This much we have been able to piece together: the current Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, son of the late Rafik Al-Hariri, also once a Prime Minister, was summoned to Saudi Arabia on the night of November 2. He promptly flew off from Beirut, assuming that the discussions he had had in Saudi Arabia a few days before were to be continued. Those talks had been about how best to deal with Hezbollah, and Hariri had apparently been relaxed and happy after them, feeling that he and the Saudis were close to an understanding. He expected to be met at the airport in Riyadh on November 3 by the usual welcoming crew of Saudi princes and officials, but none of them were there. Instead, it appears he was unceremoniously whisked away, his telephone impounded, and taken to his house in Riyadh — the Hariri family made its fortune in Saudi Arabia, and owns many properties there — where he was placed under a kind of house arrest.
He was then asked to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Saturday. Kept waiting for four hours — an ominous sign of displeasure — he finally was ushered in to see the Crown Prince. Instead of more talks about how to handle Hezbollah, Hariri was presented with a resignation speech, written by the Saudis, that he was directed to deliver on television. He did so, as instructed by his Saudi masters. The sight of the Lebanese Prime Minister, resigning in Riyadh, clearly under Saudi pressure, sent shock waves through Lebanon. Since then, Saad Hariri has made remarks on several occasions about a possible return to Lebanon, but still has not done so. Depending on your point of view, either he was being held prisoner in Riyadh by the Saudis, or he was afraid to return to Lebanon lest Hezbollah murder him, as they murdered his father. Most observers appear to believe that he is being held against his will in Saudi Arabia, and that Hezbollah has no intention of killing him precisely because he is too weak, and too scared, to effectively oppose them. Meanwhile, the Maronite President, Michel Aoun, an ally of Hezbollah, has refused to accept Hariri’s resignation, which technically still leaves him as Prime Minister; Aoun has confirmed that Saad Hariri was being “detained.” The Saudis then decided to let him go — to Paris, which is where he met President Macron on November 18, and as of this writing, he has in Paris yet again promised that he would be returning to Beirut.
The Saudi problem with Saad Hariri is that they believe he is too weak to confront Hezbollah. But one wonders if they realize just how impossible, at this point, it would be for Saad Hariri, or any Sunni in Lebanon, to try to take on Hezbollah. In his talks with the Saudis, he had tried to explain this, arguing for avoiding confrontation with the Shi’ite militia and terror group. That was not what the Saudis wanted to hear. They are said to favor replacing Saad with his older brother Bahaa, who is now living in Saudi Arabia; Bahaa Hariri issued a statement blasting Iran and its Lebanese proxy. He accused Hezbollah of seeking “to take control of Lebanon.” And, of course, he also expressed gratitude to Saudi Arabia for “decades of support” for Lebanon’s national institutions.
What will now happen? Will the Saudis be able to impose Bahaa Hariri as Prime Minister, or someone else to their liking, perhaps in exchange for a few billion dollars in military aid for the Lebanese Army, the only military force inside Lebanon at present possibly capable of preventing a complete takeover by Hezbollah? Imagine a situation, for example, where Saad Hariri returns, but following the script the Saudis gave him — making him an offer he couldn’t refuse — he sticks to his resignation, urges the Lebanese to accept his brother Bahaa in his stead, and then Bahaa, made prime minister, and ensconced in the prime minister’s residence, finds himself surrounded by troops of Hezbollah, with Hassan Nasrallah denouncing Bahaa Hariri as a “Saudi puppet” and demanding someone else, more to their liking, be put in as prime minister. What would the Sunnis in Lebanon then be able to do to oppose Hezbollah? The answer is: at the moment, very little.
What position should the American government take in all this geopolitical confusion? Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabis spread an unusually noxious version of Islam, Wahhabism, through the thousands of mosques and hundreds of madrasas that they have built, and staffed, around the world. Their school texts are full of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian venom. 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. And some Christians in Lebanon, it has to be recognized, look to the Shi’a for protection, as islamically less threatening to them than the Sunnis. It has been the same in Syria, where the Alawites, who practice a kind of Shi’ism, have always protected that country’s Christians. Saudi Arabia is hardly a natural ally of the West.
But despite all that, there are reasons for favoring the Saudi project in Lebanon. As of now, the greatest threat to the West’s interests is Iran, because of the aggression of its leaders, and its geopolitical expansionism, and its nuclear project, which it might finally bring to a successful conclusion if it chose not to honor the agreement with Washington. Iran is, at this point, the most dangerous Muslim country in the world. It is at war against Sunnis, both directly and by proxy, in Yemen, where the Shi’a Houthis have withstood months of Saudi bombing in Sana, in Syria, where Iran and Hezbollah have helped the despot Bashar al-Assad to stay in power, by successfully fighting, through its Hezbollah proxy, the uber-Sunnis of ISIS, even though that meant siding, but not cooperating, with the hated Great Satan, America, and, at the same time, fighting the more liberal Sunni opposition forces to Assad, which put them on the side opposite to the Great Satan.
Right now, in Saudi Arabia, there is a new king-in-waiting, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who promises all kinds of changes. He appears willing to challenge widespread corruption. (He also has the ability, useful for a Saudi prince, to be a hypocrite, having just bought a yacht from a Russian vodka tycoon for 500 million dollars, a sum far larger than he could normally afford even on his princely subsidy.) He promises to build a giant megacity, NEOM, to help transition Saudi Arabia off of its oil-based economy, a city where Saudis will have real work in private enterprises, including in high-tech businesses, rather than continue to be coddled in those unchallenging government jobs that are now safe sinecures for 2/3 of Saudi workers. The new megacity he envisions will also help to promote a social revolution, for he plans to allow men and women to work side by side, and to free women from being treated like wards of their male relatives. But whatever grand plans are made for progress domestically, the Saudi rulers worry constantly about the ambitions of a malevolent Shi’a Iran.
Meanwhile, the Saudis and their Sunni allies, in Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, are rightly alarmed by the military aid, including weapons, training, and in some cases troops, from Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, that support Shi’a in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The Saudis for now are no military threat to the West. Iran and Hezbollah, on the other hand, have been a vocal threat (“Death to America!”) to Western interests, with both growing in military power, ever since Ayatollah Khomeini arrived on the scene in 1979 to see justice done, beginning with the seizure of the American embassy.
The choice is clear: between Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of them intolerant Muslim states, choose to support the one that poses a lesser threat. That would be, for now, Saudi Arabia, which may in fact be liberalizing (as the Crown Prince promises), and its allies, especially the Emirates, and Egypt, both now ruled by enlightened despots (in the Emirates, there are several) who deserve Western support. Iran and Hezbollah now threaten Sunnis all over the Middle East, and also, of course, the Jews of Israel. The Saudis can do two things. First, right now, almost immediately, they can supply the Lebanese army with enough weaponry from their own stores to hold Hezbollah in check. But that’s only a stopgap measure. Second, what Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies need to do is to create in Lebanon, from the ground up, a Sunni militia capable not just of holding Hezbollah at bay, but in pushing it back, or perhaps even over the border into Syria. Saudi Arabia can send unlimited amounts of military equipment to such a Sunni militia. It can also outfit and supply Sunni Arab troops, most likely from Egypt and Jordan (and their governments could be paid substantial sums by the Saudis for these “volunteers”), to help local Sunnis defend “Lebanon’s sovereignty from Iran.” There could also be smaller contingents of Sunni troops from Saudi Arabia and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, just to give it even more legitimacy in Arab eyes. This militia needs to be created quickly, in months, not years, while Iran still has its hands full in Iraq and Yemen, and before it has consolidated Bashar al-Assad’s rule in Syria.
Hezbollah has until now been virtually unopposed militarily by Sunni Lebanese. The Saudis have wanted Israel to enter the fray against Iran; the Israelis have not done so. But while they will not send their own troops to fight (and die) in what is a Muslim civil war, they will certainly help however they can in the creation of a Sunni militia, with Lebanese Sunnis, augmented by large numbers of volunteers from Egypt and Jordan, and guns, tanks, weapons systems supplied by Saudi Arabia. The “Rafidite dogs” of Hassan Nasrallah will not have an easy time maintaining their current control of Lebanon. And Israel will continue to do as it has been doing, bombing weapons depots and weapons factories of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, keeping that Shi’a militia from being resupplied.
Neither Hezbollah, nor Iran, will give up the prize they have won in Shi’a control of much of Iraq (not yet a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tehran, but close), a victory that was inevitable given that the Shi’a Arabs outnumber the Sunni Arabs three-to-one in Iraq. They have also won a place in the stony heart of Bashar al-Assad, who likely still needs the Iranians and Hezbollah to help him stay in power in his rump state, but the result is that Assad did not fall; he is still there, he was not overthrown as so many thought he would be; he controls all of Syria’s major cities. In Yemen, Iran is committed to helping its fellow Shi’a, the Houthis, who despite Saudi bombing, have maintained their control of the capital, San’a. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the Saudis on their bombing campaign, but they have failed to dislodge the Houthis who, if they were to control Yemen, could threaten all of southern Saudi Arabia. Given these setbacks for the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria and Yemen, the Saudis need a victory over the Shi’a somewhere, and Lebanon — where Hezbollah got its start — is now the place where such a victory might be won. But it requires building up, quickly, a large Sunni militia rivaling the size of Hezbollah, and properly equipped. Both Sunni and Shi’a Lebanese are equal in population; the Sunnis assumed the Lebanese army would protect their interests against Hezbollah. But that army never came close to the military power of Hezbollah, which initially presented itself as the great Arab defender of Lebanon against Israeli aggressors. Eventually it became clear that Hezbollah had its Shi’a sights set on Lebanon itself.
In Lebanon, the West should be supporting the Saudis, despite misgivings, because they are the most determined Arab enemy of Hezbollah. The man reputed to be their current candidate for prime minister, Bahaa Hariri, cannot really be expected to stand up to Hezbollah until provided with the military wherewithal. The Sunnis and Shi’a are evenly matched in population; each constitutes 27% of the Lebanese population. But the Shi’a have created, with help from Iran, and over many decades, a powerful militia, and claims of as many as 65,000 fighters, while the Sunnis in Lebanon did not. The Sunnis let things slide, hoping they could count on the Lebanese Army to protect their interests and withstand Hezbollah. But that’s not a task which that army could fulfill. It cannot be counted on to fight Hezbollah. There are many Shi’a in the Lebanese Army (some of whom also serve in Hezbollah), and also many Christians, who look to the Shi’a for support against the Sunnis. Their loyalty to the Lebanese state, and against Hezbollah, is uncertain. Furthermore, that army is greatly outmatched in weaponry by Hezbollah.
The Saudis could give more aid to the Lebanese army, immediately, just to keep it from collapsing should Hezbollah attack it as a “Saudi/Zionist” puppet, but most of its effort should be given over to the buildup of an entirely new force, a Sunni militia truly capable of taking the fight to Hezbollah. The Americans should enthusiastically endorse the idea of a strong militia in Lebanon to balance Hezbollah and behind it, Iran. It need not be identified as “Sunni,” but rather, as a coalition of the willing against Hezbollah. The weak performance of the Lebanese army can be passed over in silence.
How might Rex Tillerson respond?
He could say something like this:
The Islamic Republic of Iran, and its proxy and ally, Hezbollah, have for years been constructing a ring of fire around many of our allies. They are in Yemen, threatening Saudi Arabia from the south by supporting the uprising by Shi’a Houthis. They are in Iraq, where instead of bringing about national reconciliation, they support a winner-take-all approach for the Shi’a Arabs who, with three times the population of the Sunni Arabs, and with Iranian troops bolstering Shia militia, can impose their will on any Iraqi government. But the most serious interference by Iran has been in Lebanon, where it has helped to create and arm a militia, Hezbollah, that is now more powerful than the Lebanese army, that frequently stages marches to intimidate the Sunnis, and that has repeatedly been involved in terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is not just the enemy of a free Lebanon; it is our enemy, too. It was Hezbollah that, acting under Iran’s direction, bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, killing 241 Americans. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on Americans until 9/11. It was the deadliest day for our Marines since Iwo Jima. Those Americans, remember, were in Lebanon as peace-keepers. Apparently Iran and Hezbollah didn’t want peace to come to Lebanon. They didn’t want it in 1983, and they didn’t want it on February 14, 2005, when Hezbollah blew up a car carrying former Prime Minister Rafik Harari, because as a strong Sunni political figure, he stood in Hezbollah’s — and Iran’s — way. And Iran, with help from Hezbollah, has taken its bombing campaign to lands far from the Middle East. Iranian-backed terrorists bombed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992. In 1994, a single Hezbollah member bombed the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. In both attacks a total of 114 people were killed.
We want to declare our support for the new Saudi initiative, which is simply to create, for the people of Lebanon, a militia force capable of standing up to Hezbollah and, behind Hezbollah, Iran. As we understand it, the Saudis will supply weapons, as well as facilitating the recruitment and transport of volunteers from Egypt and Jordan. We look forward to working with our Saudi and Israeli partners in matters of intelligence sharing and logistics. For our part we will ensure that the skies over Lebanon remain free of Iranian planes. We are confident that not just the Sunnis in Lebanon, but others too, will come to see the necessity for such a force to offset Hezbollah. Christians in Lebanon, some of whom have allied with Hezbollah because they feared its retribution if they did not, will now be reassured that there is a militia powerful enough to protect all Lebanese from Hezbollah and Iran. There are also moderate Shi’a in Lebanon, opposed to, but fearful of, Hezbollah and Iran, who might welcome this new militia as counter-balancing Hezbollah. We do not see it as a “Sunni militia,” but as a militia open to all those, in Lebanon, and among its closest allies, who oppose the aggressive and tyrannical rule of Hezbollah and its master Iran.
The Chief of Staff of Israel’s military, General Gadi Eisenkot, recently announced — in an unprecedented interview with a Saudi newspaper — Israel’s complete agreement with Saudi Arabia that the main threat in the Middle East is Iran, that Iran must be stopped. He said that Israel stands ready to share intelligence with Saudi Arabia. Many believe that such intelligence sharing has already been going on; General Eisenkot did not deny it. He described Iran’s attempt to create two Shi’a arcs, as it seeks to take control of the Middle East, creating a Shi’ite crescent from Lebanon to Iran, and then another from the Gulf to the Red Sea. Eizenkot said, when asked about Iran’s intended goal. “We must prevent this from happening.”
The Saudis are clearly quite disturbed about the situation in Lebanon, as are its allies in Egypt and Jordan who, we know, would gladly offer volunteers for a militia which will be predominantly, but not exclusively, Sunni. We are now certain that Israel, too, will not just be sharing intelligence with the Saudis — and with their Lebanese, Egyptian, and Jordanian allies — but take steps, in concert with them, to prevent Iran’s supplying the latest weapons systems to Hezbollah.
We fully support the efforts of Saudi Arabia, together with Egypt, Jordan, and the Emirates, to create and sustain a powerful militia in Lebanon, in order to prevent a takeover of Lebanon by forces subservient to Iran. We all know what the threat to peace is in Lebanon. It’s Hezbollah. It’s Iran. And we are pleased that Israel and Saudi Arabia will be cooperating against a common enemy. Hassan Nasrallah may think he’s invincible, and can continue to ride roughshod over Lebanon, but there are many now cooperating to prove him wrong. The American government wishes them, and all the people of Lebanon, whatever their sect, well.
jewdog says
Re Hugh’s topic, my latest letter in the Jerusalem Post:
Maniacs in Tehran
Jack Rosen (“Trump is a true friend of Israel,” Observations, November 17) discusses future US plans, but the highest priority should be blunting the steady growth of Iranian power. Saudi Arabia is sounding the alarm, which explains the uncharacteristic activism from a normally reserved regime.
Riyadh’s mores might be somewhat antediluvian, but when it comes to understanding the region, it is leading-edge and we need to pay attention. The sacking of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri for being too soft on Hezbollah; the anger at Qatar for being too cozy with Iran; and the Saudi intervention in Yemen are symptoms that the doyens of Sunni Central are feeling hemmed in by the Shi’ite axis and are starting to panic.
Much of the blame rests with Washington: the misguided Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPOA), the nuclear deal enriching Iran; the vacuum filled by Iran after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; the knee-jerk arming of Iranian-influenced Iraq, whose weapons were used against the Kurds; and the mindless arming of Iran-dominated Lebanon are symptoms of the malaise.
We need to stop wasting energy on the Israel- Palestinian peace process – it is but a hangnail in a cancerous region. Trump’s refusal to certify the JPOA was a step in the right direction, but we should follow up with an Israeli-Saudi- American strike on Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure.
The maniacs in Tehran must be stopped.
Sincerely, Jewdog
RichardL says
If the Saudis pay for it, I am all for it.
jewdog says
Believe me, if they decide it’s necessary, they’ll pay.
gravenimage says
Jewdog–with the greatest respect–I think you consider Sunnis to be rather more benign than I believe is wise.
jewdog says
Israel is sharing intelligence data now with the Saudis. Reminder: we partnered with Stalin during WWII. Realpolitik, right?
gravenimage says
I understand your point, Jewdog. But the Saudis are *themselves* Jihadists–the main force behind 9/11. I think they are as big a danger as is Iran.
faraway says
Let the Iranians strengthen their position until shia and sunni are evenly matched.Then we provoke a war between them until there are none left.Peace at last!
gravenimage says
They don’t need our provocation–Muslims have been slaughtering each other for 1400 years now. That doesn’t mean they are not going to keep targeting the Infidels.
Peter Buckley says
“As of now, the greatest threat to the West’s interests is Iran, because of the aggression of its leaders, and its geopolitical expansionism, and its nuclear project.”
Precisely. I’m sure Netanyahu and Spencer both agree with that. It’s very simple: the West can use SA to remove the mullahs. Once that happens, everything changes……………
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Excellent observation. Saudi Arabia needs to ramp up on proxies to match Persia’s project. The main problem would be how to move Sunnis into Lebanon. But there’s room in there, with the Christians now a fading afterthought having gone from two thirds of the population down to around 25% at most. Lebanon is the latest Dar al-Harb country, diverse though it was, into the clutches of being a Dar al-Islam country. And almost nobody noticed, it’s now as if Lebanon was always a Dar al-Islam operation.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Fitzgerald, That “Saudi’/zionist puppet “militia cannot serve the interests of evil Zionist state, evil Saudi Royal family and evil United States. Isis was jointly formed and funded by evil Saudi Royal family ,United States and coordinated by mossad of evil state of Israhell, but it woefully failed. Rather this group of evils, Israhell, evil United States and evil Saudi Royal family are now exposed naked in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. shame on you wicked people!!
gravenimage says
Really, Ibrahim itace muhammed just considers the Saudis rivals of his own gang of Jihadists. He does not actually differ with them on any ideological points–he is all for oppressing women, not allowing Jews to enter Muslim lands, beheading “blasphemers”, mass slaughtering Infidels, and stoning women to death in the streets.
Chand says
So who then is not ‘evil’? Iran and the Shias? Why don’t you openly proclaim it then, Ibrahim, ’cause I’m confused.
gravenimage says
Ibrahim itace muhammed says he is Sunni. I think he just hates all Jihadists who are a direct rival to his own gang.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
Hey goat-shagger – you might consider switching to dogs.
Mad m0 the pedo, was really into dogs until the day he snuck up an unsuspecting black one out in the desert after a caravan raid.
The surprized dog snapped back at m0 and severely damaged his ballz, resulting in m0’s eternal mental derangement and hatred of dogs.
As a Aller fearing muzz, just follow m0’s lead – but be careful – dogs are feistier than goats.
Cornelius says
I’ve often wondered why the Lebanese Sunnis have no militia of their own, given their substantial numbers. Even the Druze, a far smaller sect. have (or at least long had) a powerful militia under the tutelage of the Jumblatt clan. The Sunnis would likely line up behind the Christians against Hezbollah in any civil war.
It continues to astound me that Hezbollah, a non-state entity, is in possession of a vast military machine, including tens of thousands of rockets and missiles….(thanks to Iran) For as long as they exist in their present form, the region will be a powder keg.
ElderlyZionist says
“The Saudis…can supply the Lebanese army with enough weaponry from their own stores to hold Hezbollah in check.”
As you point out later in your essay, we can’t count on the Lebanese Army to fight Hezbollah. Renewed civil war would bring another terrible disaster to Lebanon. The Lebanese know this; their last war was not very long ago, and the war in Syria is right next door. They don’t want a war.
Robert, do you really believe that Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman can lead the Sunni Arabs into open alliance with the US and Israel? I don’t. They hate us too much. (Hi Ibrahim!) I think there will presently be a big rebellion against him
Hugh Fitzgerald says
The Crown Prince (MBS)has now persuaded a leading Saudi cleric to denounce Jihad against Israel, while he repeats the standard Sunni imprecations against Iran What should we make of that new Saudi party line? I’m willing to take it at face value. Let’s see what other clerics say, both in and out of Saudi Arabia,about the jihad against Israel. If it’s been properly reported, it’s an astonishing development,for which we can thank those unpleasant bullies in Teheran.
ElderlyZionist says
Thanks for your reply, Hugh, and I apologize for missing your byline. It will be wonderful if Israel and Saudi can reconcile. (Hi Ibrahim!) But I have the same sick feeling as when the coup began in Turkey last year, and when the Kurds pushed for independence the other month. Prince MbS is moving too far, too fast, against the will of too many people. This can not end well.
gravenimage says
Mr. Fitzgerald, I have always held you in the highest esteem. However, I think we should be enormously cautious in considering *anything* the savage Saudis–who were behind 9/11 and regularly fund “extremist” Mosques, Imams, and Islamic textbooks–to be any sort of allies against Jihad.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
I agree with you regarding trusting the Saud’s post-911. Just consider what Hugh suggests as our equivalent of their Hudna (Temporary Truce).
I will NEVER forget 15 of the 911’ers were Saud muzz scum.
The day she be acoming!!!!
NEVER, EVER forget 911.
Chand says
Hugh Fitzgerald’s suggestions seem sound, on paper. But it is sure to unleash another terrible civil war in Lebanon and plunge the area into a more severe crisis. Hezbollah, backed by Iran, Assad and ultimately by Russia, is bound to fight for every inch of territory and influence.
Also Sunni fundamentalist Jihadis are proving to be a more serious dangers than the Shia, until now, at least, in spite of Iran’s ‘Death to America – Death to Israel’ propaganda.
Also Christians and other minorities seem to be relatively safer under Shia control.
gravenimage says
Sunnis are also–for now, at least (this is not due to ideology, but just minority Shia assuming they need all the allies they can get)–a more direct threat to Christians and other Infidels in the region. This is definitely a concern.
Benedict says
When reading about the scheming and the sectarian strife, violence, civil war etc. in this part of the Muslim world, the relative greatness of Allah and his visionary, peace proclaiming prophet must surely compel the infidels all over the world to join the Muslims in a resounding Allahu Akbar! –
What a divine illustration to the ironic fate that awaits all evil: that it’s doomed to destroy itself.
gravenimage says
Yes–this is exactly what faces us if we do not defend our civilized societies against Islam.
Wellington says
A la Yogi Berra, it’s like deja vu all over again. Had to align with a tyrant, Stalin, in WWII against another tyrant, Hitler.
Fine article by Hugh Fitzgerald (no surprise). Essentially it confirms that life often leaves you with no good options and so you just choose the least bad among them. Fitzgerald makes a good case for what he considers the least bad option, though there is another possibility and that is what I have long called the “Allenby Rule.” In that fictional but still great film, “Lawrence of Arabia,” Field Marshal Allenby, in command of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, which has just taken Damascus from the Turks, is feverishly told by a subordinate that a great fire has broken out in the city and, Mon Dieu, inquires of Allenby what should be done. He replies, “Nothing, it’s usually the best thing.” Yes, so many times in life doing nothing is the best option of all. I have to wonder if it isn’t here. Not sure.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
The U.S. need do no more than keep the Lebanese skies free of Iranian planes. Israel need do no more than share intelligence with the Saudis and this Sunni militia, and possibly serve as a conduit for Egyptian troops and Saudi weapons into Lebanon.
Chand says
“………serve as a conduit for Egyptian troops and Saudi weapons into Lebanon.”
Sounds pretty impossible at this point, Hugh.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
Wrong Wellington.
American foreign policy in the lead-up to, during and post WII was heavily influenced by Communist moles in FDR’s administration – led by Harry Hopkins – there were oodles of them.
Diana West’s “American Betrayal” is a terrific read in this regard – perhaps the best ever.
Wellington says
Wrong about what? What did I say that was wrong?
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Fitzgerald, you are now suggesting that The evil United States should continue supporting terrorist groups like Isis it has been funding and arming as Russian intelligence exposed?
Wellington says
It is absurdity of the first dimension, Ibrahim, to maintain, as you have, that the US is supporting ISIS. As for Russian intelligence, it should always be taken with not just a grain of salt but an entire shaker. And oh, btw, you sure do love to use the word “evil” a lot. Frankly, I detect projection. Continue with your confused life, Ibrahim, and by all means keep posting at JW where you help to reveal with every one of your posts just how rotten to the core all the Islamic faith is. Yep, there’s just no way you or any Muslim can make a god case for Islam because there isn’t any.
Wellington says
That’s “good case” and not “god case,” though perhaps the latter is such a mistake after all.
Wellington says
Oh brother. Should read, “……perhaps the latter is not such a mistake after all.” I’m done here.
gravenimage says
Wellington, Ibrahim itace muhammed uses the term “evil” so much because it so aptly applies to himself–just recently, he has affirmed that Islam allows slavery, sex slavery, murder for mere rumors of “blasphemy”, mass murder for those who do not submit to Islam, and the genocide of the Jews.
kabooooooooooooooooooooom says
Why do you ideologues respond to the muzz feces-disturber? Ignore the muzz mutt.
Hugh’s strategy is extraordinaly simple, practical and implementable. If followed it will produce positive results for we infidels for the first time in generations.
One step at a time.
Wellington says
First of all, I am not an ideologue. Second, while stupid or evil people should not always be responded to, neither should they never be responded to. Learn.
Angemon says
Ibrahim itace muhammed posted:
“as Russian intelligence exposed?”
Here is undeniable evidence from Russian intelligence:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/outrage-russia-uses-video-game-footage-accuse-us-supporting-isis-58997452
Wellington says
So good to see you posting here again, Angemon. As always, you argue well and support your arguments with copious evidence. Glad you’re back.
Angemon says
It’s good to be back, Wellington 🙂
gravenimage says
+1
Karl says
Mr.Fitzgerald, I wonder where we have seen this logic before? I seem to remember a certain country called Afghanistan where we were desperate for options and turned to our Sunni ‘friends’ Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for help. They promptly handed us a number of Islamic militias chock full of volunteers ,Bin Laden included, all we had to do was supply them weapons and comm hardware. You see how well that turned out for us. Do you really think these militias will not be anything but an Islamic State type group? I don’t recall any Hezbollah sponsored terrorist attacks in the United States or Europe but I do seem to recall many terrorist attacks by your Sunni ‘allies’, Al-Queda and Islamic State included.
Additionally there seems to be another point you are not considering. The Gulf States ,Saudi Arabia included, have funded the Islamic expansion and indoctrination across the world. This has had a far greater impact on our lives than expansion by Iran. The Sunni’s seem to have an uncanny influence on our politician class and elites. These are important items to consider because the demographics are irrevocably changing in Europe to a Sunni Islamic majority. Hence the game will no longer be one of fighting in far away lands but of terrorism and daily violence in our own countries. I think you should reconsider your position.
gravenimage says
Important points.
Chand says
Agreed, Karl.
Sunni Wahaabis seem to be a bigger overall threat to me than the Iranian backed Shi-ites. And it is more insidious.
Angemon says
Karl posted:
“I don’t recall any Hezbollah sponsored terrorist attacks in the United States or Europe ”
See Bulgaria, 5 or so years ago. And Argentine or Panama, if you consider South America to be worthy of notice. I also seem to recall something about attacks on French and American barracks. Plus, I don’t see why any Westerner should turn a blind eye to its aggression against Israel (like, for example, the bombing of the Israeli embassy in London, in the mid-90’s). In any case, Hezbollah is documented to be involved in a wide array of criminal activities in Europe, including funding terrorism.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Hezbollah (or shias in general) are in any way different from sunnis when it comes to their endgame – that they are not in a position to attack directly and prefer to work from the shadows and support those who do doesn’t make them any less dangerous.
Keys says
Agree, Angemon.
“Death to America” !
“The Great Satan” !
Not to mention colluding with the North Koreans on atomic weapons and long range ballistic missle technology.
gravenimage says
Very true, Angemon. Hizb’allah is also a hideous Jihad terror group–especially bad is their constant targeting of Israel and their deforming of Lebanon, which they just use now as a terror base.
Karl says
@Angemom, The current Sunni Islamic demographic tsunami that is overwhelming Europe is the greater threat. The Sunni terror acts vastly outnumber the Shia or Hizbollah terror acts. Are you seriously taking isolated acts by Iran/Hizbollah that occurred over decades and comparing them to hundreds of terrorist acts that have been committed by your Sunni allies in the United States and Europe. 9/11, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, 7/7,Bataclan, Nice, Berlin, Manchester etc… do I have to go on and on. Your comparison is almost laughable.
To be clear I am not saying Iran and Hizbollah are good guys. I believe we should work with our Israeli partners and contain them but not at the expense of helping the more dangerous Sunni threat.
As I stated in my earlier post the Sunni’s seem to have an uncanny influence on our political class and elites. This influence combined with the demographic onslaught is the more insidious threat. Do you really think Israel will have support from the West, in 30 years time, when some countries are a Sunni Islamic majority?
Chand says
I agree with you generally, Karl about Sunnis being the bigger threat. But you say: “…………, in 30 years time, when some countries are a Sunni Islamic majority?”
Really? Some Western countries will have Sunni Muslims as the majority population in 30 years?! Or am I reading this incorrectly?
Seems hard to believe.
Karl says
@Chand, thank you for calling me out. That statement is not correct even under the current situation. What is likely is that Europe will have a significantly increased Muslim population and in some cities they will be the majority population (i.e. Brussels) by 2050 if current policies do not change. The point of this argument still stands. If there are far greater populations of Muslims in Europe by 2050 do you think Israel will have more or less support? I believe the tepid level of support that is currently shown now will turn to outright hostility.
Angemon says
Karl posted:
“The Sunni terror acts vastly outnumber the Shia or Hizbollah terror acts.”
Sunnis are estimated to be 85-95% of the worldwide muslim population. It’s only natural that most of islamic aggression comes form sunnis.
“Are you seriously taking isolated acts by Iran/Hizbollah that occurred over decades and comparing them to hundreds of terrorist acts that have been committed by your Sunni allies in the United States and Europe. 9/11, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, 7/7,Bataclan, Nice, Berlin, Manchester etc… do I have to go on and on. Your comparison is almost laughable.”
“Am I really” – weird choice of words. ALmost as if you’re trying to put words in my mouth or strawman my position. No, you said you were ignorant of Hezbollah terror attacks in the US or Europe. I brought some to your attention, and even broaded the scope – I believe that South America and Israel are as worthy of attention as the US or Europe. “Taking isolated acts”? Far from it – the examples I gave (in response to your stated ignorance of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah on Europe or the US) are as much isolated acts as the trees in a forest are “isolated trees”. They show a clear, unmistakable streak of violence against, and thirst for blood of, the West as a whole, from Europe to America to the Middle East. And the source of that streak of violence and thitst for blood is the same as the source of the sunni violence whose examples you’ve brought up: islamic orthodoxy. All islam, not just sunni or shia, is a threat to any non-islamic nation, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, Shintoist, Atheist, etc.. “My Sunni allies”? When have I pledged allegiance, or gave any sort of support, to any sunni individual or organization? And no, my comparison is not laughable in any way – like I said, Hezbollah is as anti-Western as any other given jihadi group, be it sunni or shia. To be honest, I don’t understand why you’re trying to downplay the threat posed by more stealthy jihad groups like Hezbollah – that they don’t have as much blood on their hands as, for example, the islamic state, doesn’t mean they’re not trying:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/cyprus-sentences-hezbollah-operative-to-six-years-on-bomb-charges/
How many people do you think those 8.2 tons of bomb-making material could end up killing?
“To be clear I am not saying Iran and Hizbollah are good guys. I believe we should work with our Israeli partners and contain them but not at the expense of helping the more dangerous Sunni threat.”
What do you suggest, then? Spend more Western bullion and lives with boots on the ground? Should Israel go to war against Iran and Lebanon?
“As I stated in my earlier post the Sunni’s seem to have an uncanny influence on our political class and elites. This influence combined with the demographic onslaught is the more insidious threat.”
However fleeting that influence may be. As Breitbart used to say, politics is downwind from culture, and generation Z is reportedly the most conservative since WWII, with all it entails – red-pilled on islam, opposed to mass migration, etc.
And clearly you’re underestimating the influence of the Iranian lobby, if not overestimating the influence of sunni states. Why, for example, was the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal approved, if the influence held by sunnis in Western politics is so uncanny? I certainly don’t recall the Saudis jumping in joy.
“Do you really think Israel will have support from the West, in 30 years time, when some countries are a Sunni Islamic majority?”
I do – even if that’s the case (generation Z, etc.) “some countries” =/= “all countries”. What will those hypothetical sunni-majority countries (whichever they may be) do – complain in the UN, like the OIC has been doing for decades? Now you – do you think there’ll be Israel 30 years from now if Hezbollah or Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons? And why the fatalism? If you take as granted that “some countries” will be sunni majorities in 30 years, shouldn’t it be better to start containing them right now instead of spending resources and manpower halfway across the world?
Jack Diamond says
We shouldn’t downplay what Iran & Hizballah have already been implicated in when considering their threat. When it comes to jihad against us, sunni & shi’a have been bedfellows.
Hizballah is not only an arm of the Islamic Republic of Iran, they and Iran were collaborators with al Qaeda in jihad terrorism against Americans up to and including 9/11. Of course, Iran has been directly involved in the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, too.
The head of Hizballah’s military/terrorist wing was Imad Mughniyeh, who himself was trained by the sunni PLO and was a member of Arafat’s Force 17 security team. When Arafat left Lebanon, he worked with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its head Hossein Mosleh. Mosleh reported to the Iranian Ambassador in Beirut. It was he who ordered the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983, an operation led by Mughniyeh.
Mughniyeh first met bin Laden in 1995. Hizballah and al Qaeda shared terrorist
training camps in Lebanon and Sudan. They also shared joint operations. Khobar Towers, the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa (Iran supplied the explosives). Iran facilitated travel for al Qaeda members prior to and after 9/11. Many high ranking al Qaeda members stayed in Iran after 9/11. You can read the legal findings:
“December 22, 2011, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled in Havlish,
et al. v. bin Laden, et al., that Iran and Hizballah were liable for damages to
be paid to relatives of the victims of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks in
New York and Washington.
“Judge Daniels found that both the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese proxy had actively aided al-Qaeda in planning and executing those attacks. He found that Iran and Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11, and continued to do so after the attacks.
“Before 9/11, Iran and Hizballah were implicated in efforts to train al-Qaeda members to blow up large buildings. This training resulted in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U.S.
“This training resulted in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Shortly after the Cole attack, the 9/11 jihad plot began to come together — and Iran was involved.and Iran was involved.
“Former MOIS operative Abolghasem Mesbahi, a defector from Iran, testified
that during the summer of 2001 he received messages from Iranian
government officials regarding a plan for unconventional warfare against the
United States. The plot was entitled Shaitan dar Atash (“Satan in Flames”)
Former CIA agents Clare M. Lopez and Bruce D. Tefft submitted an affidavit stating:
“Imad Mughniyah, the most notable and notorious world terrorist of his time, an agent of Iran and a senior operative of Hizballah, facilitated the international travel of certain 9/11 hijackers to and from Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, and perhaps various other locations for the purpose of executing the events of September 11, 2001.
This support enabled two vital aspects of the September 11, 2001 plot to succeed: (1) the continued training of the hijackers in Afghanistan and Iran after securing their United States visas in Saudi Arabia, and (2) entry into the United States.”
Judge Daniels determined that Iran, Hizballah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and other Iranian government departments — as well as the Ayatollah Khamenei himself and former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — were all directly implicated in Iranian efforts to aid al-Qaeda in its 9/11 plot.
Daniels awarded the plaintiffs in the Havlish case $394,277,884 for economic
damages, $94,000,000 for pain and suffering, $874,000,000 for mental
anguish and grief, $4,686,235,921 in punitive damages, and $968,000,000
in pre-judgment interest for a total of $7,016,513,805.”
Iran was also busy funding Sunni Hamas and a Palestinian terror cell called al-Tawhid, led by Zarqawi, the founder of al Qaeda in Iraq which morphed into ISIS.
Brian Hoff says
That why I was against the bush invasion Iraq. Iraq wasnot behind 9 11 and they didnot support the one who carry out 9 11. China invade Vietnam in the 1970 s 70 to 80 year old retire military fought the 25 elite Chinese divisions in two week China declared victory an pull out in defeat. China can do that as Vieman is no real threat to china who have over 300 divisons than many time biggest in Vieman.
Brian Hoff says
In the first week out of 1800 tanks 900 where destroy at night by explosives charge and 25 % of the man kill at night an in daylight ambushed attack.
gravenimage says
“Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–doesn’t want to see Infidels standing up against his fellow Muslims, anywhere on earth.
gravenimage says
Now Saudi Arabia is terrorizing the Lebanese PM and forcing him to step down. Lebanon, for all its hideous Islamic problems, is still at least a marginally democratic nation.
Does anyone still believe that what is going on in Saudi Arabia is really “reform”?
This is partly about trying to curb the power of Jihad rival Hizb’allah, which is Shia–but it is also about exercising their power on the other, weaker nations in the region, such as Lebanon.
arauna palm says
The Saudi prince does not have enough money to bring about the changes he is promising his people. The oil price per barrel is about $56. If it goes below $50 their economy is screwed. Hence the charges against some of the most prominent and richest people in his country. He wants to misappropriate their money and use it for his own purposes to strengthen his rule.
He is in a tight spot – if Israel does not help him – he could face an Iranian takeover (as the eschatological prophecies of the Shiites indicate.) The holy war between Shiites and Sunni is even stronger with these new developments.
WorkingClassPost says
Been busy and missed this post.
Probably best anyhow, because I am in complete and total disagreement with Hugh’s conclusions.
The greatest threat posed to the West is the deceitful posturing of islamist jihadis, both at home and abroad and their ignorant and spiteful enablers among our own people. These are the ones who are taking over our institutions and our freedoms.
All the while Iran chants ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ they remain a worthy and honest opponent and one truly deserving of any love that we can muster for our declared enemy.
The sunni mohamedans are to be feared first, not because they are stronger than us, but because their mendacity is leaving us defenceless.
UNCLE VLADDI says
In the 1970s, Lebanon was 90% Christian.
Now, a mere 50 years later, it’s 90% muslim.
This should be a hard lesson for the rest of us.