Israel coming to a "decisive crossroads"

Today Israeli Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert declared that Israel was reaching a "decisive crossroads" on the Gaza issue. In light of talks on a ceasefire there have been outspoken voices calling for an attack to be launched and others opposing it saying Israel removing Hamas in favor of Fatah is not a desirable action.

Part of the problem is the talks have yet to reach an agreement. The issues where Hamas is resisting: the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit and the end of arms smuggling into Gaza. On Israel's side the resistance is on the opening of the border. Hamas has demanded the release of 450 imprisoned militants in exchanged for Schalit, which Israel has flatly rejected instead calling for only 71 to be released. In spite of this according to the Egyptian intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, it would only take the approval of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, however Barak himself has apparently signaled to American Congressional leadership that an operation into Gaza is being prepared.

Suleiman has already warned Hamas according to several reports that if the ceasefire agreement doesn't include the release of Schalit it will mean a major IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip. Even without the issue of Schalit and other matters, there remain voices concerned about the ceasefire saying it will only give them time to build up their forces and renew attacks, which some Hamas officials have said is the intent. Some have actually talked about the benefits of the occupation of Gaza as an argument for reinvasion. Pressure for an operation is coming from numerous Ministers and other government officials and so there's a possibilty an operation will be undertaken if Israel doesn't receive the necessary concession, especially on Schalit's release.

Lebanon may also reach a pressure point as talks on settling the dispute between them have come to a rough spot over Hezbollah's arms. On the issue of arms the government called for an agreement that Hezbollah would not use its arms against Lebanon and later discuss the arms issue with the next President, where both sides agree on Michel Sleiman (pictured left). However, Hezbollah has claimed the issue of arms is not on the table, while some in the ruling government have said the arms issue must be dealt with.

Not only is there the possibility of negotiations failing, there is also a possibility that radical Sunni groups will respond and try to attack Hezbollah in revenge for the attacks on Sunni militias. In addition there is the U.S. naval presence near Lebanon. Given reports that the U.S. had urged for Israel to take military action against Hezbollah in support of the government the possibility of Israeli intervention in any future unrest is high. Should negotations fail and Hezbollah actually attempt to topple the government an Israeli attack is highly likely. However, an attack in defense of Gaza may also raise the prospect of a Hezbollah attack on Israel.

The significance of this is the buildup of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas has reportedly built up a force groups in Gaza. Their arsenal now includes advanced anti-tank and anti-air weapons including those used by Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War. Not only that Hamas has extended its of some 20,000 troops trained in Lebanon and Iran with 4,000 other allied militia striking capacity with longer-range rockets and could soon have rockets capable of reaching Ashdod and Beersheba, altogether Hamas would likely have at least 600,000 civilians within range of rocket attack. On top of this Hamas has acquired Armored Personnel Carriers altogether making the Hamas forces a large capable military force in Gaza.

Hezbollah has built its force up even more expanding an arsenal of rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv. In addition Hezbollah has built up its own naval force with some 35 Iranian speed boats. Though the size of Hezbollah's arsenal now is unknown it has likely tripled from what it had at the start of 2006 Lebanon War. Combined with the arsenal of Hamas assuming Hezbollah's rockets can only reach as far as Tel Aviv and Hamas only as far as Beersheba the two together would have at least 4.5 million civilians in range of their rockets, as depicted in the image on the right, or about 60% of the population of Israel.

Combined with this potential problem is the possibility of the U.S. launching an attack on Iran before the end of this year. It is possible an attack on Iran could be justified in the event of such a war with Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. Part of this could involve an attack from Syria to retake the Golan Heights. Syria could also launch rocket and missile attacks capable of hitting the rest of Israel. An attack on Syria would naturally lead to an attack by Iran which could then justify an attack on Iran by the United States. Any attack on Iran will likely lead to counter-attacks throughout the Middle East and perhaps even attacks against American forces in Europe. A war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria in conjunction with an attack on Iran by the United States would be the largest and broadest conflict in the Middle East since World War I surpassing the Arab-Israeli Wars in scope and impact.

As such there is little doubt that Israel is coming to a decisive crossroads as Olmert said. Should it choose to invade Gaza, it would possibly invite a calamitous conflict that would grow out of Israel's control and become a conflict of great powers sure to heighten tensions around the world and remove the limits set on the competing alliances of world powers. If instead Israel chooses a ceasefire with Hamas they will prevent a major conflict, but perhaps only for a short time.

A Russo-Georgian War on the horizon?

Months of tensions between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has begun to culminate into the real chance of a war between the two nations. Following a move by Russia to deepen ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia a Georgian unmanned drone was shot down near Abkhazia. Russia's response has been to increase its number of troops in the region to 2,500 and has threatened to increase it to the limit of 3,000 total. Russia at the same time has been accusing Georgia of planning an attack with as many as 7,500 troops on alert on the border, with 3,000 to seize the parts of Kodori Gorge outside Georgian control. Georgia has denied these allegations and said they are false propaganda aiming to provoke a conflict.

The Russian forces have begun to reinforce their positions and built new observation posts near the Georgia-Abkhaz border. The increasing militarization in the area alone holds the risk of inciting conflict, not considering the possibility either side could launch an attack. Abkhazia has pushed for increasing its military ties with Russia to stave off any Georgian attack through the signing of a mutual defense cooperation pact similar to the Taiwan Relations Act and even the establishment of a Russian military base in Abkhazia. According to some reports, Abkhazia has even suggest bringing the unrecognized state under Russian military control, though Abkhaz officials have denied this. However, a Russian security agreement, combined with a large Russian presence and Russian military base is not far from absolute Russian control especially in light of the other extensive ties between the two parties.

Beyond Georgia there's also the risk of bringing other countries into the conflict. Some reprots are suggesting Azerbaijan will send fighters into Georgia in an unofficial capacity to fight against Russia in the event of a conflict. On top of this are apparent calls for European Union peacekeepers to replace the Russian, which has been suggested earlier this year. How far Georgia's allies would go to support them is crucial to the equation. If Azerbaijan supports Georgia in any concrete or significant manner Russia could stir up the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh through Armenia to draw their attention.

Abkhazia has seen calls to withdraw from UN talks over Abkhazia's status and has been heavily critical of the UN presence in Georgia. At the same time Georgia is pushing itself closer to the West and the European Union, as well as NATO. The Membership Action Plan, while not backed at the Bucharest summit has been left to a meeting of foreign ministers which will decide on December whether to grant Georgia a MAP. The forging of such an agreement is likely to be the instigator of any recognition process or conflict, presuming tensions do not reach such a point before then. However, it is also possible this could extend to Ukraine if they too are granted a Membership Action Plan. It is much more likely for the West to respond to a serious attempt to divide Ukraine and annex part of its territory than a move on Georgia. However, Western governments may not yet have the stomach for a confrontation with Russia and not directly engage them in either case.

Russia's actions portend a new rise of the Russian Empire, an empire built on a state monopoly of oil and gas resources. On some level such an empire already exists with Russia's dominance of the breakaway states and their influence in Belarus. The union of Russia and Belarus could be seen as a Russian land grab with the smaller Belarus to be swallowed by the larger Russian nation. Russia's threats on NATO membership against Ukraine show more of these imperialistic aims with likely half the country to be gobbled up in any future secession. On some level such secession would be necessary as it would provide a crucial land link to land-locked Transnistria, which is also a separatist state seeking Russian integration. By dividing Ukraine and annexing the eastern part of it Russia would pave the way for the annexation of Transnistria. Not to mention it would turn Ukraine into a land-locked country, diminishing the effect of its NATO membership. It is unlikely Russia wishes to see its Crimea port turned over to the United States. The annexation of Eastern Ukraine and Abkhazia would then give Russia an almost equal share of the Black Sea coast as Turkey. In this sense such a seizure could be not only a counter to NATO's land expansion, but their expansion on the seas as well. With Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania all in NATO Ukrainian and Georgian membership would leave Russia boxed in by the West. While Turkey continues to control the Bosporous and Dardanalles straits controlling the other half of the coastline severely limits NATO's options in the area. If Russia can secure Turkey's switch to their side, a possibility if the AKP and its members are actually banned, then it would be NATO, not Russia being boxed in and having to work with the Russians in the area rather than the other way around. This would also destroy European hopes at securing their energy independence from Russia as Turkey and Ukraine were seen as the ideal substitutes for funneling energy through Russia.

It is in this light that the recent tension with Georgia becomes clear. Russia is no longer interested in simply halting NATO expansion east, but countering such moves with its own expansion to the West. A conflict with Georgia could be just the beginning of a move by Russia to gain more power over Europe.

Hezbollah turns attention inward

As Hezbollah continues to build up its forces in preparation for a likely battle with Israel, possibly as a result of retaliation for a revenge strike over Mugniyeh's death the military situation has shifted to internal conflicts in Lebanon.

In the past few days Hezbollah has been fighting government parties in Lebanon. The conflict was sparked after the government pledged to investigate a Hezbollah telecom network and removed the chief of the Beirut airport. Nasrallah declared the tough action was a declaration of war by the government. Since then Hezbollah has been playing a game of chess with the government parties decisively trouncing them in every encounter. They started by seizing West Beirut and turning it over to the Lebanese army. Immediately following that it spread east, south, and north. Hezbollah's allies also began to engage in conflict with government parties without Hezbollah's intiative. The killing of several Hezbollah members in a Druse area near Beirut brought fighting to that area as well.

In the Druze areas Hezbollah's allies were able to take control and like in Beirut turned it over to the army. While the possibility of revenge killings has been raised one of the bigger uncertainties is the Christian population which continues to stay out of the conflict. Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement are one of the big Christian militias and are allied with Hezbollah, Christians dominate East Beirut and are a major portion of the population. So far all conflicts have been between Muslim sects, with Christian groups largely staying out. The conflict so far has also exposed weaknesses of Lebanon's military which has seen its brokered agreements violated and has largely stayed on the sidelines.

Only on Tuesday several days after did the army declare it was ready to use force against militants, after Hezbollah achieved most of it successes. While the hostility has abated since the declaration Hezbollah has continued its political campaign against the government, calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister. The true magnitude of Hezbollah's victory is how those militias allied with the government are now being disarmed by the army as Hezbollah remains strong. Hezbollah succeed in taking key areas around Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon, proving it is capable of overturning the government at the drop of a hat. An offer by President Bush to help arm the Lebanese military in order to disarm Hezbollah could reverse the calm in Lebanon, however if the government receives it.

Lebanon's government is also showing defiance as it says it would not "surrender" to Hezbollah's political demands. However Hezbollah continues to show its strength as a political force with its ongoing blockade of the Beirut airport. The struggle between the government and the opposition has left Lebanon paralyzed. An Arab League delegation is set to hold crisis talks to resolve the standoff, but with both sides likely to stick to their demands they could be left in a static position.

A failure to reach a compromise on the standoff could lead to renewed conflict, especially if Lebanon's government takes any move to receive arms from the United States. The government is also faced with the stark situation of dealing with the blocking of Beirut airport. As Lebanon's most crucial airport the Hezbollah civil disobedience campaign can only last for so long before it is seen as a hindrance. Should the police or army take actions to free up the airport Hezbollah will be provided with additional incentive to strike hard at the government.

Additionally Hezbollah's campaigns in east of Beirut against Druze strongholds has given Hezbollah strategic control of an important area of Lebanon. By taking the mountains east of Beirut Hezbollah has managed to link its stronghold in Southern Beirut with the Bekaa Valley, where it's greatest military strength is posted and where most weapons it brings into Lebanon pass through. It has also given Hezbollah strategic control of the major highway linking Syria and Lebanon. Control of such crucial territory would be a boon to Hezbollah in any conflict with Israel. As such Israel is given greater reason to launch the first strike, especially if Hezbollah tries to remove the government. This could be seen as preparation for an attack on Israel or at least the dangerous growth of strength of Hezbollah. Israel may consider a strike now to be the best way to avoid a more serious conflict later. However, any such attack would ultimately bring in Syria, Hamas, and Iran.

In the end the conflict in Lebanon could grow to a Middle Eastern War if the situation fails to subside.