Diarmuid Breatnach
(Reading time: 7 mins.)
After a terrorist attack through exploding hand-held communication devices1 and later, following the assassination of veteran Hezbollah leader Nasrallah,2 the IOF announced on 30th September their intention of a ground invasion of Lebanon.3
The reaction of the western imperialist allies to the terrorism was mostly silent but to the Zionist planned invasion was either positive or worried – not about the predictable ensuing carnage but about its impact on their assets in the region.
The current Zionist leadership was gung-ho albeit with worried comments from the sidelines, including from some high-ranking retired commanders. Those campaigning for a peace deal with the Resistance and the return of their captured relatives were naturally mostly hostile.
People who knew something about the situation, both those in solidarity with the Resistance and those supporting the Zionist state, wondered how the IOF imagined they were going to be successful, considering the calibre of Hezbollah combined with logistics.
Firstly, the IOF would have to prepare its staging or invasion launch areas in the reach of Hezbollah missiles, rockets and drones. Then they would have to cross at least 300 kilometres under bombardment in terrain well-zeroed already by Hezbollah.
If and when the invaders crossed that land, they would confront their old enemy Hezbollah, many battle-hardened veterans from fighting ISIS and NATO proxies in Syria. And strongly motivated ideologically also, in particular in defending their homeland.
The IOF infantry on the other hand has not faced any conventional fighting force in pitched battle since 1966, being mostly experienced in repression and genocidal operations against civilians already under close surveillance with air dominance and much intelligence support.
Despite their advantages, against the armed resistance of those areas, the IOF have not performed at all well, with a high rate of casualties in personnel and armoured vehicles. In invasion of Lebanon, their armour would be even more vulnerable.
True, the IOF has air advantage in air-to-ground strikes with their US-supplied fighters. But the resistance artillery4 batteries are situated far back from the Lebanon front line, yet able to strike targets with coordinates called in from Hezbollah facing the enemy.
The Zionist air force boasts of having eliminated those batteries in their bombardment were quickly proved false as missiles rose behind the returning IOF aircraft to fall on their regular targets in northern occupied Palestine. Most of those batteries and launchers are underground.
So the main IOF assault and penetration would have to be of their infantry, the issue decided by the calibre of contending fighting personnel, their weapons, along with defences of the defenders, remembering also that a 3-1 superiority is necessary for offensive breakthrough at any point.5
The situation would be bad enough for the IOF if they could at least prepare their staging areas in safety but of course Hezbollah is not letting them do that, pounding their bases and visible troop movements and assemblies again and again with missiles, drones and rockets.
IOF INVASION PROGRESS?
So how has the invasion force fared to date? Hezbollah chose not to fall back fighting the IOF on the way, sucking them further in and hitting their supply lines. Instead, they met the invasion on or around their front lines, with some flexibility and so far have remained there.
All outcomes into the second week so far have justified the pessimists in the Zionist and Western allies camp. Ground assault after assault has been beaten back by Hezbollah, at times in ambushing or other targeting of approaching infantry and some armour.
In one such ambush, Hezbollah forward fighters observed a special IOF force reconnoitring and decided to leave them under observation while they figured the route of advance. When the whole IOF special unit advanced they were hit with a pre-laid explosive and then by small-arms fire.
The IOF are widening their attack front and in the western sector, the IOF attempted to infiltrate again through Labouneh, despite the previous day’s qualitative ambush where according to reports, Zionist vehicles “burned live on air”; the resistance again forced their retreat.
This last was a reference to Ras Al-Naqoura where an entire IOF convoy was struck by the resistance. Al-Mayadeen reports that the convoy was made up of about 60 soldiers, 5 Merkava tanks, and a number of other vehicles and repeated IOF rescue services have been repulsed.
Al-Manar added that “The occupation army advanced along the western line near the sea and attempted to take control … to oversee the coastline stretching to Sour,”6 and “attempted six times in recent days to enter this area and was met with resistance missiles and fire.”
The Resistance reported numerous confrontations against enemy infantry forces in the forests of Al-Labouneh, south of Naqoura and engagements on the Blida, Muhaybib, and Maroun Al-Ras axis.
The Zionist forces have also attempted to use the UNIFIL station as cover and the Hezbollah decision to hold on targeting them for fear of hitting uninvolved forces, reported by Al Mayadeen, raised concerns for the safety of Irish state troops garrisoned there.7
In 10 days of repeated attempts, the IOF has not managed to enter and hold one southern Lebanese village or town and advances of even a 100 metres have been beaten back with casualties. The Zionists have been reduced to fantasy stories of advances and staged photos.8
And this IOF fighting here are considered by the Zionists the elite of their infantry, facing not even Hezbollah’s elite, the al-Hajj Radwan Regiment. Hezbollah is much more a medium-sized army than guerrilla force, though it grew from one, created against the ‘Israeli’ occupation of Lebanon.
On Wednesday the IOF, which maintains a strict censorship on casualties and battle-damage reporting and is well-known for vastly underplaying their battle casualties in Gaza, admitted that over the past 24 hours, 38 soldiers had been wounded in ground battles in southern Lebanon.
In what seems a departure from the Gaza norm, some reports seem to suggest that Hezbollah may not be granting the IOF the same freedom to recover their dead and wounded as has been the case until now from the Gaza resistance (despite IOF targeting of hospitals and medical personnel).9
As it was in Gaza, bombing the civilian population has been the response of the IOF, targeting multi-occupation housing blocks, medical services, emergency services, media service, gatherings of displaced people and refugee routes into Syria.
The only large-scale comprehensive defeats suffered by the IOF were against Hezbollah in Lebanon, in 2000 and in 2006, forcing the Zionist retreat from Lebanon on both occasions. Many Hezbollah are battle-hardened from Syria and of high morale, particularly in battle against the IOF.
REASON
Given the history and sober assessments, why is the Zionist state engaging in this attack and being backed by the western imperialists? Yoav Gallant, Minister for the armed forces, claimed it was in order to degrade Hezbollah and return the Zionist settlers to northern occupied Palestine.
This is a large area denuded of thousands of settlers now being housed in hotels or even camps deeper in occupied Palestine (‘Israel’) or who have left the state altogether, whether temporarily of permanently. Currently it is occupied mostly by the IOF, in bases and Settler houses.
The reason for the emptying of the region of Settler communities is its daily bombardment by Hezbollah since October 8th, the day the IOF began this latest and most intensive period of genocidal bombings. And they’ve been clear: Stop the genocide and we stop the bombardment.
However, despite the wishes of a large section of ‘Israeli’ society, the dominant section of the Zionist ruling class is not prepared to stop its Gaza bombardment and do a deal which would result in admission of defeat and, for Netanyahu, appearance in court to face corruption charges.
Some of the western imperialist alliance are worried that ‘Israel’ will drag10 the US and with it the rest of the Western alliance, at a time also of a war in Ukraine, into a regional war with Hezbollah, Yemen, the Iraqi resistance, Syria and of course Iran, a long-intended NATO target.
Many voices from different positions regarding the Zionist state have warned that in a regional Middle Eastern war, all western military bases in the Middle East become targets, as do all oil and gas wells delivering to the West, with huge economic results across the world.
There are indications of other motivations, beyond loss of Zionist face, of extending ‘Israel’ ‘from the sea to the river’ (!),11 re-occupying Gaza with settlers and ‘remodelling of the Middle East’ in a Zionist messianic dream but combined with a gung-ho attitude in the White House.
In a recent interview on YouTube, Iranian professor Marandi commented that strategic and tactical decisions made by the imperialists are not logical but emotional. I would agree that emotion is involved however also logical calculation — but there are times when emotion overcomes logic.
Such was the situation for example in the ‘forever war’ of the US in ‘Indochina’ when it continued despite all the evidence that it was losing, year after year, could not possibly win and was alienating huge populations even at home.
It took the logic of a section of the ruling class to overcome emotion and to subdue the Reagan section to sue for peace, under of course the heroic assault of the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. But the arrogance and world ambition of the US ruling class never died.
Can this now extended war of the IOF endanger all of Western imperialism’s substantial assets in the Middle East? Most certainly. So stop it, pull back! says one section of the imperialists. But Bring it on, says the other section, because after this we’ll have only Russia and China to worry about.
For the next war.
End.
Footnotes
1On 17 and 18 September https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/18/more-devices-exploding-across-lebanon-whats-happening
227th September https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/israel-says-it-has-killed-hezbollah-leader-hassan-nasrallah
3https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/israel-lebanon-attack-hezbollah-ground-operation-war-latest
4Using the term here to encompass missiles, rockets such as the Katyusha-types, rather than cannon.
53-1 advantage in numbers needed for the attacker, other considerations being equal. (Seehttps://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/A0013.pdf)
6Perhaps with the additional intention of establishing a beachhead for IOF naval landings.
7https://www.thenational.scot/news/24636493.israel-endangering-irish-troops-lebanon-border/
8These included stories of paratroop landings, overrunning Hezbollah defences and a photo of IOF taken in a very forward but abandoned Settler village, which Hezbollah commented had cost the IOF 10 dead and wounded.
9In one notorious instance, they executed two wounded fighters in hospital. Both from the air and the ground the IOF has repeatedly targeted paramedics and civil defence crews and have continued doing so from the air in Lebanon. However commentators have noted how IOF helicopters landing to evacuate wounded and dead IOF, though clearly under observation, are never targeted by the Resistance in Gaza.
10,Assuming its unwilling to do so which may not at all be the case.
11https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2024-09-05/ty-article/.highlight/netanyahus-map-shows-israel-from-the-river-to-the-sea-its-no-accident/00000191-c2a8-d09f-ab91-debc90e60000
and https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/benjamin-netanyahu-maps-brief-history-enduring-love-affair
rebelbreeze 