Risk of new military adventures from Washington, Tel Aviv

It is now clear to the world that the United Nations resolution to halt the fighting in Lebanon, negotiated by the Bush administration and its lesser imperialist partner, France, was motivated by Washington’s desire to cut its losses and the losses of its Israeli clients.

Demonstrating renewed capacity for denial in public, President George W. Bush unabashedly proclaimed “victory” in his press conference of Aug. 13, pointing to pro visions of Security Council Resolution 1701.

Bush was flanked by his war advisers: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condo leezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. He had just come from the Pentagon where he met with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was apparently too busy to accompany Bush.

Rumsfeld passed up the opportunity to be present as Bush tried to palm off a humiliating defeat for Washington and Tel Aviv as a “victory.” Perhaps Rumsfeld wants to keep his humiliation within the confines of the Iraq occupation and not take any more “credit” for another all-out U.S. debacle, such as took place in Lebanon.

Bush’s argument was based upon the alleged humbling of Hezbollah. No one asked him to explain certain aspects of the “victory,” which he had defined in the first days of the Israeli aggression as “going to the root cause of the problem” and “never going back to the status quo”—in other words, the destruction of Hezbollah by the Israeli military and the establishment of a subservient regime in Beirut that would passively follow the dictates of Washington.

Had anyone asked, he would have been hard-put to reconcile his claims of victory with certain inconvenient facts: for example, that Hezbollah fired 220 to 250 rockets into Israel, the highest number of the war, on the last day of fighting; that the Israeli military suffered its highest daily casualty count of 24 soldiers killed and many more wounded on the day before the cease-fire; that the Israelis were unable to hold key strategic towns in southern Leba non after 34 days of fighting; and that Hez bollah and its leader, Hassan Nasral lah, have grown immeasurably in political sta ture and popularity, not only in Leba non but throughout the Middle East and beyond, while Bush and the Israeli government are more isolated and despised than ever.

Suddenly, a cease-fire looked good

Bush’s claim of victory was echoed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Knesset, despite the deepening understanding throughout Israel that its military had been humiliated in the longest war in its history by a guerrilla force that it was unable to vanquish despite its U.S.-supplied high-tech weaponry.

According to the New York Times, which is deeply pro-Zionist, “Nahum Barnea, a columnist with the country’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, said, ‘We did not win.’ Israel, he wrote, ‘comes to the cease-fire bruised, conflicted and disturbed.’”

On Aug. 14, the day before Bush’s “victory” speech, the Times in a front-page article by a combined team of three reporters put it bluntly:

“When Israel began its counterattack on Hezbol lah one month ago, the Bush administration backed the Israeli plan to destroy the militia and its arsenal of rockets, resisting efforts by France and other allies to call for a cease-fire.

“But as the assault wore on and it became evident that Hezbollah was a far more fearsome and skilled adversary than Israel had first thought—and as Lebanese casualties mounted—American policy moved more urgently toward seeking an immediate political solution.”

As the Israeli offensive was collapsing, Condo leezza Rice had to rush to New York and “just force this [resolution] through by going there and sitting there until it got done.”

The Times revealed that, in the fight over the wording of the resolution, the U.S. had to change a key provision that would have given an international force key military powers. “Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, would not accept a resolution that appeared to direc tly empower foreign forces to disarm it.”

Thus the “defeated” (according to Bush) Hezbollah was able to veto a key provision proposed by U.S. imperialism. Hezbollah also vetoed other provisions, including one that would have allowed Israeli forces to remain on Lebanese territory.

Bush and Cheney have once again demonstrated their capability for denial, shown so prominently during the disastrous U.S. occupation in Iraq. They are unable to distinguish between a vaguely worded and ambiguous resolution and the hard reality of defeat at the hands of popular resistance forces on the ground.

A historic first

The historic importance of this development is enormous. This is the first time that Washington has had to turn itself inside out diplomatically to save its Israeli clients from disaster. Before this, during times of Israeli aggression the U.S. government has had to use its diplomatic activity to put limits on Tel Aviv because, if left to themselves, the Israelis would harm the interests of U.S. imperialism by going too far. This is the first time they had to use diplomacy to rescue the Israeli military during combat with a section of the Arab masses.

To make matters worse for them, this happened under circumstances in which Washington took as much responsibility for the campaign of brutal aggression as did Tel Aviv. In fact, there are strong indications that the Bush administration conspired with the Israelis to have them execute a program that amounts to Bush’s own foreign policy. The Israelis might have been fighting their own war. But they were given more than just permission to launch this aggression. They were either encouraged or told to do it.

Robert Parry did much to expose the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration. In an article posted Aug. 13 on consortiumnews.com, he wrote:

“Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Leban on, some Israeli officials are private ly blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.

“Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.”

Olmert agreed that “a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syrian, countries that the U.S. has identified as the chief obstacles to its interests in the Middle East.”

As part of Bush’s drive to create a “new Middle East,” said Parry, he urged Olmert to attack Syria. Parry quotes the Jeru salem Post of July 30: “Israeli defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the U.S. that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.”

While Olmert rejected an attack on Syria, he “did agree to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program.”

Bush, Cheney and Iran

Seymour Hersh has written, in a similar but slightly different vein, a lengthy piece entitled “Watching Lebanon” in the issue of the New Yorker magazine dated Aug. 21:

“President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.”

Hersh claims that this plan was devised well before July 12, when Israel used the pretext of a minor military action at the border, in which Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, to launch a sudden all-out savage attack on the entire country of Lebanon, slaughtering close to a thousand civilians, displacing a million and destroying the country’s infrastructure.

Whether or not Parry’s and Hersh’s sources are reliable as to the specific details of their revelations, the aggressive and adventurist political and military orientation of the Bush administration makes it essential for the anti-war move ment, the workers and the oppressed, and all progressive and revolutionary organi zations to remain vigilant and prepare for the next phase of the struggle. It may come sooner or later, but it is inevitable.

The present cease-fire, should it hold—and it very well may not—must be viewed at best as an interlude in which both U.S. imperialism and the Israeli Zionist regime will prepare for new wars of aggression. Undoubtedly the anti-imperialist forces in the Middle East are themselves preparing for such an eventuality.

This is the latest in a series of humiliations for the Bush administration. The war in Lebanon itself was supposed to rescue its sinking policy of creating a “new Middle East” and prosecuting the struggle against national self-determination under the guise of the so-called “war on terrorism.” But instead it destroyed the image of invincibility of Washington’s front-line military police force in the Middle East—Israel. This is objectively a huge setback for Washing ton, Bush and Cheney’s delusionary outlook notwithstanding.

The vulnerability of the Pentagon when facing mass resistance has been demonstrated before the whole world for over three years in Iraq. With all its weapons of destruction, the most powerful military in the world has been fought to a standstill by a fragmented resistance.

U.S. forces were also put under heavy military pressure by a growing resistance in Afghanistan, which has now spread from the south to the north. Washington had to rely on NATO to bail it out of Afghanistan.

The popular electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine was another humiliation for the Bush policy of trying to liquidate the national liberation movement.

Danger of renewed aggression

If the U.S.-backed campaign in Leba non had succeeded, Washington would have been emboldened in its aggression. Never theless, it would be foolhardy to think that defeat will guarantee that the imperialists will reverse their aggressive policy. On the contrary, they are all the more desperate to find a way to impose their will upon the people of the region.

Hezbollah and all the militant fighters in Lebanon have won a great victory. Their achievements are unprecedented in the Middle East since the founding of the Israeli state in 1948. However, this brings an even greater danger of renewed aggression by both Israel and the U.S.

During the Israeli campaign the drumbeat against the Iranian government has grown louder and louder in all Bush’s press conferences and in pronouncements by the U.S. military in Iraq concerning alleged Iranian interference. U.S. Ambas sador Zalmay Khalilzad held a press conference in Baghdad blaming Iran for U.S. troubles. The capitalist media has been sounding the alarm against Iran and Syria.

As the Aug. 31 deadline approaches, at which time Iran is supposed to renounce its nuclear program or face the sanctions of imperialism through the UN Security Council, the anti-Iranian hysteria is bound to grow.

While the Bush administration has virtually been at war with much of its own capitalist foreign policy establishment since it took office, a ruling-class consensus could crystallize around opening hostilities against the Iranian government.

Many imperialist strategists felt that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not really a major threat to U.S. imperialist interests and not worth all the negative consequen -
c es of a preemptive war. Iran, on the other hand, is seen as a growing regional anti-imper ialist force, with a population of 70 million, economic power and wide influence.

Israel will also become more dangerous. It is a nonviable settler state sitting in the middle of hundreds of millions of oppres sed people. It is tied to Western imperialism in general, but especially to U.S. monopoly capital. From the beginning of its existence in 1948 to the present day, the Israeli ruling class and much of its privileged population have lived with the bunker mentality of a besieged and illegitimate state living on land stolen by the expropriation of an entire people.

For such a regime to suffer a defeat at the hands of the Arab masses is intolerable to its rulers, who will be driven to seek to restore its military reputation. Whether it will do this right away or take time to rebuild remains to be seen. The great fear in Israel’s ruling class right now is that it has shown itself to be an unreliable instrument, a failed ally of Washington.

Netanyahu urges a ‘next time’

Benjamin Netanyahu, the ultra right-wing former prime minister and leader of the right wing of the Likkud Party, made a speech in the Knesset denouncing Olmert, the Israeli high command and the cabinet for failing in the war. He said that Israel must rebuild its alliance with the U.S. “No one allies with the weak,” said Netanyahu. He offered to restore the strength of the alliance with Washington based on waging a common struggle against Iran.

In a speech to the Knesset, Olmert said that Israel would be more prepared “next time.” The Israeli ruling class is presently in a state of confusion. Recriminations are flying back and forth. But it is doubtful that the Israeli military can be reconciled to accepting the present humiliation without eventually carrying out some adventure in the region.

Events are pushing both Washington and Tel Aviv in the direction of new adventures. From each popular victory comes a greater struggle. The movement must fight to stop any new aggression by Wash ington, or its clients in Tel Aviv, whether against Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Palestine or anywhere.