Saving Hezbollah

Why is the West so Intent on Saving Hezbollah (and the Iranian Nuclear Program)?

Although it was harmful to Israel’s war effort and to the Gazans themselves there was some (twisted) logic in sending humanitarian aid to Gaza even under the control of Hamas.  There were hungry people there after all and no one wants that. Feed them at all costs.  But, we are not here to talk about that absurdity but rather the incredible, panicky attempt by the West to save Hezbollah and their patron Iran.  The absolute panic in the West caused by the beeper and walkie talkie attack followed by the assassination of Nasrallah and his senior staff is similar to a panic caused by a market crash where everyone is struggling to save what they have left.   Why is the West struggling to save whatever is left of Hezbollah?

The chief figure in this is of course the French President, Macron.   As the French still consider themselves influential in Lebanon, a country they carved out of Greater Syria, they had all kinds of strange ideas regarding separating Israel and Hezbollah and preventing a “wider conflict”.  But none of that was done with any sense of urgency as Israel was just attacking a few military targets and Hezbollah was only creating a security zone south of the Israel-Lebanon border. No harm done, in French and Western eyes.  But as soon as Hezbollah was being hit where it counted – mostly the all Shiite (meaning all Hezbollah) Beirut neighborhood of Dahieh and the stability and very existence of Hezbollah was questioned, all of the sudden Macron led the way for an immediate cease fire and topped it off with a call for an arms embargo against Israel.

The Biden-Harris administration called for a cease fire and begged Israel to refrain from a ground invasion and recently ordered Israel to cease its bombings of the Dahieh neighborhood of Beirut.  They also pressured Israel not to invade Lebanon turning an invasion into an incursion whose goal is to return Israeli residents in the north to their homes,  instead of the elimination of Hezbollah in at least south Lebanon.   France created Lebanon to protect its large Christian population, and one would think they would be happy to free them and the country as a whole from the de facto control by a terrorist organization.  One would think that Macron would want to avenge the murder of 58 French troops by Hezbollah in 1983 (the same time that 241 American marines and sailors were murdered).  But one would be wrong.

There seems to be a united Western policy of protecting and encouraging the Shiite Crescent that starts in Iran and moves westward through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon.  The big question started during the Obama administration with two fateful moves.  The first was the withdrawal from Iraq which led to two major forces battling for control of that country – Iran and what was to become ISIS.  Iran always had its eyes on Iraq as it went to war with them for 8 years and considers its large Shiite population to be subservient to Iran (although Ayatollah Sistani would debate that). 

The Arab Spring brought the next opportunity for Iran, this time in Syria.  The Asaad regime was always pro-Iran and as vehemently anti-Israel, but Bashar, like his father, did not like to be subservient to anyone – until his regime was threatened.  Iran sent Hezbollah fighters to defend the regime from the Syrian opposition which grew from the Arab Spring.   Once ISIS came in as part of the opposition, foreign forces (including the US) came to fight them – essentially defending he Syrian regime, too, although not officially.

Once Syria started using chemical weapons against the opposition the US drew its red lines with Kerry’s famous “very small attacks” which wiped away the red line – things started to go awry.   We had a legitimate opposition to the murderous Asaad regime, and ISIS, consisting mostly of foreign fighters, Hezbollah and the chemical weapon using Syrian army backing up the regime and various other forces from Sunni and Western countries fighting ISIS.

Obama then decided that the smart thing to do was to reintroduce Russia into the region, thinking that they had influence with the Asaad regime regarding chemical weapons and thinking that they were a rational, western type actor in the realm of foreign affairs.  But what was the real reason for inviting Russia back in?  If chemical weapons was the issue, then a quick bombing run of their facilities and a near hit on the Presidential palace would have kept them in line.  What if the real issue was to keep Asaad in power – not as the monster we know – but as the ally or Iran ?   We all know that Obama was always searching for that strong Moslem power that could “balance” Israel, the “foreign” country in the middle east.

He knew it had to be a strong, populous country so first he wanted it to be Turkey but Erdogan proved hard to deal with.   The next choice was Egypt after Mubarak under the rule of the Moslem Brotherhood, but the coup by El-Sisi ruined that choice.  That left Iran, a populous, educated country with the anti-Semitic bona fides to lead the “Arab street”.  But Iran is rather far from Israel and although a nuclear weapon would change the equation Obama needed a more imminent threat.  The Shiite crescent would be the answer.  Prop up Assad by bringing in Russian air and naval power and Wagner fighters.  Keep Hezbollah as the main military force and eliminate both ISIS and the legitimate Syrian (Sunni) opposition. After a short time the US would not have to fight ISIS and would not have bases in Iraq or Syria, Iran and Russia would “keep the peace” – there would be no Syrian government that might oppose Iran (which would be the case if the Syrian opposition would win) and Israel would be “balanced” with enough firepower, close and far, to force it to “solve” the Palestinian issue.

This is speculation of course and assumes that Obama and his foreign policy team (led by John Kerry!) had the foresight and strategic thinking to work this out.  It also assumes that Obama’s main foreign policy goal in the Mideast is the creation of a Palestinian state.  The latter seems pretty obvious as the Obama FP clique is still stuck on the “Naqba” of 1948 narrative and the “damage” Israel has done to global morality.   As for the former, even those with no ability to think clearly on many issues can concentrate their minds on that one issue that drives them crazy – the strength of the Jewish State.

As for the Macron and the French, their anti-Christian as much as their anti-Israel natures would point to the need to save Hezbollah in order to keep the Lebanese Christians from having more control and power and maybe even making peace with Israel before “solving the Palestinian issue”.   Backing Hezbollah for Macron and the French is a two-fer.

Saving Hezbollah and keeping the Iranian nuclear program in working order would keep Israel from achieving victory that would change the entire nature of the middle east in a way that would not be in sync with the Obama-Biden-Macron visions of their post-modern, post-colonial world.