Despite Hezbollah's Ties to Iran and Syria, It Also Acts Alone

[cynatnite]

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration was quick to pin responsibility on Iran and Syria when Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers this week. Yet those countries may not have specifically planned and ordered the raid that has brought the Middle East to the edge of war, U.S. officials and terrorism experts say.

Iran and Syria each have long-standing ties to Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim militant group, and no Western government doubts that they provide financial, political and logistical support. But some officials and experts say Hezbollah can also move on its own initiative, for its own reasons, even as it seeks to avoid any move that would displease its chief patrons.

"It sometimes does act on its own," said Wayne White, who was a senior official in the State Department's intelligence arm until last year.

White said intelligence agencies have differed on how much Iran might be spending on Hezbollah but that they agree there are very strong ties between that country and the group. Even so, he said, it would be an overstatement to say that Hezbollah is a "pawn" of Iran.

Wednesday's kidnapping "could have been someone seizing a moment of opportunity — a bunch of Hezbollah guys could have done it without even thinking they need permission from on high," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, who said he was basing his speculation on experience with the group and spoke on condition of anonymity while discussing intelligence matters. "Terrorist operations can happen at any moment and be quite fluid."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hezbollah14jul14,1,808614.story?coll=la-headlines-world

[The Magistrate]

1. That Is Quite True, Ma'am

And seems likely to be the case in this recent provocation it has committed.

Iran and Syria do provide the necessities of operation for Hezbollah, one as source and one as conduit, and they get in exchange for this a good deal of political capital as the patrons of a successful opponent of Israel. The relationship is usually read as working only one way, but there is another end to the stick. If Hezbollah does something on its own that blows up into a great confrontation with Israel, as this has done, they have little room to disown their popular client, and no means to rein it in in the short term. Thus Nasrallah can create conditions in which his ostensible patrons have no real choice but to support his actions, even if they had no desire for him to do what he has done.

[Solly Mack]

2. I'd have missed this if you hadn't posted it. Thanks!

[Igel]

3. This is certainly true, and while it shouldn't need to be said,

it probably is. One could try to assign blame for having provisioned Hezbollah, since it provides little service to its patrons beyond the occasional attack, and persistent threat, on Israel's military and civilian populations.

More important will be Iran's and Syria's responses. If Nasrallah decided this on his own, and is now a loose cannon, one would expect that disapproval would be expressed by a diminution in the amount of funding, training, and materiel. If Iranian Rev Guard folk are present, one would expect them to be called out as soon as is ... honorable, in Khamenei's staff's view.

Of equal importance will be the Lebanese government's view. While tribalism, whether of a religious or national nature, may account for whatever pulling together behind Hezbollah is occuring, once the pressure is off Nasrallah must be held accountable for triggering this; as a matter of pride one expects Lebanon's government to say "go, boys" at this point. That it was not predicted simply means that Hezbollah needs better analysts making their predictions; previous acts by Hezbollah could have led to this state of affairs. If support from the government remains a month or two after this conflict is over, or Hezbollah is even simply tolerated, the government will have given their blessing to Hezbollah's actions.

[azurnoir]

5. The Lebanese government

does not seem to be pulling together behind Hezbollah, in an interview last night NPR was talking with a Lebanese official, who was quite adamant about Syria's and possibly Iran's involvement. The linked article is Lebanon's plea to the UN for help.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5559950

[Igel]

6. If they're not supporting Hezbollah,

then that's good. But they'll be forced to take sides; in fact, I suspect that's one thing Israel will insist on.

But I think the Leb. government really, really want the status quo ante. And that's not going to happen, I don't think.

I don't think Israel has a well-reasoned end-game in mind; they have a tactic, and a goal, and a large disconnect between the two.

[azurnoir]

7. Given the alternatives

it's possible Lebanon would have taken sides with Israel if they had been asked earlier, say Thursday. The problem is with each passing day it becomes more difficult and now Syria is offering their help, what a surprise. I'm rather cynical about Syria helping Lebanon, given recent history.

[azurnoir]

4. Hezbollah could have acted alone

however their response to Israel was rapid and seemingly coordinated for it to be a spontaneous act. As far as not thinking through consequence, the MSM had played the "crazy Jihadi" theme a bit too much it is easy to lump up the parties opposing Israel or the US that way. There really could not have been any question as to what Israel's response would be. Hezbollah with or without approval from Damascus or Tehran acted opportunistically.