The US has permitted Israel's assault on Lebanon, and war might ensue
Washington asserts that it was unaware of the unprecedented pager-bombing attack; however, its unwavering support made it possible. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Washington asserts it was unaware of a recent unprecedented attack involving detonated pager devices, yet its unconditional support for Israel has played a part in the unfolding situation.
On Tuesday, Israel faced accusations of igniting hundreds of wireless communication devices predominantly utilized by civilians, resulting in injuries to over 4,000 individuals. Details are still emerging, but this attack is poised to compel Hezbollah to contemplate significant retaliatory measures.
Less than a day after the Israeli security cabinet ratified a new military objective aimed at repatriating displaced residents near the Lebanese border, a widespread and indiscriminate assault took place across Lebanon. This development suggests that the conflict in Gaza has broadened to encompass Lebanon, raising queries about the potential form this escalation might take.
The role of the U.S. is crucial in this context. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller remarked to reporters that “the US was not involved in it, the US was not aware of this incident in advance and, at this point, we’re gathering information.” He further implied that the U.S. government was collecting information similarly to journalists worldwide.
This distancing by Washington from the incident appears somewhat farcical, as it is almost comical for a U.S. official to claim the Biden administration lacks unique insights from its ally regarding the incident. Accepting this at face value reveals an embarrassing truth: an ally receiving tens of billions in U.S. arms and aid over the past year lacks adequate communication channels to discuss an incident which could escalate into regional conflict.
Even if one were to entertain the idea that the U.S. was indeed unaware of the attack—which remains questionable—American bipartisan support for Israel amidst intense international scrutiny speaks volumes. All branches of the United Nations have voiced alarms, accusing Israel of war crimes. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has moved to suspend 30 out of approximately 350 arms export contracts due to breaches of international law.
Despite the U.S. consistently claiming a desire to de-escalate tensions and disapproval of a war between Israel and Lebanon, it is, at best, failing to intervene. If the U.S. were genuinely uninformed about Israel’s aggressive moves and sincerely sought to avert a regional conflict, suitable action should have been taken following Israel’s bombing of a civilian apartment in Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood in late July, which resulted in the death of Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr. Instead, the U.S. opted for the opposite approach, condemning Iran during a United Nations Security Council meeting called to address this issue. Almost two weeks later, the U.S. authorized a $20 billion arms package for Israel.
There is no doubt that the operation executed on Tuesday employed terrorist tactics, and understanding its objectives is essential. While the specifics of how Israel detonated the pagers remain unclear, the consequences are apparent, and sufficient information exists to form a judgment.
The incident, spanning all of Lebanon and affecting more than just Hezbollah members, has left citizens with lingering anxiety and questions. If Israel can explode pagers, what’s to stop them from detonating phones, laptops, or other devices? This scenario raises concerns for Hezbollah, as this apparent security breach has temporarily disrupted their communication systems.
Currently, it seems Israeli intelligence successfully rigged a batch of pagers with small amounts of explosives. While this tactic is historically unique, its essence is not new. For instance, in 1996, Mossad assassinated Hamas leader Yahya Ayyash by implanting explosives in his phone and remotely detonating it. In the 1980s, Israeli operatives formed a group that conducted acts of terrorism while posing as a Christian faction in Lebanon.
If this operation was designed to disrupt Hezbollah’s communications in preparation for a larger offensive, it could be understood as a tactical move to hinder the group's capabilities. However, the timing allowed Hezbollah to regroup, suggesting a different context, one focused on scoring points rather than immediate military objectives.
Now, Hezbollah finds itself in a difficult position. The group must respond to this attack in a manner that deters future Israeli actions but has also made it clear that it aims to maintain its support for Palestinian groups fighting from Gaza. Despite having executed thousands of targeted assaults against Israeli military targets since the start of hostilities on October 8, which included strikes on surveillance and air defense systems, Hezbollah's operations have also resulted in civilian casualties on both sides. Approximately 110,000 Lebanese residents have been displaced due to Israeli bombings that have severely damaged Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.
The inherent challenges moving forward are significant. Israel aims to gain an upper hand against Hezbollah, especially in the realm of public perception, and may attempt to provoke the group into a full military conflict. If Hezbollah refrains from a substantial counter-operation, it risks appearing weak, potentially encouraging Israel to intensify its offensive operations. Conversely, a heavy response could provide Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a pretext to instigate the war he has repeatedly hinted at.
This moment necessitates that Hezbollah act decisively and take calculated military risks, especially as they possess the popular support in Lebanon to engage in self-defense. Their strategic focus has been on sustaining operations in support of Gaza, while Israel seeks to widen the conflict. Due to the U.S.'s unwavering support for Israeli actions, the war is no longer confined to Gaza; without a ceasefire agreement with Hamas, a larger conflict involving Lebanon and attracting regional involvement seems increasingly likely.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
On Tuesday, Israel faced accusations of igniting hundreds of wireless communication devices predominantly utilized by civilians, resulting in injuries to over 4,000 individuals. Details are still emerging, but this attack is poised to compel Hezbollah to contemplate significant retaliatory measures.
Less than a day after the Israeli security cabinet ratified a new military objective aimed at repatriating displaced residents near the Lebanese border, a widespread and indiscriminate assault took place across Lebanon. This development suggests that the conflict in Gaza has broadened to encompass Lebanon, raising queries about the potential form this escalation might take.
The role of the U.S. is crucial in this context. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller remarked to reporters that “the US was not involved in it, the US was not aware of this incident in advance and, at this point, we’re gathering information.” He further implied that the U.S. government was collecting information similarly to journalists worldwide.
This distancing by Washington from the incident appears somewhat farcical, as it is almost comical for a U.S. official to claim the Biden administration lacks unique insights from its ally regarding the incident. Accepting this at face value reveals an embarrassing truth: an ally receiving tens of billions in U.S. arms and aid over the past year lacks adequate communication channels to discuss an incident which could escalate into regional conflict.
Even if one were to entertain the idea that the U.S. was indeed unaware of the attack—which remains questionable—American bipartisan support for Israel amidst intense international scrutiny speaks volumes. All branches of the United Nations have voiced alarms, accusing Israel of war crimes. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has moved to suspend 30 out of approximately 350 arms export contracts due to breaches of international law.
Despite the U.S. consistently claiming a desire to de-escalate tensions and disapproval of a war between Israel and Lebanon, it is, at best, failing to intervene. If the U.S. were genuinely uninformed about Israel’s aggressive moves and sincerely sought to avert a regional conflict, suitable action should have been taken following Israel’s bombing of a civilian apartment in Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood in late July, which resulted in the death of Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr. Instead, the U.S. opted for the opposite approach, condemning Iran during a United Nations Security Council meeting called to address this issue. Almost two weeks later, the U.S. authorized a $20 billion arms package for Israel.
There is no doubt that the operation executed on Tuesday employed terrorist tactics, and understanding its objectives is essential. While the specifics of how Israel detonated the pagers remain unclear, the consequences are apparent, and sufficient information exists to form a judgment.
The incident, spanning all of Lebanon and affecting more than just Hezbollah members, has left citizens with lingering anxiety and questions. If Israel can explode pagers, what’s to stop them from detonating phones, laptops, or other devices? This scenario raises concerns for Hezbollah, as this apparent security breach has temporarily disrupted their communication systems.
Currently, it seems Israeli intelligence successfully rigged a batch of pagers with small amounts of explosives. While this tactic is historically unique, its essence is not new. For instance, in 1996, Mossad assassinated Hamas leader Yahya Ayyash by implanting explosives in his phone and remotely detonating it. In the 1980s, Israeli operatives formed a group that conducted acts of terrorism while posing as a Christian faction in Lebanon.
If this operation was designed to disrupt Hezbollah’s communications in preparation for a larger offensive, it could be understood as a tactical move to hinder the group's capabilities. However, the timing allowed Hezbollah to regroup, suggesting a different context, one focused on scoring points rather than immediate military objectives.
Now, Hezbollah finds itself in a difficult position. The group must respond to this attack in a manner that deters future Israeli actions but has also made it clear that it aims to maintain its support for Palestinian groups fighting from Gaza. Despite having executed thousands of targeted assaults against Israeli military targets since the start of hostilities on October 8, which included strikes on surveillance and air defense systems, Hezbollah's operations have also resulted in civilian casualties on both sides. Approximately 110,000 Lebanese residents have been displaced due to Israeli bombings that have severely damaged Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.
The inherent challenges moving forward are significant. Israel aims to gain an upper hand against Hezbollah, especially in the realm of public perception, and may attempt to provoke the group into a full military conflict. If Hezbollah refrains from a substantial counter-operation, it risks appearing weak, potentially encouraging Israel to intensify its offensive operations. Conversely, a heavy response could provide Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a pretext to instigate the war he has repeatedly hinted at.
This moment necessitates that Hezbollah act decisively and take calculated military risks, especially as they possess the popular support in Lebanon to engage in self-defense. Their strategic focus has been on sustaining operations in support of Gaza, while Israel seeks to widen the conflict. Due to the U.S.'s unwavering support for Israeli actions, the war is no longer confined to Gaza; without a ceasefire agreement with Hamas, a larger conflict involving Lebanon and attracting regional involvement seems increasingly likely.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
