are being seriously near sighted
-
Bah!
You are so easily excited about crap. No Muslim has even ever overcharged you for Froot Loops at the Quik-E Mart and you are all gaga about your safety, shaking in your boots like Courage the Cartoon dog.
Do not tell me what I mean by invasion, either.
-
One can always tell how spot on a post is becoming, proportional to the deflection efforts the professor starts to employ. Froot loops?? :o
You see, this is a perfect windown into how the left thinks. They have a template, in this case, that those who support our efforts to take out militant Islamics is actually a war on muslims, thus the crack about Quik-e mart. Targeting specific terrorists and their militants is tantamount to some full invasion. Trying to take them on is trying to reform or overthrow some Government. And when you again demonstrate & explain the specificity of what one supports, you get the AMBE, we were all just witness to
And I'll tell you exactly what you try to imply with your mutated definitions, thank you very much
-
Okay, you are a Scaredy Cat. You want Big Government to save you from the evil Islamic terrorists, even though you always have your trysty Roscoe armed and loaded by your side. How about that?
-
This has squat to do with "big Government" Dr Deflection. And I'm not sure why you keep giving one of my firearms a formal name. Are you having a long distance relationship with it? I hate to crush you, but it's got no feelings to return.
-
"Trusty Roscoe" is a phrase from those old singing cowboy movies.
Since you are so well armed, I doubt that the evil Islamic Statists will be able to do yyou any har., once you get over your fears.
-
"Trusty Roscoe" is a phrase from those old singing cowboy movies.
If you say so. I don't recall any such references, but I'm not as much into fantasy as you perhaps
Since you are so well armed, I doubt that the evil Islamic Statists will be able to do yyou any har., once you get over your fears.
My being armed has nothing to do with the Radical Islamic threat. And the only fear I have is the loss of freedom at the hands of a "well intentioned" Government. That, and heights
-
Invading and destroying is not really so hard , not as long as we are some multiple of the opponents strength.
We ought to invade with gusto, then leave.
We have gotten more than fifty times the casualties as occupiers as we did as invaders.
Then we leave after a few years of miserable occupation and watch the same power vacuum suck down civil society as if we had never invested a dime.
So lets invade any state sufficiently irritating to be worth the trouble. Then leave a calling card and go away before it costs too much.
On the calling card it can say, we won't be back, unless we get invited the same way again.
-
The US has proven that it cannot do this. I don't think that anyone could invade Syria, put an end to Isis and leave a peaceful and stable Syria behind.
Perhaps they can assist the locals in doing away with Isis, but any sort of invasion will mostly just leave even more weapons behind for the various remaining factions to play with after we leave. Because we must eventually leave.
Whatever the threat posed by Isis is, it is not the threat of Big Government. They will not be trying to add the US to their Caliphate.
-
The US has proven that it cannot do this. I don't think that anyone could invade Syria, put an end to Isis and leave a peaceful and stable Syria behind.
Perhaps they can assist the locals in doing away with Isis, but any sort of invasion will mostly just leave even more weapons behind for the various remaining factions to play with after we leave. Because we must eventually leave.
Whatever the threat posed by Isis is, it is not the threat of Big Government. They will not be trying to add the US to their Caliphate.
I think we have proven tht we can depose that sort of government in weeks, but that afterwards we feel too compelled to fix what we have broken.
Next time lets break and run.
Will there be a next time ?
Assuredly adding all the world to the caliphate is the agenda of Isis.
-
That will not work. of course. Isis does not know how to actually run a country. So far all they have done is to loot and pillage, and this is a very limited way and will not work for even a year.
The first caliphates did not even last a century. All attempts to reinstate caliphates have failed. They are likely to be as successful as attempts to make the whole world Christian, Communist, or vegetarian.