Just don't hold your breath.
Today, I am posting two interesting opinion pieces. Regarding Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, the US and of course Israel.
The Iranian President is visiting Lebanon. Some reports have him being greeted with open arms.
Some reports have Israel very concerned. TIME has a strange headline?
What is the implication? Lot of referencing to stones thrown and sniper shots?
Talk of danger and instability. Would this visit present an opportunity. If so, for who?
I found this piece sort of interesting... Using DEBKA as a resource, this writer opines that the Iranian leaders visit may present an opportunity for Hezbollah to overthrow the government of Lebanon. Which is odd, as I though Hezbollah was a political party in the Lebanese government.
So I am not sure about that?
The writer also mentions keeping an eye on Syria?
Assad has tried to put on a moderate appearance: a few weeks ago, he publicly asked the Iranian president to cancel his visit to South Lebanon. Assad offered to enter peace talks with Israel.
Assad reshuffled his security agencies.
According to Debka, the senior US diplomat, Frederic Hof, on Friday delivered an ultimatum to Syria not to allow Hezbollah to use any violence in Lebanon. Such a move makes a lot of sense, and it even falls short of what some analysts feel Barack Obama needs to do. "Obama must, at a minimum, publicly state that he will hold Syria accountable for any bid to topple the Lebanese government, whether by the Syrians or their proxies in Hezbollah,"
Obama is hard-pressed for some foreign-policy achievements, and according to Stratfor this will likely be even more true after the November congressional elections in the US. Given the gloomy news coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and the poor progress of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.. the US administration might be prepared to reward Syria generously for a peace agreement with Israel.
For now, nevertheless, a Syrian defection from Iran is still in the realm of speculation, and Assad appears set on vacillating. What that means for Lebanon remains to be seen - perhaps very shortly.
So, keep an eye on Syria. If they make nice with Israel before the US elections, Obama will have one thing to campaign on. Wondering what generous reward Syria would be offered for that. Could it be Lebanon? How would that be made possible?
Then onto the war on Pakistan. I know no one is officially calling it that, but, that is what it is.
In a previous article regarding America’s strategic objectives in Pakistan, I had opined that the ongoing war on terror in Afghanistan is aimed to take the operations into the Pakistani territory. The real target is Pakistan’s nuclear potential; they have no plausible security threat from the ill-equipped Talibans or ragtag extremist. Arthur Herman, an author and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has hinted at the real objective of the US. AEI is a think tank closely associated with the neoconservatives and is openly committed to Israel’s security. It supplies advisors to officials of the US administration and serves as “incubator for new policy ideas and is critical part of the web of power in Washington”
The line of arguments puts the emphasis on the perceived fact that the US cannot win the war on terror in Afghanistan, unless the militant sanctuaries in Pakistan are shutdown or ‘blown out’ - but the current US policy is not achieving that goal. The hidden suggestion is obvious: there has to be an escalation in the crossborder military attacks. (They have been working on that) What we have witnessed in the latest NATO raid on FC post is a step towards that direction. It was intentional, as the NATO Secretary General has said; they knew the post was not a terrorist sanctuary and yet they attacked it. It is a deliberate provocation to test the response from Pakistan side. (the response was the temporary closure of the Khyber pass)
There are however bigger fish to catch. The writer asserts that once the NATO forces are certain of the location of Pakistan nukes they will strike quickly and decisively.
The US, thus, is not inclined to militarily move into Pakistan and stay here for a longer duration in occupation mode. With Pakistan army’s fighting potential and the general hostility of the masses it will be a very costly affair. America does not want another Vietnam in this region. They would like to mount a lightning strike to take out Pakistan’s nukes. That can happen only once General David Petraeus is reasonably assured about the location of our nuclear assets.
Then there is Blackwater ( what ever their new name is no one seems to use it)
I had voiced my apprehension in a previous article about the role and tasking of the notorious Blackwater and its deployment in Pakistan. What is it doing in Pakistan no one knows? In fact, it has just vanished. It may be vigorously searching the storage facilities and locations of our assets which weigh heavily on the American mind, or should one say the Israeli mind.
Of course Israel is never to far behind..
Israel is wary of nuclear capability with any Muslim country. During Zia’s regime, it is reported that Israel with the connivance of India wanted to destroy Kahuta by launching an air raid.What movements will take place on the Grand Chessboard?
More so, the political clout that Israel exercises on the US administration is obvious. The fact that policy suggestions to take the war to Pakistan emanate from the think tanks, who work for the Israel lobby, indicates that this lobby is using all its might to force the Obama administration to create conditions where it becomes possible to go after Pak nuclear assets. For the time being, aerial and ground based pressure will be exercised to keep things hot. Once the ground reconnaissance by Blackwater confirms the targets, there will be an all-out effort to destroy them. Till then, the US led “anti-terror forces” will keep Pakistan engaged by raids in FATA area stepping up the tempo. Pakistan needs to remain vigilant and be prepared for the worst.