At the Start of Something.

            Over the years, Iran has armed and helped organize “proxy” forces on the borders of Israel.  Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthies in Yemen all are clients of Iran.  The Iranian term for these groups is the “Axis of Resistance.”  They are sometimes described in the Western media as Iran’s forward line of defense against Israel.  In truth they are the “Axis of Aggression” and Iran’s forward line of attack against Israel. 

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel.[1]  Israel began a long, grinding conquest of Gaza.  Soon after Hamas launched its attack, Hezbollah (“Party of God”) in Lebanon (and eventually the Houthies in Yemen) began supporting Hamas by their own missile attacks on northern Israel and shipping in the Red Sea.  Sixty thousand people fled northern Israel in search of a place of greater safety.  Israel did little in response to these attacks as it concentrated its effort on Gaza. 

The Israeli are, apparently, masters of Sequence: first one thing, then the next thing.  Suddenly, Israeli pummeled Hezbollah.  (This may be a sign that the government regards matters as being well in hand in Gaza.)  First, pagers previously distributed by Hezbollah to many of its members exploded.  These had been chosen as a more secure communication device than cell phones, calls on which might easily be intercepted by Israel.  The next day, walkie-talkies distributed as a back-up system to the pagers exploded.  Israel’s intelligence service had compromised Hezbollah’s communications logistics. 

Then Israel began bombing in a precise (but bloody) fashion.  On the one hand, they hit many in the upper ranks of Hezbollah’s leadership.  Apparently, they knew how to locate them.  Among the dead were Hassan Nasrallah, the long-time leader of Hezbollah; Nabil Kaouk, a deputy of Nasrallah; and Ibrahim Akil, head of Hezbollah’s equivalent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.  These all come on top of earlier assassinations.[2] 

On the other hand, Israeli jets pounded storage sites of Hezbollah’s missiles and rockets.  American and Israeli sources claim that perhaps half of Hezbollah’s huge stockpile has been destroyed.[3]  Then Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded southern Lebanon.  The government of Israel claims that this is a “limited” operation meant to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah troops and weapons.  Only time will tell if this operation really is “limited” or if it portends something larger. 

In response to the battering of Hezbollah, it’s patron-state Iran launched a large strike of 181 missiles at targets in Israel.  Backed up by fire from U.S. Navy destroyers, Israel’s air defense system shot down most of the incoming missiles. 

            Is Hezbollah irreparably damaged or destroyed?  Much of the discussion seems to report a consensus view that Hezbollah SHOULD be destroyed or, at least, forced out of its powerful position in Lebanon’s politics.  It doesn’t really address the question of whether Hezbollah CAN be destroyed.  Certainly, the huge damage done to its upper leadership will weaken and disorganize Hezbollah for some time.  That weakness and disorganization will open more gaps for Israel to attack.  Furthermore, in light of the history of other revolutionary movements, there is likely to be a great “rat hunt” inside Hezbollah for the Israeli agent or agents.  In light of the history of other “rat hunts,” the person in charge of the hunt will almost certainly be an Israeli agent.[4]  In light of the history of other organizations, such hunts tend to wreak havoc with the organization engaged in the “rat hunt.”[5]  Deep distrust may lead to fragmentation, at least for a time. 

            However, Hezbollah is supposed to have around 100,000 fighting men that it can call up.  That is a substantial base from which to recruit a new leadership hierarchy.  Not to draw too close a parallel, but consider the American “War on Drugs.”  For half a century now, we’ve devoted great resources to battling the “drug cartels.”[6]  Huge loads of illegal drugs and the cash from their sale have been captured; many cartel members have been captured; many others have died in the fratricidal battles of the drug trade.  In 2022, the United States suffered 73,838 deaths attributed to fentanyl.[7]  People in the drug trade are like “dragon’s teeth.”  Is it the same for Hezbollah? 


[1] “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4. 

[2] For lists of Hezbollah leaders believed to have been killed as of 30 September 2024, see: The Hezbollah leaders killed by Israel – who they were and the key players that remain | CNN and List of Hezbollah’s high-ranking figures killed by Israel | Al Bawaba.  Among the others killed was Fateh al-Sharif, who led Hamas fighters in Lebanon and acted as co-ordinator of Hamas with Hezbollah.  When not busy with those activities he worked as a school principal for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and as head of the teachers’ union.  The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 9.  During the Second World War, the British and the Czechs assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, while the Americans ambushed the plane they knew to be carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack. 

[3] Either that’s a wild guess and they’re just blowing smoke or they’re right on the money because they knew the location and exact contents of the dumps.  Given the evidence from Israel’s other attacks, it seems that Hezbollah has been riddled by Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad.  See: The GWOT if Israel was in charge. | waroftheworldblog

[4] See: Peter Hart, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (1988). 

[5] David Wise, Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the C.I.A. (1992). 

[6] Mark Bowden, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001). 

[7] See: Fentanyl overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2022 | Statista 

Remaking the Middle East 7 October 2024.

            It is a moment of great uncertainty in the Middle East.  Many people fear the expansion of Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah into a larger war involving Iran and the United States, one which has no certain outcome.  For others, however, visions of sugar plums dance in their head.[1]  A Saudi Arabian journalist[2] wrote that Israel’s deadly attacks had done so much damage to Hezbollah that “even if the group were to live on, it would most likely be a caricature of its former self.”[3]  Lebanon may be able to free itself from the thirty-year death-grip of Hezbollah.  A British journalist judged that, in spite of the Biden administration dragging on Israel’s coat, “Israel is likely to see the current moment as too good an opportunity to miss.” 

Opportunity to do what?  One answer is to strike at the nuclear weapons program that threatens the survival of Israel.  Another answer is both more ambitious and ill-defined.  An American journalist reported that “Many in Israel see a ‘once-in-a-generation chance’ to remake the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.”  Naftali Bennett, a former Prime Minister of Israel, sees “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to reshape the region.[4] 

Reshape how?  Destroy Hamas entirely?  Destroy Hezbollah entirely or, at least as a significant force in regional conflicts?  Gravely damage Iran’s nuclear program and force it to accept long-term international supervision?  Topple the Islamist regime in Iran entirely in hopes of something better emerging?  Forge an alliance with Saudi Arabia over the Iran conflict and relegate the Palestinian question to Israel alone?  Redraw the map of the Middle East to unite all Kurds not under Turkish rule into a sovereign state?  Redraw the map of the Middle East to assign the Sunni part of Iraq to Jordan?  “Transfer”[5] the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank to the Shi’ite portion of a partitioned Iraq?

            What does History tell us about once-in-a-generation opportunities? 

            In the early 19th Century, “Nationalism” meant that all people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture should live in a single independent country.  Germany were split into 30-plus states; Italy was split into half a dozen states; the Austrian Empire smooshed together people from many different latent-countries.  Many people saw Nationalism as the wave of the future.  Austria saw it as a death sentence.  One of these Believers was the French Emperor Napoleon III, the nephew of the great Napoleon I.  France should lead this remaking of the map of Europe. 

            Napoleon III started with Italy, concluding a secret deal with Count Camillo di Cavour, the prime minister of the Italian kingdom of Piedmont-Sardina.[6]  If Cavour would provide a war with Austria, Napoleon II would furnish the French army to win it.  Then, the Austrians would be expelled from Italy, and Italy would be “united” in a loose federation.  Piedmont would expand to dominate northern Italy; central Italy’s small states would join together under a ruler to be supplied by France; the backward southern Italian kingdom of the Two Sicilies would join the confederation; and the Pope’s lands would be much reduced, but the Pope would become head of this loose confederation. 

            Cavour did what he said that he would: he provoked Austria into declaring war.  Napoleon III did what he said that he would: his army thrashed the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino.  Then the wheels came off, badly and at high speed.  First, the French were appalled by the casualties suffered in battle and tried to crawfish on Piedmont by striking a deal with the Austrians.  Second, Italian popular nationalism surged up on the enthusiasm of victories won by others.  Popular revolts led to demands for the unification of all Italy north of the kingdom of Naples, regardless of promises made to Napoleon III.  Third, then the Italian nationalist and republican adventurer Giusseppe Garibaldi led a small expedition (with or without the knowledge of Cavour?) against the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.  The kingdom collapsed like a house of cards.  Garibaldi led his army north toward Rome.  Faced with the danger of a republican revolution overwhelming a monarchical revolution, the king of Piedmont met Garibaldi face to face.  The great man surrendered to the little king, at the price of southern Italy being included in the new nation. 

            France hadn’t wanted a united Italian peninsula unified under a centralized government.  The northern Italians hadn’t really wanted the inclusion of the backward Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in their new nation.  Garibaldi hadn’t wanted a monarchy, but a unified and centralized republic.  No one got exactly what they wanted. 

            Nor did they clearly foresee the long-term effects. The unification of Italy made the unification of Germany (against and without the Austrian empire) the next pressing question in European affairs.  Nationalist victories in central Europe then accelerated the spread of nationalism into the great multi-national empires of eastern Europe and the Middle East.  The Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires all succumbed during the First World War. 

            Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman and leader of German unification, was a temperamentally conservative and cautious person.  He spent a lot of time thinking about all the possible scenarios, but he didn’t go looking for “once-in-a-generation” chances. 

            Of course, other people are more time-bound and fixated on one outcome as the only possible outcome.  That is, they feel a burning need to accomplish some great mission in their lifetime.  Both Lenin and Hitler were that way. 


[1] Marc Champion wrote in Bloomberg that the blows suffered by Iran offer a tempting chance for Israel to inflict serious harm on its avowed main enemy.  Champion acknowledged that an Israeli attack would force Iran to choose between humiliation for the regime and a war with a surprising adversary and the possibility of American involvement. 

[2] A place where speech is never free, but often inspired. 

[3] Faisal Abbas, quoted in “Lebanon: Can Hezbollah survive the death of its leader?” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 15. 

[4] All quoted in “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4. 

[5] At the end of and after the Second World War, many ethnic Germans fled the advancing Red Army or were driven out of places like Poland and the Czech Sudetenland.  These and other population movements were sometimes referred to as population “transfers.” 

[6] Derek Beales and Eugenio Biagini, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy (2003).  It’s an update of an earlier work.  But, if you have the time, there are a series of classic older books by Denis Mack Smith.