In the American Thinker, James Lewis makes a compelling case that Israel’s battle with Hezbollah is really more about prepping for a possible showdown with Iran later:
We can’t know the outcome of the battle now in progress. However, it is clear that Israel has called Ahmadinejad’s bluff. So far, there are two signs for the world to see: Israeli freedom to act as it wants, and the impotence of Syria and Iran to protect their proxies on the borders of Israel.
The IDF is attacking at a time and place of its choosing. If a country the size of Israel is going to tackle Iran, with ten times its population, it must first protect its own rear. The IDF cannot afford to have more than 10 thousand short-range rockets aimed at Israel’s population, all in the hands of Iran’s terror proxy, Hezbollah. For strategic reasons alone, therefore, it is imperative to clean out the threat making any direct move again Tehran.
That does not mean the IDF is now committed to attack Bushehr and Natanz, the two most likely nuclear targets in Iran. But if it can cripple the threat from Hezbollah and Hamas for some time to come, it is clearing a strategic space to strike at Iran itself.
If so, could it be that the global divisions over addressing Iran’s nuclear program are the real obstacles to the cease-fire Europe eagerly seeks?
