Let’s talk about Corbyn and Hezbollah and Iran.
These three things aren’t the same in many ways. But all three are fighting an entrenched system.
When Corbyn was leader, he had the majority of the membership behind him, he took control of the executive committee and he only lacked control of the MPs, who were almost all neoliberals united in hatred of him and his program.
This was a simple situation to deal with: Corbyn had the power to force re-selection: to make MPs face elections in their ridings. Almost all would have been replaced by left wingers: they weren’t popular and couldn’t win.
He refused.
He also had the power to replace the administrative class running the party and elections. He didn’t, and they sabotaged him. Without that sabotage he would have won the 2017 election, which was extremely close. This isn’t hyperbole, we have emails showing they deliberately sabotaged the campaign: they would rather the Tories win than Labour under Corbyn,
Starmer has had no such weakness: he has ruthlessly purged the party membership and leadership of left-wingers.
Now let’s turn to Hezbollah. They kept up steady pressure on Israel since October 7th, but they never seriously attacked. They did damage, for sure: most of the Northern settlements are abandoned and there has been a huge economic cost, but they never did what they could. They were scared, I think, of Israel attacking Lebanon.
(I’m running my annual fundraiser. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating. Your donations really do keep this place running.)
Israel is now attacking Lebanon, hitting multiple hospitals, at least one orphanage and telling first responders that if they go to help injured civilians, they’ll be killed.
What Hezbollah wanted to avoid, happened.
Hezbollah really had two choices: go all in and attack with everything, or do nothing. Half-assing it was not smart. It let Israel choose the time of their attack and spend a year planning and executing, which has lead to the loss of much leadership and apparently a good chunk of Hezbollah’s missile stocks.
This is not 20-20 rear view sight. I said at the start of the war that Hezbollah should attack. Why wait for Israel to beat Hamas down, then turn on them? (Yes, Hamas is still fighting, but attacking when most of the Israeli military was in Gaza and before Hamas had been badly degraded is obviously optimal.)
Now, as for Iran, they too have been overly cautious. I’m impressed by their missile capacities, but they too are sitting on their asses. This is getting close to a North Korea/China situation and it’s time for them to just go all in and stop with the proxy bullshit. Send men and stop the crap.
Khameini himself is 70% of the way to understanding this. He said that the enemy comes for countries, and if you do not defend those countries, why then they eventually come for you. Iran is the end-goal. If Hezbollah is defeated conventionally (they won’t lose a long term guerilla war) then Iran is next.
Caution: building up resources, has served Iran well. But there is time for that, and a time for using the resources. Mao was a war leader, and one of the great generals of the 20th century. He was not afraid of war, and he understood when it was time to fight.
If Iran doesn’t, they put themselves at great risk. Including the possibility that they lose a lot of their weapon stocks in a pre-emptive attack. Are they less compromised by the Mossad than Hezbollah was? Are they sure?
The bombing and so on they seek to avoid will come to them anyway, just as it has to Hezbollah and Lebanon.
Either fight the war or give up, bow to the US and Israel and stop the Resistance.
(Machiavelli observed that most men don’t change. They keep doing the same thing they have always done, even when circumstances change to make old strategies ineffective. Hezbollah has a chance, because their old leadership is dead. Iran needs its old leadership to wake up before they wind up dead and Iran loses.)
StewartM
I agree with you on Corbin. Be like Stalin, just don’t kill them but let them sulk and mutter and hate you from their forced retirement in their dachas.
However, let me play devil’s advocate. Was then Germany right to egg on Austria-Hungary in 1914? (Considering the widely-held but mistaken belief that Russia would become a ‘steamroller’, which didn’t really happen except more than a quarter-century later under a vastly different government). There was a strong opinion in Berlin that ‘we should fight now, as we’ll never be stronger’.
But it is a rolling of the dice. Hitler himself said during all the congratulations and high-fiving going on amid the Nazi leadership at the beginning of Barbarossa, that “the beginning of every campaign is like kicking open the door to a dark, unseen, room. You never know what’s waiting for you inside..”
Of course, as a counter to my devil’s argument, it matters if one’s opponent really is dead-set about destroying you, which was true with Hitler in the 1930s likely true with Israel, but was not true of Russia vs Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914.
Ian Welsh
Was the war necessary? I’ve never felt that WWI was a necessary war. What precisely did Germany and Austria-Hungary stand to gain that was worth it?
I’d say the argument that the current war is necessary is stronger. Among other things, Israel has been clear for decades that Iran is its ultimate target.
Of course, Iran could bow and give in and make peace like the Saudis.
Hezbollah doesn’t really have that option, though, since Israel really would like to occupy a chunk of their country permanently if they could manage it.
As for Hitler, the real comparison is Britain and France not letting Czechloslovakia be cut up. Had a rather large military the Czechs.
Oh, let’s let Hitler eat the Czechs first, then fight.
I dislike Nazi analogies, they’re overused, but this is a lebensraum situation and a genocidal power, so the shoe fits.
Altandmain
Ian – I think you may have missed the biggest example of someone who made a move recently. The biggest example of a country that made its move is actually Russia. They realized that the West was never going to negotiate in good faith and launched the Special Military Operation.
Putin made his move because he had been lied to about NATO expansion, because the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine, had put a Banderist puppet regime into Ukraine via coup that was killing ethnic Russians, and ultimately was using Ukraine as a tool for regime change against Russia, to get another Boris Yeltsin. That Yeltsin would loot and ultimately Balkanize Russia.
That being said, he has taken a very cautious approach since implementing the SMO and until recently, has aimed for diplomacy. Now though, I think the Russians are aiming for victory, which is coming.
The Russian economy has emerged stronger with the sanctions and the Russian military as well. Russian military casualties have been much lower than the West loves to propagandize and Western equipment / tactics have badly under-performed.
—-
The other even more important fight will be China vs the US. Right now the Chinese are in “wait” mode. They realize that the US is in decline and China is rising. The CPC leadership has recognized that time is on China’s side.
Taiwan is being used like Ukraine as the battering ram in the hopes of station nuclear weapons against China and ultimately getting a Boris Yeltsin into China.
At the moment, the Chinese are clearly waiting. Their hope is that they will reunify Taiwan and surpass the US without a fight because their economic, military, and technological power will be so strong that any attack from the US / Western vassals would clearly be suicidal. If the US launches a foolhardy attack (think of it like the US equal to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), then the US at that point will be sealing its own doom.
Those 2 fights – China and Russia vs the US are going to be far more decisive than what’s happening in the Middle East.
I’d argue though that time is on Iran’s side at this point and Israel is in the process of imploding.
Ian Welsh
In some ways Israel is imploding, yes. I guess it depends how many Lebanese and Hezbollah and Gazan civilians and military the Iranians are willing to sacrifice.
But be clear, Hezbollah took significant hits, and if they had attacked earlier they would have done far better. While I still they think they’ll “win’ in the long run, in fact I’m sure of it, that long run could take years and if it does, it’s going to really, really suck.
Plus if Hezbollah is forced back to being a guerilla insurgency against an occupying force, then Iran is next on the hit list.
Iran needs to take a hand here, a much bigger hand, and stop relying on proxies.
Putin is an example of someone who did fight, in the end. Though if he had just conquered Ukraine back in 2015 he could have done so with far fewer losses. Not sure if the economy could have taken it, but it might have: the fundamental truth of China needing Russia was true then too.
China is right to wait.
These things all depend on circumstances. Iran was right to wait and build up, but now they need to use that build up. There is usually a time when you either have to act or give up.
Also, “miss” is the wrong word. Two examples were enough, and Putin is a complicated one, as noted above. Maybe I’ll do another article on waiting v.s. acting + just walking away. Sometimes #3 is the right thing to do. Iran just needs to decide what it’s going to be: the in-between stance that has worked for so long may not be the best one here.
Altandmain
Ian, part of the reason, as Scott Ritter has noted is because Iran and Lebanon both wanted to appear as responsible governments.
In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah is also a government (Ian is aware of this, but in the West, Hezbollah is portrayed as nothing more than a terrorist organization). Many Lebanese were critical of Hezbollah because they felt that they were overly focused on the military and less focused on domestic matters.
For Iran, the government has its own challenges. Iran suffered substantially under the sanctions, although they never submitted to the West. The past couple of years now that Iran has closer ties to Russia and China have seen very good growth, to the point where Iran. Iran was reluctant to disrupt that – the government was not the most popular and is working hard to improve its legitimacy among its people. Legitimacy of course comes from economic prosperity.
In both cases, both governments, due to their domestic politics had to be seen as responsible by a large portion of their population and not seeking to provoke an unnecessary war. Both nations have their own respective people to answer to.
Even in Russia, there was an anti-war sentiment at the start of the SMO.
—
Now though things have changed. In many ways, the assassination of Nasrallah was a major mistake by Israel, and as loath as I am to say it, his death was a necessary sacrifice to communicate to the Islamic world and Lebanon that they are in a situation where they have to fight. Support has rallied for Hezbollah in Lebanon since the assassination and the pager attack.
In Russia, Putin is often criticized for not being hardline enough. Many Russians did not understand initially why the SMO had been launched, but now that they understand what the West was trying to do, they feel Putin isn’t hardline enough.
In the case of Iran, Iran had elected through a narrow win a pro-Western reconciliation President, Masoud Pezeshkian, a doctor with no previous experience. Despite everything, apparently the US lied to him about the possibility of lifting US sanctions and a ceasefire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UxDNsowQ0c&t=88s
Pezeshkian was naive and he will have lost a lot of political capital in Iran, but this move will discredit the Iranians who wanted reconciliation. I’ve also learned that there are quite a few wealthy Iranians who have a lot of money invested in the West – it could be that they backed Pezeshkian because they feared losing their investment (and they are worried that closer ties with Russia / China will result in a new elite). Israeli actions will also help discredit them.
Nasrallahs’s successor is more hardline than he was (and Nasrallah was a moderate). The successor to the Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, is also more hardline than Haniyeh was. Pezeshkian’s political future is in question in Iran and his successor will likely also be much more hardline. There were protests in Tehran against him.
https://x.com/JamesPorrazzo/status/1840758145720733941
The Iranians know that the Israelis are going to strike back. The missile strike in early October was around 180 missiles from Iran. They gave Russia and US advance warning. I’m hearing as many as 90% of the missiles penetrated (they also launched some decoys and older missiles to confuse Israeli / US air defenses).
Iran is reportedly able to launch 1,000+ missiles at once and the penetration rate will likely be much higher. They also don’t have to give warning.
Meanwhile, Israel’s attack in Lebanon seems to be very unsuccessful. They’ve taken heavier losses than they seem willing to admit.
Ian – I think that the defeat of Israel is going to happen. Just on a much slower time scale than you’d like. Also keep in mind that once the Chinese / Russians surpass the US, the US won’t be in the financial position to bankroll Israel.
Feral Finster
I have been saying this for years, and have been called all sorts of names as a result.
The Resistance needs to decide – do they want to be nice, or do they want to win? Because their enemies already have chosen, and what we might see as moderation and humanitarianism, they see only as contemptible weakness.
To use my favorite analogy once more – quote Bible verses at an armed robber and he will laugh in your face, delighted in your impotence. He already knows that “Thou shalt not steal” and he does not care.
Hold a loaded Colt Python to that robber’s head with the sure knowledge that you will without hesitation pull that trigger, and he will be the one tearfully reciting Scripture, and it won’t matter to him one bit whether or not you have the legal right to kill him or not.
StewartM
Ian
Was the war necessary? I’ve never felt that WWI was a necessary war. What precisely did Germany and Austria-Hungary stand to gain that was worth it?
Exactly. “We must punish the Serbs for the assassination of the archduke lest Austria-Hungary will collapse!!” Huh? There isn’t any way that little Serbia is going to make Austria-Hungary collapse.
Yet, Great Powers have a way of worrying themselves into such imagined threats. With the US of the 1960s, it was Cuba and Castro, then Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh (in fact, Reagan’s 1983 Grenada escapade was done precisely to ‘cure’ the US population from the horrid ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ where Americans had become loathe to once again support wars for the greater glory of United Fruit and Exxon-Mobile). A history professor of long ago once used Cuba and Castro vis-a-vis the US as an example of how Austria-Hungary had come to regard Serbia, and how an idea that was patently ludicrous came to dominate much of officialdom.
I didn’t mean to overplay the Nazi/Hitler analogy, but the difference between the Czechoslovakia crises of 1938 vs the Serbia crises of 1914 was that Hitler definitely WAS ‘out to get us’, where Russia really wasn’t; not any more than Castro or Ho could (or even their Soviet backers) could/would have ‘gotten’ the US. Yes, I do believe that Israel is more an existential threat to Hezbollah and Iran than Russia was to Austria-Hungary.
Mark Level
I think your take on this is very accurate, Ian.
I’d throw in one more historical example. In the case of the 1973 Kissinger-organized coup in Chile, Salvador Allende was warned of what was coming & who was behind it. He could have mobilized and armed his supporters, who were the majority of the populace, and possibly avoided being murdered and decades of Pinochet’s fascist rule, Operation Condor, the kidnapping, “disappearance” (mostly thrown into the ocean from helicopters) of his supporters, etc. if he had manned up and taken the threat seriously.
Looking briefly back at the events of the time, I see that the Christian Dems pretty early on sold him out & aligned with the Right. This was entirely predictable, obviously. Those people are the equivalent (okay, maybe not AS corrupt & wholly owned as the modern Dem. set) of our PMC, devoted to “Meritocracy” (nepotism & connections), “capitalist to my very bones” (as Liz Warren bragged). Not to belabor the 3rd Reich similarities, but let’s not forget that the Social Dems thought Hitler was not a serious threat (just as many people considered Trump a joke during his first run; but actually Trump has the attention span of a fruit fly, & he didn’t have the type of well-organized technocrats that the NASDAP had, some in the party, others in the professional military. )
Which leads me to a slight tangent. Because the big Iranian shot last week was against Military targets entirely, & almost no civilians were killed (we’re told none, except for a Palestinian hit with Iron Dome fragments), the Israelis took as their purported lesson that Iran is a paper tiger, ineffective, etc. Of course, the Israelis are insecure & cowardly liars who will turn every defeat they suffer into a Hasbara “victory”, so a whole salt shaker is needed. And yet–
I think the overall lesson is don’t fight with one hand tied behind your back when your opponent is a genocidal monster. That said, it is interesting that Hezbollah, Ansar Al-Allah, the Qassam brigades and the Iranians are pursuing the high road in many ways, beyond what is needed, & are much more eligible to be named “the world’s most moral Army” than the Zionists, who put their atrocities on Tik-Tok for shits & giggles. (And yes, I know that Hezbollah & the Qassam brigades are not formal “armies” of course, it’s a loose metaphor.)
To cite specifics, John Elmer’s excellent coverage of Qassam brigade fighters inside Gaza always covers the fact that the Quran teaches it’s dishonorable to attack the wounded AND those rescuing the wounded, so they let the Israeli helicopters fly away with the rescued without shooting them down.
This may be militarily unwise, but on the other hand there is a clear message to RoW of who is morally superior and in the right. So in the long term the Palestinians and the Axis of Resistance gain support across the globe steadily, it seems.
This is a difficult puzzle for those of us who have studied philosophy & ethics. I have at many points gotten impatient & annoyed at the AoR’s restraint & caution. However perhaps they are teaching by modeling (probably the most effective form of teaching) so maybe I need to be less skeptical and broaden my spiritual outlook.
I don’t believe in a Theistic “God” who decides which side HE’s on, obviously. That said, I feel like I have started to learn a lot of positive things that will aid my own spiritual practice by watching those opposing the genocide– Ansar al-Allah especially, of course.
If this were the “Civilizational War” that Nuttinyahoo was braying about in Congress, it is clear to 85% or more of the world’s populace at this point who the “savages” are, obviously. Like others, I believe that the Zionist state’s insane levels of hatred, grievance & violence will doom it. It is interesting to note that much of the Muslim world (Saudis, Qatar & Gulf States, Turkey’s leadership also excluded) have taken Nietzsche’s admonition to heart: “If you go to fight monsters, be sure not to become one yourself.”
The Heretic
Actions speak louder than words. From the perspective of the other parties and what responses or countermeasures they must prepare, words that are contrary to actions can be ignored, because ultimately only actions reflect the true intentions of the speaker.
When a country engages in bombing that completely destroys the territory of a people or country, (even if they don’t aim to directly maximize destruction of the people), they aim to destroy the people. When they block humanitarian aid to the people, it is another sign of destructive intent.
When a country engages in large scale bombing that kills hundreds and maims thousands of citizens, they view those citizens, as at best, unimportant collateral damage, and at worst, creatures to be subdued and dominated or exterminated. The government of the people and that people must act in an appropriate manner.
Ian, you are correct, Israel is effectively at war with Iran, and its bloodthirsty rampage in Gaza indicates a stalinesque level of ruthlessness (to be far, if the Palestinians bowed and grovelled before their masters, the zionist settlers and their supporters would still displace them, but they would not kill them…). Peace seeking, firm but reason based negotiations are of little value when dealing with ann enemy both hubristic and dangerous. Iran is at war, whether it wants to or not.
Concerning Iran’s second and more effective retaliation, Iran still needs to be prudent. Did Iran have enough missiles and launchers to destroy Israel air power (its offensive ability in fighter bombers and fixed wing drones, its defensive ability via Iron Dome and arrow and David sling, and its ISR of radars, drones and communications). Furthermore, does it have enough anti ship missiles and launchers and anti-aircraft weapons to hold off an American counter attack? If Iran is not strong enough and needs more time to build up, then a stronger, but still performative strike was perhaps the right answer, As they hope to gain sympathy from the rest of world. If they were strong enough to do massive damage to Israel AirPower, and do substantial damage to America’s navy and airforce should it attack, then I agree, a much stronger, crippling attack should have been conducted against Israel’s Airpower. . As long as no Islamic army lands on Israel itself, and no major civilian casualties are inflicted via destruction of life sustaining infrastructure, or deliberate targeting of large and dense clusters of civilians, Israel will not have backing to launch Nuclear weapons… which besides its air power are the primary things the Axis of Resistance would fear… although the pager attack is very bad, the bombing campaign in Gaza is ultimately much worse.
KT Chong
IMO: Mossad has infiltrated the the top and upper leadership of Hezbollah.
I posted this comment a few days ago: https://www.ianwelsh.net/week-end-wrap-political-economy-october-6-2024/#comments
Summary: seemingly unrelated evidences show that Mossad coordinated with the US State Department to plan and execute the walkie-talkie terror attacks in Lebanon.The US State Department narrowly put and time a global trade sanction on China’s biggest walkie-talkie manufacturer Hytera in April. The objective seems to be to temporarily remove the Chinese company from being able to accept overseas orders, (i.e., by blocking Hytera from accessing the US-controlled international payment system.) Within those two weeks when Hytera was removed from the global market, Mossad + the US State Department were able to steer Hezbollah towards ordering the rigged explosive walkie-talkie from Japan.
That means: a Mossad agent in Hezbollah knew Hezbollah was going to put an order for thousands of walkie-talkies in April. That Mossad agent inside Hezbollah was likely not in the top-tier position, so he was not able to directly influence or put that walkie-talkie order, but he knew when Hezbollah was going to put a large order for walkie-talkies. Hezbollah would have most likely ordered walkie-talkies from China, but Mossad and the US have not compromised the Chinese supply lines. So Mossad and the US manipulated events outside Hezbollah, (i.e., used a sanction to take the Chinese Hytera out of the global market for a time,) to indirectly steer Hezbollah towards buying walkie-talkies from the Japanese ICOM, (which is compromised by the US and Israel.)
That means Mossad has infiltrated Hezbollah, and their undercover agents were near the decision-making level in Hezbollah. Now that the pager and walkie-talkie explosions had wiped out many Hezbollah leadership, I suspect a lot of replacements are actually Mossad undercovers, who are now feeding bad decisions and information to the top level of Hezbollah.
mago
It’s interesting. Buddhist ethics prohibit the taking of life, yet provide exceptions.
There’s a story about the Buddha who in a previous life as a ship’s captain destroyed an attacking force to save his crew and attained a higher rebirth as a result.
It’s all conditional in the relative world. Sometimes you have to kill to serve a higher cause.
Such decisions are above my position and pay scale of course, but smite the unrighteous where ye may.
In the words of Che, hasta la victoria!
KT Chong
Buddhism prohibits not only the taking of a human life but also animal life. Strict Buddhism does not allow the killing of even critters (like rats) and insects (flies and mosquitoes.)
Supposedly Christianity also does not allow murder and taking of a human life. However, it is okay to kill animals. So, if Christians somehow think of another people as less than humans, then it became okay to kill them and commit a genocide, i.e., condoning and committing a genocide involves the mental gymnastics of dehumanizing the people you hate, i.e., do not think of the victims but as animals.
In Buddhism, one is not allowed to take a life of even an animal or insect. So, Buddhists are not supposed to play mental gymnastics to de-humanize a people and rationalize cleansing them.
In that respect, Buddhism > Christianity.
KT Chong
Actually, a Buddhist is not allowed to kill anyone but oneself, which is another major differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhists are not allow to weight between costs/outcomes of the means vs. the end, and therefore Buddhism does not typically allow the taking of one life in order to save many more: you make decision based on what is before you, (and you are not supposed to kill.) You are not supposed to guess or think what will happen next because you do not know and cannot precisely predict what will happen next. In Buddhism, the end NEVER justifies the means: you were NOT suppose to kill a baby even if you know with absolute certainty that the baby would grow up to be Hitler.
Buddhism only allows the taking of ONE life: suicide (for a higher cause), yet it does not allow killing of any other life: human, animal or insect.
On the other hand, Christianity does not allow suicide (your life belongs to God but not to yourself) but is perfectly fine with killing animals, waging holy crusades on non-believers, and burning witches.
Altandmain
@Mark Level
It’s their actions as to why the Palestinians are met with sympathy throughout the world.
The same is true of Russia. They could easily have wiped out the Ukrainians in 2022. They didn’t because they knew the reputational damage it would have done. The West may delude itself, and fabricate atrocities, while pretending their proxy, Ukraine isn’t commiting horrendous atrocities (which they have), but they can’t fool the rest of the world.
Most people in the West don’t understand the Russians have been fighting this war with one hand tied behind their back.
It is also why the Western world is increasingly resorting to censorship or what they calling stopping “disinformation” (which is anything that challenges Western state propaganda). Several channels I know for example were banned from YouTube.
The thing is, the West is clearly in rapid decline. Living standards are falling to developing world levels in many parts of the Western world. Homelessness is rising. The rich have destroyed their own national power through neoliberal economics to make themselves richer in the short run.
Poul
“While I still they think they’ll “win’ in the long run, in fact I’m sure of it, that long run could take years and if it does, it’s going to really, really suck.”
Yes it will suck but that how you defeat a superior military force. Ask the Taliban, Vietcon etc. There is no quick victory.
If you have no air force or air defence you will suffer. There is only attrition left. And here it is a question of willpower not manpower. Which takes time and the more fanatical your opponent the longer.
Worth thinking about is how long does it take to replace spent missiles for Hezbollah
mago
Interesting take on Buddhism KT.
Anon
Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don’t ask me why.