The Mideastwire Blog

Excerpts from the Arab and Iranian Media & Analysis of US Policy in the Region

(It was always obvious:) Hizbullah will fight this existential battle that Assad’s brutal stupidity+Hizbullah’s obtuse enemies have forced upon it

In the summer of 2011, while traveling outside of the region, I had a chance to more accurately and calmly reflect on what I saw as the likely pathway of violence around the Syria crisis and Hizbullah.

The analysis was perceived at the time as overly alarmist by some.

As journalists and policy tankers etc. are waking up to the “reality” of NYT headlines which they thought were highly unlikely back then (remember all those people who were saying, oh Hizbullah will back down soon, there will be splits, they are a paper tiger when it comes to syria etc etc…), well enjoy this from july 2011.:

Here is the key part in retrospect:

… Should Assad’s multiplying list of enemies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, choose to go in for the kill, either bluntly or obliquely, Hezbollah, it now seems evident after meeting with party officials, is prepared to use all necessary means to fight back, and fight back widely.

A collapse of the Levant leg of the Resistance Axis is simply unacceptable for Hezbollah. And seeing no reasonable options for escaping such an outcome in a “just” manner (a course that was available in March 2000 when the party was ready to lay down its arms), Hezbollah will have little choice but to become a part and parcel of one last climactic conflict.

Since the Assad regime’s threshold for doing the same is probably lower (and far more incendiary with its WMD capability), the actors now consolidating themselves to boil Assad (and secondarily Hezbollah) to the breaking point, including many influential voices in Washington and European capitals, need to very carefully consider the wisdom of the road that they are going down—a road that will, in all probability, bring great destruction to the region, including to Israel whose home front will undoubtedly be a main frontline.

Saying this, however, does not have to mean simply withering away in the face of a threat. Instead, it could mean—it should mean—that outside actors who hold such comparatively great power (Israel alone could probably bomb both Syria and Lebanon back into the Stone Age whereas its opponents cannot), might finally have to find a means and a discourse to grant concessions to far weaker, though to many still detestable, parties—a course that would actually fatally undermine their ability and desire to exercise violence over time, either against their own people or against other nations.


Written by nickbiddlenoe

May 26, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: