IAP Political Forum

I came across an interesting interview with an Iranian journalist that believes a peaceful regime change is not only possible, but probable over time with popular support.Here is the Frontpage magazine article that I referenced:

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=78723809-820A-4D99-B720-7A7B033F4B2A


I think that the Mullahs that currently run Iran are gradually losing power and alienating most Iranians.

Any thoughts on all this?

Terry, I had difficulty pulling up the article from the site.  Though the site came up fine.  Maybe a Mac issue, but my ISP, the only one available in my location, has been a pain for days now on a variety of issues.  But I'll leap in where angels may fear to tread and offer an opinion anyhow.

It has been my belief, even considering the repressive power of the mullahs in Iran, the large younger population in Iraq, a factor of the Iraq and Iranian war(s) wants to end the isolation and be part of the larger world.  I think at some point it will become a major factor in changes that will take place in the overall complexion of the whole nation
of Iran.

But I remain concerned about the internal political circumstances in Israel, along with the outcome of the election in the U.S..  Though you might disagree, I don't forget Bush
remains in the position of power. Even as a lame duck, he may remain very dangerous on a variety of levels.  In addition, there is no doubt in my mind, should McCain be
elected, there will be no positive change in the continued bellicose attitudes toward Iran.

Having made that comment, maybe I should create a cyber blast wall to hide behind. Not from you, but from some others who appear to be intent on, at least on this forum,
a war with Iran.   

I agree with Cass. (I'm only posting this so this thread ends up on my watchlist for when the shouting starts).

I, for the life of me, don't know what you are worried about??   ???    ;D


The topic specifically deals with the desires of the people of Iran, especially the young. The only questions in my mind are more of a 'when' rather than if. Most of the ruling and powerful Mullahs are getting old and the young are getting restless and very much want to become a member of realist secular nations. But there are those that just want a reason to fight I suppose (I don't believe in Iraq's meddling while at the same time I am strongly for the war in Afghanistan against terrorism).

So,
What about the issues raised in the posted article, specifically??

There would be no intention if the Iran's mullahs didn't want to erase Israel off the map and deluge their resources into nuclear development without the cooperation of the international community. 

If you say that the younger generation of Iran will want to join the world (I believe so) then that would leave me to assume they would cooperate.  But that is of course if another revolution, a non-violent one at that, will be able to not find itself in the same situation that it did with the shah.  I think the mullahs will do what they do best; silence anything that isn't an Islamic voice.

Gojira, should I assume it's time to head for the blast wall?  Typically, changes that occur internally within a culture happen over a relatively long period of time unless there is a radical catalyst that results in an immediate change. Revolution v evolution or the reverse. 

Neither you nor I have any actual ability to observe the current circumstances in Iran on a personal basis, but must base our opinions on information sources, all which have a tendency to be biased by the locations and intent of those who provide them to influence the reader.

While the mullahs in Iran unquestionably have the ability to exert an amazing amount of control of the daily lives of the citizens of Iran,
I believe in the current "information age" there is evidence they can't totally control the minds or desires of a younger generation to observe, in particular, the popular culture of the West.  I  suspect there are examples available in aspects of dress, music, recreation and literature that the mullahs have been unable to totally suppress. 

Perhaps even in our nation there are similar examples, though we are not subject to anything to date, that might resemble the suppression
of the mullahs in Iran, related to the regular, but unsuccessful attempts to control a variety of the aspects of popular culture by the religious right. 

The cultural pendulum swings. At times very slowly and then a catalyst of some sort may cause it to swing rapidly. I would suggest the war in Vietnam caused a rather rapid swing in the culture as the protests were massive and in the end brought about rapid change.  I suspect we would see more of a similar circumstance if today the draft remained in force or the current wars caused it to again
be put in force.  Consider if you will the popular culture of that period.  Dress, music, the advent of "the pill" and changes in sexual attitudes?  Some of that remains, but often in an older generation than in the younger one.

While it is impossible to remove Israel for the time being from the mix in the Middle East,  a war on Iran, though some believe that is not
going to occur, could be a major catalyst. No way to predict if the young of Iran would become more nationalistic than they currently may be or it could be the catalyst for a revolution overthrowing the mullahs and their rule. 

It is also possible, and there is also evidence in Israel, the young are tired of never ending war and with the passing of the current Zionist
leadership may be willing to participate in and make concessions to end the need to continue to suppress the Palestinian population that share a very small amount of actual territory. 

Western culture may spread or be rejected, but even the Saudis appear to be making some concessions in their highly repressive theocracy.  Oil wealth may have been a factor.  That may depart.  But if you look at the Muslim world, rather than the minority of radical Islamists, I believe you might find evidence the current circumstances are changing toward a greater acceptance of Western culture. 

In addition, consider the culture change in China.  Even under a repressive  government, in a relatively short time in a cultural perspective, consider the change since Nixon first traveled there in the 1970s.  Is it a positive or negative change.  That brings up the opinions that are primarily related to personal value systems.

While the fall of the former USSR, was considered to be essentially the result of the fall of the communist economy, was the opening up
following Stalin, to aspects of Western culture and the ability of the people to observe a different way of life a factor?  How much has the
embargo by the U.S. been a factor in the long time control of Cuba by Castro?  Are changes occurring there? I would suggest they are.

In the end will those same factors bring about the fall of the mullahs?  I don't pretend to know.  I'm just an ordinary housewife, with a
fair amount of cultural anthropological training in how to both observe and influence culture change who still retains hope for a better
future for all humanity.  BTW, there are two major schools of thought in my chosen field. One ascribes man's evolution to his resemblance
to "killer apes" and assumes evolution occurred based on violence conquest related to violent behavior. The other believes that change occurs through the process of the characteristic often observed of cooperation and innate altruism between groups.  I doubt if I have to inform you of the group I fall into. 

Somehow I suspect the blast wall following that long diatribe might be my best choice of location.  :)

Cass, no need for a blast wall.  At least when I come knocking.

These cultural shifts can be measured, especially when compared to shifts in history.  I tried to vaguely present this, but I had just begun reading up on Iran's history and have no idea about how the culture is doing now.  So, I will bring a conclusion to the table soon enough.   

However, the comment about making assumptions by the "biased" media, are not assumptions at all.  It is of no contest that Iran is challenging the world community in developing nuclear technology and made their feelings clear towards Israel and the west in general.  It of course should make anyone nervous.

Sure, were handled NK's failed missile test poorly, but its probably because we were stretched too thin.  Enough juice for Ahmadinajead to make him feel like Iran can be the next one to test their own boundaries.

Gojira,

    Both you and Cass make some really good points in your posts. I just wanted to interject that Ahmadinajead is just the 'mouthpiece' for the ruling yet aging Mullahs that actually stamp their radical extremist views on their own people. I also believe that since the West has repeatedly backed down reguarding the nuclear issue, that they see smooth sailing ahead with their ambitions. Right now it doesn't look promising but Israel alone will bear the brunt of any adventurism by Iran. The problem for the region and indeed, for the world, is that Israel has much more capability and are more serious when it comes to defending Israel against all comers. Israel has an estimated 200+ very accurate nukes and Iran could be vaporised in one quick moment should the Persians try to throw a crude nuke at them. But even Israel knows the catatrophic result of such a response.

Meanwhile... we wait.  :(

Terry, I won't ever apologize for my tendency to be a "big picture" thinker.  It's a result of my training and world view.  I appreciated a very  intelligent and considerate response from Gojira.   LOL, it's hardly what I've grown accustomed to when involved in discussions on IAP related to ME issues. 

I think you and I share a more immediate view that in the end diplomacy along, with my belief that internal cultural change may, down the
road, bring resolution to some of the excessively concerning issues of the day that relate to the belligerence that has been a hallmark of the Bush Administration and represented by Ahmadinajead, though without any real power, continues to stir the pot,as you note as the mouthpiece for the mullahs.

How long was the cold war? I want to avoid an argument related to minutia that often occurs. MADD worked for a minimum of 30 years. Can change take place internally in Iran and/or even in Israel in three decades. I wouldn't pretend to know, but I know the result if it doesn't can threaten life on this still blue planet, as much as climate change/global warming. (take your pick.)  But the results could be immediate rather than long term.  Hopefully, it won't take the catalyst of a nuclear war to create the ability to talk rather than shoot first
then deal with the consequences. 

BTW often, many forget the U.S. interference related to placing the Shah back on the Peacock Throne, was the catalyst that brought about the internal revolution that created the current power of the mullahs. Few think about anything, but screaming students in the newreels and U.S. hostages in the embassy. The surrogate war between Iran and Iraq, didn't occur in a vacuum.  Nor did the creation of the nation of Iraq, by the Brits, primary to get the hell out of a circumstance of which they had no control.  After 60 years of being a nation state,
most don't consider the reality that it was not only the Holocaust, but again the Brits cutting out on a circumstance in the protectorate that was giving them a massive black eye internationally that eventually brought about the establishment of Israel. 

Once again, I assume some poster will choose to argue minutia disguising what is really opinion because of those statements.  I'm too old
to have the patience to argue such points.  Perhaps a forum such as IAP is an inappropriate location to speak my piece?

I find myself envious of gojira and his ability to begin to read and study Iranian history.  Reading has alway been a large part of my life. I
find myself (sorry for my sad story,  ;) ) once again, as I was last year I'm in the position that reading hard copy has become very difficult again.  Almost, but still a few months away from being able to have simply surgery on the other eye, to have a nice new lens and restore good vision. Reading on the computer with the light coming from behind is fine, but hard copy with light coming onto it is very difficult again.  Aging at times is an advantage, but not one for reading at a time when it would be so beneficial to be able to better understand world history and the cultural history of areas I have no real personal familiarity with. 

One reminder Gojira, try to remember, history is always written by the winners.  How fortunate you are to have the time and the desire to
learn. Hopefully, you will share some of the information you're able to acquire.

 I will apologize for the OT personal, Terry and wish you G'day and Shalom.     

I don't have a lot of time right now so I'll read everyone's contributions later.

Just a quick point: It would be helpful to diplomacy if the US were to stop the hypocrisy over Israel's nuclear arsenal and were to offer to create a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Middle East (including Israel and all US forces in the region) as part of the negotiations. This nuclear-weapons free zone is already called for under the same UN resolution used as a wafer-thin legal cover for the invasion of Iraq.

This is what I've been trying to explain since 2005 when I first joined IAP.  It upset me to see how many people believed that Bush was intent on starting a war with Iran "for oil".  I tried to make the case that Iran is completely different from Iraq and that there is a very real and growing group of people in Iran that want major reforms.  Iran's demographics (young, Shia, and Persian) make it completely unique in the Middle East and greater Muslim world.  They can be a good ally - they hate Al Qaeda as much as we do.  The fact that they are not Arabs makes them a bit of an outcast in the Middle East, and add to that the fact that they are predominately Shia (of which Sunnis make up 80% of the world's Muslims), and the proximity of giants like Russia, China, Pakistan, and India, and you begin to see the strategic benefit of Iran making friends with a great military power. 

I wish I could dig up some of my old posts about Iran that I had written a couple of years ago.  Cass pretty much summed it up in almost the same way.  She even recognizes the cultural changes taking place and the importance of the information revolution in undermining the control of the Mullahs.  I've made the same points before.

I think you'll find that revolutions generally occur gradually and then there is a "last straw" - the catalyst Cass speaks of.  If you study the American revolution, you see that it took a great deal of time for all the pieces to come together.  People were reluctant at first, but with each British measure - the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, Boston Massacre, right up to Lexington and Concord, people slowly came around and understood that a revolutionary action was required to save their liberties.  As the Iranian Mullahs attempt to tighten control in the midst of the Information Revolution, their actions squeeze the Iranian people tighter and sooner or later, you'll have your "last straw".

Do you think the onslaught of continuous sanctions from the UN could be this last straw? 

You have got to be kidding! Israel exists only because it does have their own nukes (notice I said Israel, not the U.S.).  ;)

Or, how about the U.S. just unilaterally rid itself of all it's nuclear capability? ... Do you think that Russia would do the same? I hardly think so.  ::)

So while some fellow posters, who at time agree on little other than perhaps none of our preference might be to end our existence in one of Condi's infamous mushroom clouds, just now on my start page, apology in advance as a link exposes my personal subscription information, (damn Earthlink) AP adds to once again "stirring the pot."

Maybe just ignoring this is the best answer. I've been busy today with little time to read and then this.  What a pile of it.  Maybe typical U.S. MSM "stuff."  Are elderly females allow to call it shit on IAP?  The obvious answer is a no nuke policy for the whole planet.  Tell those who are waiting and longing for "the Rapture."  I am a believe that Israel will have to either choose to learn to live with the reality they can't continue to be the only power in the ME who has the capacity to destroy the planet by their choice.  No doubt there will be disagreement with that comment, but the only choice may invite their own destruction.  No one chose to mention MADD which did work, maybe out of  fear along with the assistance of such popular culture aspects as the Nevil Shute book and then the movies: "On The Beach."  or possibly "Dr. Stangelove?"  Sound silly? It got to the public as often aspects of the popular culture do. But that was a long time past and today, with the fall of the USSR, most lost the fears associated with the Cold War, I'm so familiar with. No one considers "nuclear winters" today, but instead the more important factor has become climate change/global warming (take your pick) I'm not in any way suggesting it isn't an important factor in the survival of humanity so please don't point that out to me.

But without going further and with no link, comments on what sits on my start page. Anyone looked at Israeli sites today as I haven't had the time? Rather like in Jaws when it seemed a bit safer to go into the water, or at least discuss some rationality, then...   Gojira I haven't a clue about the U.N. actions or how or what they might do
in Iran internally.  And Cryptomaniac, I wish I could read those old posts.  Culture change not only fascinates me it is how we humans operate. I only hope more ME war is
not that "catalyst" even if it is not nuclear.


Israel mulls military option for Iran nukes
August 06, 2008 6:13 PM EDT
JERUSALEM - Israel is building up its strike capabilities amid growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran's atomic program, even if it can't destroy it.

Such talk could be more threat than reality. However, Iran's refusal to accept Western conditions is worrying Israel as is the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran.

The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads - in addition to the three it already has.

And this summer it carried out air maneuvers in the Mediterranean that touched off an international debate over whether they were a "dress rehearsal" for an imminent attack, a stern warning to Iran or a just a way to get allies to step up the pressure on Tehran to stop building nukes.

According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory. Israel's military censor, who can impose a range of legal sanctions against journalists operating in the country, does not permit publication of details of such information in news reports written from Israel.

The issue of Iran's nuclear program took on new urgency this week after U.S. officials rejected Tehran's response to an incentives package aimed at getting it to stop sensitive nuclear activity - setting the stage for a fourth round of international sanctions against the country.

Israel, itself an undeclared nuclear power, sees an atomic bomb in Iranian hands as a direct threat to its existence.

Israel believes Tehran will have enriched enough uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest. The United States has trimmed its estimate that Iran is several years or as much as a decade away from being able to field a bomb, but has not been precise about a timetable. In general U.S. officials think Iran isn't as close to a bomb as Israel claims, but are concerned that Iran is working faster than anticipated to add centrifuges, the workhorses of uranium enrichment.

"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.

"Israel takes (Iranian President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding its destruction seriously. Israel cannot risk another Holocaust," Mofaz said.

The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" - implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment is meant only for electricity generation, not a bomb - an assertion that most Western nations see as disingenuous.

Israeli policymakers and experts have been debating for quite some time whether it would even be possible for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear program. The mission would be far more complicated than a 1981 Israeli raid that destroyed Iraq's partially built Osirak nuclear reactor, or an Israeli raid last year on what U.S. intelligence officials said was another unfinished nuclear facility in Syria.

In Iran, multiple atomic installations are scattered throughout the country, some underground or bored into mountains - unlike the Iraqi and Syrian installations, which were single aboveground complexes.

Still, the Syria action seemed to indicate that Israel would also be willing to use force preemptively against Iran.

"For Israel this is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, former head of Israel's army intelligence.

However, it's unlikely Israel would carry out an attack without approval from the United States.

Recent signs that Washington may be moving away from a military option - including a proposal to open a low-level U.S. diplomatic office in Tehran and a recent decision to allow a senior U.S. diplomat to participate alongside Iran in international talks in Geneva - are not sitting very well with Israel.

That may help explain recent visits to Jerusalem by Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom delivered a message to Israel that it does not have a green light to attack Iran at this time.

Senior Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they do not wish to appear at odds with their most important ally, said they were concerned about a possible softening of the U.S. stance toward Iran.

Apparently to allay Israeli concerns, Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran. And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran, said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions over the issue have not been made public.

With sanctions and diplomacy still the international community's preferred method to get Iran to stop building the bomb, an Israeli strike does not appear imminent.

If it did attack, however, Israel would have to contend with upgraded Iranian defense capabilities, including 29 new Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile systems Iran purchased from Russia last year in a $700 million deal.

Russia has so far not gone through with a proposed sale to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles, an even more powerful air defense system than the Tor-M1. An Israeli defense official said the deal is still on the table, however. This is a big source of consternation for Israel because the system could significantly complicate a pre-emptive Israeli assault on Iran.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers - something Israel failed to do in its 2006 war against Hezbollah. It's widely assumed that Israel is seeking to obtain bunker buster bombs, if it hasn't already done so.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.

Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Yet the cost of an attack - by the U.S., Israel or both - is likely to be enormous.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq by revving up Shiite militias there just as Washington is showing some important gains in reining in Iraqi chaos.

It could activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. And it could strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles - something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Perhaps most importantly, any strike on Iran - especially if it's done without having exhausted all diplomatic channels - could have the opposite of the desired effect, "actually increasing the nationalist fervor to build a nuclear weapon," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli and expert on Iranian affairs.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"A two, three-year delay is not worth it. For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.

---

Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report from Washington.

A good question.  I think it is important to tread carefully when it comes to sanctions. 

The Iranian people, so far as I can tell, want to be part of the world, they want their nation to be respected and they want to be looked at in a positive light (as I believe most people do).  Sanctions could certainly anger the Iranian public and they may place the blame on their leadership.  They may believe that their government did little to work with the international community and as a result, put the blame squarely on them for not doing what was good for the country.

The other side of the coin is that the Iranian public will largely see sanctions as the international community collectively punishing their beloved nation and they may rally behind their government in protest (or perhaps in defense of Iran).

Sanctions can be used to apply pressure, but they must be complemented with good statesmanship and vigorous diplomacy.  The Iranian people need to believe that sanctions were agreed to reluctantly and that the International community is doing everything it can to resolve the dispute peacefully with special consideration to the well-being of ordinary Iranians.  It is a very delicate operation. 

So, to answer your question - sanctions could be the "last straw" if they succeed in eroding support for the current Iranian government.

My opinion is that the "last straw" will come from the Iranian government itself.  We've all seen stories about censorship, increasingly strict dress codes and the infamous "morality police".  I think this subtle chipping away of personal liberties will over time set the ball rolling for regime change.  In fact, I think that has already started to occur.

No. Israel can survive perfectly well without them, but it is not reasonable to expect Arab states to be happy with it, or not to wish to develop a nuclear deterrent of their own.

And I said US forces in the ME, not the US itself (I do live in the real world).

While I've agreed that Regime change may at some point occur from internal factors in Iran, I still read not just on the MSM as posted from AP, but in checking out DEBKAfile today this was posted along with hyper-links.  Anyone have even the slightest guess what Petraeus is really doing in Lebanon?  Is something up while Dubya is in China and the upcoming Olympics may distract from news sources?  Internal Israeli politics? Curious and maybe unrelated, but I remain curious. Maybe I missed it, but I've noted nothing in the MSM about this. Any
guesses? Yesterdays news. 

US general’s surprise Lebanon visit ties Israel’s hands against Hizballah
DEBKAfile Special Report

August 6, 2008, 3:14 AM (GMT+02:00)
The US Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, soon to be promoted to Central Command chief, arrived unannounced in Lebanon on Wed.

 Aug 6. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that he came to check out the strategic ramifications of Hizballah’s seizure on behalf of Syria and Iran of two strategic Lebanese peaks, Mt. Sannine and Mt. Barukh. Petraeus also sought the exact import of the Lebanese government’s policy decision of Aug. 4, to let Hizballah stay armed (in violation of UN Security Council resolutions) and continue its war against Israel.

Those sources stress that American intervention in Lebanon closes the door once again on the prospect of Israeli action against this new
threat - in the same way as Washington vetoed effective action against Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb and the buildup of Hamas’ war machine in Gaza.

Military sources question the value of yet another Israeli defense cabinet meeting on the crisis building up on the northern border, when Hizballah has been allowed to brazenly flout UN Security Council resolution 1701 of 2006 by taking delivery of quantities of smuggled Iranian and Syrian weapons and redeploying in South Lebanon.

During that period, the Israeli government stood by and failed to interfere with this unfolding menace and Lebanon’s takeover as a Syrian-Iranian outpost.

Wednesday, an Israeli security source ‘”revealed” that Hizballah had amassed 40,000 rockets.

On March 22, 2008, DEBKAfile’s military sources first disclosed that Hizballah had built up its rocket arsenal to three and-a-half times its pre-2006 Lebanon War stocks. “Some of the 40,000 rockets of Syrian and Iranian manufacture can hit Israel targets as far south as Beersheba, 350 km. away from the Shiite terror group’s launching pads north of Lebanon’s Litani River.
“Not only has Tel Aviv come within range, but Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza can between them cover most of Israel except for its southernmost tip at Eilat. Using these two surrogates, Tehran can therefore make war on Israel and keep its hands clean. End of quote.
For the full article, click HERE

On June 12, the Israeli military intelligence research director Brig. Yossi Baidatz reported that Hizballah had constructed a subterranean storage system, partly in south Lebanon, for tens of thousands of rockets. DEBKAfile’s military sources added that they had been proofed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards against aerial attack.
From then until now, the Israeli military has not been called upon to take any action.
Then on Tuesday of this week, Israeli security circles were revealed to be at odds over whether Hizballah had already emplaced radar and anti-air batteries on Mt. Sannine - or not yet.
On July 21, DEBKAfile first disclosed exclusively that Hizballah had already deployed them on Mt. Sannine. See this report
HERE

Then on Aug. 2, after Israel made no move, the Lebanese Shiite terror group seized a second strategic peak on Mt. Barukh, thus acquiring its first capability to shoot down Israeli Air Force flights.
And still, the Olmert government sat on its hands.

So it is not surprising that Hizballah has moved on to considering how to dispose of a fresh batch of Israeli prisoners from downed warplanes, or that the Iran-backed group was cocksure enough to manipulate the new Lebanese government into endorsing its continuing armed battle against Israel.

Had prime minister Olmert and his three likely successors Tzipi Livni, foreign affairs; Ehud Barak, defense; and Shaul Mofaz, transport - all of whom claim to be seasoned defense tacticians – resolved on proactive measures to curb Hizballah’s march from strength to strength, Israel would have been less susceptible to American pressure on Lebanon and Iran.
Above all, Iranian and Syrian officers and their guns would not now be ensconced atop Mts Sannine and Mt. Barukh.

http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5489

It appears the earlier post I believed went into cyberspace didn't after all. Strange day on IAP. Those those issues again discussed by BikerDude.  Server ones.