| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| The risk of hostage-taking by Hezbollah is extremely high |
| 2006-07-16 |
| Our analysts concluded that one of the principal risks of safety of the current crisis is to see Hezbollah reviving its policy of taking Western hostages such as this organization practised it twenty years ago, at the height of the civil war. It is clearly indeed that one should assist in the days to come - perhaps within the next 48 hours - to a massive offensive from the Israeli Army to south-Lebanon and, undoubtedly, in the plain of Bekaa with an aim if not of eradicate purely and simply Hezbollah, at least to deprive it of its operational capacities for several years. To counter this offensive, Hezbollah could (or would have to) react in three manners: - By developing an insurrectionary war in the south so as to bring Israel to account; - By using all the weapons of which it lays out, including missiles able to reach Tel-Aviv (the reasoning will be: "let us use them before they are destroyed") - By taking Western hostages From the Civil war of the Eighties as from the crisis in progress in Iraq, Hezbollah has remembered that the businesses of hostages use to paralyse the Western nations. The hostage-taking would be thus, in Lebanon, a mean of ensuring that the United States keep neutral and of pushing other nations (of which France) to more openly commit itself "to defend the integrity of Lebanon" by the diplomatic way and ensuring the survival of Hezbollah by obliging the Occident to make pressure on Israel. Moreover, perhaps, this solution would have a collateral advantage which would be to allow Damas and Teheran to be in a position of "honest brokers" in further possible negotiations. Syria would thus find an official role in Lebanon and Iran could even hope to lower the tensions around its nuclear program. The Operation would be all the more easy as very many Westerners (25 000 Americans, 20 000 French, thousands of other Europeans reside at Lebanon or are there on mission of long duration or like tourists). The most exposed countries seem to us to be the Member States of the Security Council and especially the United States and France. The most exposed city is obviously Beirut where the density of foreigners is strong and where the Israeli troops will not enter. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #12 Yup, it's something the Paleos are stupid enough to do. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-16 16:48 |
| #11 oh that be smart attack a US Warship and get the US to start bombing the shit out of you with cruise missiles. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-07-16 16:32 |
| #10 I think that the chance that Hezbollah seizes Western hostages in Lebanon is between zero and nil. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-07-16 15:56 |
| #9 Egypt is permitting the Iwo Jima group to transit the Suez Canal? If I'm driving those ships I'm going to be very nervous; just think what a propaganda coup it would be for the Islamists to get the Cole a second time. They know pretty much when and where the ships will pass in the Canal and approaches. For that matter, the Islamists don't even need to actually mount an attack - an unarmed boat making too close an approach will get blasted, for at least a secondary propaganda victory. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-07-16 15:15 |
| #8 I am sure they already have hostages. Expect the tapes on al-CNN shortly. They have learned how a few hostages paralyze the west. |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-07-16 14:26 |
| #7 Hostages. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-07-16 14:24 |
| #6 One ship in that fleet is the USS Cole! Fox just announcing that State Dept is telling folks to stay where they are. It is "too dangerous" to begin movement. Wonder what that means? Would Hezbollah be dumb enough to begin to attach Americans attempting to leave? |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-07-16 14:20 |
| #5 Hostage taking may be "easy" & work with France & others but the US has learnt the hard way that responding to hostage taking will bite us in the end (figurtivly & literally). And it might be the action that would get the US directly invlolved. |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2006-07-16 14:02 |
| #4 The Iwo Jima and her strike group were in the Red Sea, not too far away. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-07-16 13:44 |
| #3 I wonder if we will show our hand in this. The Iwo Jima is on her way to pick up Americans in Lebenon, I assume she'll come with an entire group. The mere presence of the American fleet is likely to stir up the mooks. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-07-16 13:43 |
| #2 Yep, can't argue with the logic. Maybe having forces nearby will make a difference this time. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-07-16 13:18 |
| #1 I agree completely with points 2 (use it or lose it) and 3 (taking Western hostages) as the main threats | responses by Hizbollah. |
| Posted by: Clavimble Spomoger8840 2006-07-16 13:10 |