perfidy

James over at Outside the Beltway (which name doesn't exactly narrow his location down much, does it?) links to a report from UPI and Janes that the United States is seriously considering striking Hezbollah bases in southern Lebanon. Jane's Intelligence Digest released a report saying the administration is considering strikes in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where the bulk of Syria's forces are deployed, as way to pressure Damascus.

"Our sources are pretty damn good," Standish [editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest] told United Press International. "We've never had a libel action since we were founded in 1938. ... If you look at the track record of people who have given us this sort of information ... these are tried and tested sources that we have confidence in."

Standish dismissed the possibility that the information could have been planted by an American who wanted to derail any such attack.

"I think this is a U.S. administration that does what it says it will do," said Standish, stressing that this is a plan under consideration, not a decided course of action. "Clearly, this is about ratcheting up the pressure on Damascus. ... I think this is also part of the wider Realpolitik, which is to start the process of isolating Hezbollah much further. ...

"What we're looking at in this context are air strikes and the use of special forces snatch squads -- that kind of activity. We're not talking about a peacekeeping deployment or an invasion of southern Lebanon."

Standish said if this were another administration, there would be more room for skepticism. But the Bush administration is willing to go in a new direction after Sept. 11, 2001.

The prospect of an attack in Lebanon is not so crazy when you consider the incursions that US forces have made across the Syrian border in the past several months. The motivation behind any potential attacks, suggests Standish, is this:

"I think one can understand the reasons why people in Washington would like to apply this kind of pressure, because if Syria can be forced to cease backing Hezbollah -- which obviously has its own connections with Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- this is an issue. If you can cut the funding off for international militant organizations, that's a pretty big first step in reducing the effectiveness that they have in terms of the trouble they can cause."

How would air raids and special forces operations cut the funding?

"The funding comes from Damascus and Tehran. If the administration shows that it actually has the will to strike directly at Hezbollah targets, it sends a very powerful message: 'Look what we've done with your proxies. The next step along the line will be you.'

Standish was asked why U.S. air strikes would have a different effect than Israeli air strikes.

The psychology would be different, he replied.

"Hezbollah expects to be hit from time to time by Israel. ... But if the U.S. itself chooses to engage, I think that is an enormous step forward because it's a difference fundamentally between Israel saying that it's acting in self-defense or in a measured response to a particular incident and the U.S. saying, as a matter of policy, that just as it made war against al-Qaida and closed its bases and denied it the freedom to operate in Afghanistan," it is taking the same steps against Hezbollah. ... "A key issue is to deny the enemy the ability to train, to maintain bases, and of course ultimately -- on the political level -- to attract funding from Tehran and Syria."

The United States, as the last superpower, can send such a message, Standish said.

"Already I think it's having an effect in the Iranian situation," he added, "if you look at the concessions in real terms that have been made on the nuclear front and the willingness to conduct covert diplomacy. It's been a pretty open secret that there have been middle-ranking talks (between the United States and Iran) over the last few years in Switzerland and other European locations. So I don't think we should be surprised if Tehran decides that to continue to put funding into Hezbollah is counterproductive for its own safety."

"I think this sends a message, and I think the message is uncompromising: 'There is still time for diplomatic maneuver, but patience may be limited.' "

I would not be opposed to these sorts of actions. The more direct pressure we can put on terrorist groups, and psychological pressure on their state sponsors, the better.