Will HA retaliate against American interests in Lebanon?

JB81

JB81

Legendary Member
An attack on Iran is an attack on HA and Lebanon. I can already hear SHN saying this.
Well, common sense says it, but where is it spent in Lebanon? We can't hide it as if we don't know what would be an attack on Iran means to HA... However, how about Lebanon and the equation between the whole scenario?
 
  • Advertisement
  • O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Artificial states is subjective... Hopefully you don't mean you look for a prejudice Islamic State

    Subjective? Hhmm, nope you are the one who basically want to deny history and reality because of your own prejudice as agitated minority..
    I'm not the one denying facts of foreign powers coming to our region drawing artificial borders with a ruler and displacing people from one region to another!

    So yes indeed artificial states, the vast majority of people of this region shares more in common to be larger stronger and wealthier nation/s instead of being more like dwarf and broken states who can barely protect themselves against their aggressors/enemies!

    Why should we just accept being raped in turn only to be waiting for our turn to come next one after another?
    Eventually we as people of this region must stop this evil cycle to move on.
    We simply have way more of the ingredients other bigger nations has to be big and strong on all fields!
    Joining our economies and resources together is the only way to confront the others!

    Artificial states will eventually vanish and whether the state rule would be Islamic based or a fake non existence of "purely secular" based is another topic in itself!
    But surely if we are talking about genuine nations from the inhabitants of this region what would you expect it be other than Islamic based?
    Why is it halal for some and haram for others?

    And after all there is a good reason why the super powers had a special focus on dividing our region in specific to suit their needs both militarily, politically and economically.

    Now maybe you find yourself closer to this idea of western domination of our region and favour more the idea to keep the majority behaving itself as a minority and each for his own!

    But all I can tell you this is not how you build nations but how you destroy nations and clearly this is what you want.
    And this is your prejudice, not mine!
     
    Last edited:
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It's a well-known fact that the Revolutionary Guards are the ones who created HA. Their religious doctrine, through Wilayet el-Faqih, strictly states the obligatory obedience to the Iranian Supreme Leader.

    On a military level, it's also clear to which extent HA was ready to engage in the region's wars which Iran uses as an opportunity to arm and recruit.

    In case of an attack on Iran, HA will play the role that the Supreme Leader decides. Knowing that, there could be a ground for maneuver, based on the fact that HA is the crown in the jewel.

    Iran has worked on a long-term vision through the "forward defense strategy." It makes sense since the Iranian military budget is around 13 billion while the Saudi's is around 63. Add to that the other strong foes such as UAE and Israel. This has resulted in a continuous push from the Iranian side to rely on rogue state tactics, in addition to the proved thrust of military organizations, such as HA, that have been planted on the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia, that would make the attack on Iran itself come with a hefty price, with an acceptable monetary cost, taking into consideration the very high return on investment coming from the achievements of HA and Houthis that eventually fill the Iranian political balance and strengthen their diplomacy, with almost no casualties on the Iranian side, since the human cost in this case would be paid by the Lebanese, Yemenis, and others.

    The question is what benefit is there for the Lebanese to give all of this to Iran and its Revolutionary Guards, and what in return are we getting, aside from wars from time to another, and this continuous meddling in our affairs, hijacking of the war and peace decision, in addition to putting Lebanon in the eye of the storm and in the axis of enemies to the US and Saudi Arabia. A position that no rational Lebanese would consider beneficial to the country.

    The Lebanese state's foreign policy should be based on positive neutrality. SHN has threatened that the whole region would get burned if Iran is attacked. Did he threaten with the same if Lebanon is attacked. Does he even have a Lebanese agenda, when their salaries, arms, and political support come from Iran. Do they feel the pressure when the Lebanese economy enters in a recession phase, or when Iran faces painful sanctions?
     
    Last edited:
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    It's a well-known fact that the Revolutionary Guards are the ones who created HA. Their religious doctrine, through Wilayet el-Faqih, strictly states the obligatory obedience to the Iranian Supreme Leader.

    On a military level, it's also clear to which extent HA was ready to engage in the region's wars which Iran uses as an opportunity to arm and recruit.

    In case of an attack on Iran, HA will play the role that the Supreme Leader decides. Knowing that, there could be a ground for maneuver, based on the fact that HA is the crown in the jewel.

    Iran has worked on a long-term vision through the "forward defense strategy." It makes sense since the Iranian military budget is around 13 billion while the Saudi's is around 63. Add to that the other strong foes such as UAE and Israel. This has resulted in a continuous push from the Iranian side to rely on rogue state tactics, in addition to the proved thrust of military organizations, such as HA, that have been planted on the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia, that would make the attack on Iran itself come with a hefty price, with an acceptable monetary cost, taking into consideration the very high return on investment coming from the achievements of HA and Houthis that eventually fill the Iranian political balance and strengthen their diplomacy, with almost no casualties on the Iranian side, since the human cost in this case would be paid by the Lebanese, Yemenis, and others.

    The question is what benefit is there for the Lebanese to give all of this to Iran and its Revolutionary Guards, and what in return are we getting, aside from wars from time to another, and this continuous meddling in our affairs, hijacking of the war and peace decision, in addition to putting Lebanon in the eye of the storm and in the axis of enemies to the US and Saudi Arabia. A position that no rational Lebanese would consider beneficial to the country.

    The Lebanese state's foreign policy should be based on positive neutrality. SHN has threatened that the whole region would get burned if Iran is attacked. Did he threaten with the same if Lebanon is attacked. Does he even have a Lebanese agenda, when their salaries, arms, and political support come from Iran. Do they feel the pressure when the Lebanese economy enters in a recession phase, or when Iran faces painful sanctions?

    Simple.. this is the price you have to pay as a insignificant detached-miniature state like Lebanon.

    As much as I dislike Iran for their negative ugly sectarian roles in the region but this war is not just their war it is a war on the region as a whole specifically on the western-dominated Arab populated regions!

    You are asking the wrong questions actually unrealistic questions! It is not about whether we benefit or not!
    Lebanon can not but always be in the front of the storm because this is our natural geographical position/location and even our social position despite the internal divisions we have!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Jo
    Nonan

    Nonan

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Simple.. this is the price you have to pay as a insignificant detached-miniature state like Lebanon.

    As much as I dislike Iran for their negative ugly sectarian roles in the region but this war is not just their war it is a war on the region as a whole specifically on the western-dominated Arab populated regions!

    You are asking the wrong questions actually unrealistic questions! It is not about whether we benefit or not!
    Lebanon can not but always be in the front of the storm because this is our natural geographical position/location and even our social position despite the internal divisions we have!
    You seem to think that Lebanon only existed after 1920. You seem to think that the only Muslims have a right on the Middle East. And then you wonder...
    I have a couple of news for you. The coast of Lebanon down to Haifa and up to Tartous has always been somewhat autonomous from the hinterland (Damascus, etc) from the Phoenician days and throughout history. And subjecting Christians who are native to this land a substantial part of its fabric to a rule based on a different religion is discriminatory and illegal.
    Having said that, and going back to the topic of the thread, I’m still not clear on how Lebanon would benefit from being thrown into the fire and destroyed vs adopting some type of (even superficial) neutrality.
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    You seem to think that Lebanon only existed after 1920. You seem to think that the only Muslims have a right on the Middle East. And then you wonder...
    I have a couple of news for you. The coast of Lebanon down to Haifa and up to Tartous has always been somewhat autonomous from the hinterland (Damascus, etc) from the Phoenician days and throughout history. And subjecting Christians who are native to this land a substantial part of its fabric to a rule based on a different religion is discriminatory and illegal.
    Having said that, and going back to the topic of the thread, I’m still not clear on how Lebanon would benefit from being thrown into the fire and destroyed vs adopting some type of (even superficial) neutrality.
    The Lebanon we know of today is modern concept and a very weak one..
    as for autonomous and all that it is not the problem here not for me!

    And nothing of what I said should imply that only the Muslims must have rights in the ME we all do.
    The majority of people living in this region are most likely native to this region but there are some people who like to think purely in minority terms when we actually have to give the right for the majority and for minority they are both important!

    And like I said clearly in the previous post this is not a choice about being neutral!
    Neutrality in this conflict is simply not a option for Lebanon!
    And even if lets say somehow HA agreed with you what about the other side what makes you so sure that they wont retaliate on HA positions?

    I understand that you wish Lebanon was some island in the middle of the ocean somewhere far away from all this but we are not!
    So running away from the truth/reality wont change the reality.. this is simply our situation which we can never run away from!
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is already stated and established that the doctrine that binds HA, Iran, and Syria, is built on the premise that everyone decides when and how to fight for his homeland, in case he is attacked, regardless of the existence of his alliance with the other or the support he could get from him. So if Iran is attacked, Iran defends itself. If Syria is attacked, Syria defends itself. And if Lebanon is attacked, Lebanon defends itself.

    The case was well exposed when put to action in 2006. Neither Iran nor Syria fought Lebanon's battle, despite their tremendous and much appreciated support.

    (Syria's case was at some point, a very specific and limited exception, due to the fact that the homeland was surrounded and invaded by foreign armies, armed and financed by too many countries...And even though...It was done through a specific request with a limited scope, and after months of fighting invaders alone.)

    So everyone relax and stop believing whatever the mass media say, just because they keep repeating it over and over.

    Now on the other hand, if Israel takes such event as an opportunity to strike Lebanon, thinking that Iran is busy, or using pretexts like "We had to hit preemptively Iranian bases in Lebanon"...Then gloves would be off.

    And by the way...America has no "interests" of military nature in Lebanon, for anyone to hit. So Jadal Bizante...really
     
    V

    Viral

    Member
    The hawks on this forum made fun of Galloway when I posted this earlier. They all disappeared now...
    All the answers to this outcome can be found in this clip.
    Only deterrence can bring peace in a world overrun by warmongers.

     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Short or long lasting war may or may not break out any time between USA and Iran.
    HA is Iran's closest ally in Lebanon and practically a Lebanese extension of the IRGC.
    If war breaks out, do you think HA will quickly engage? If so, to what extent?
    Will they carefully restrict their engagement to outside Lebanese borders, for example enroll more actively as fighting units in the IRGC or say execute military operations against American targets in the Persian gulf or in other parts of the world?
    Or will they choose to ignore Lebanon's national interests, drop all restrictions and indirectly plunge Lebanon into the conflict by hitting against American interests inside Lebanon?

    If the later, what do you think are the consequences for Lebanon of such move, politically, militarily and economically?
    The US is already crippling Iran and nothing happened.
     
    L

    lebanese1

    Legendary Member
    The US is already crippling Iran and nothing happened.
    Amrika_Chaytan also already defeated Iran a few years ago and nothing happened!!

    I am celebrating this is a great win for the US. This is what the American people have always wanted: wins through pressure and diplomacy, not wars.
    The US has tamed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and forced it to relinquish the pursuit of nukes. Congrats to President Obama.

    Iran agreed to relinquish its nuclear weapons ambitions under the weight of sanctions imposed by shaytan elakbar!! it is interesting to see most HA supporters who boasted about Iranian upcoming nukes power and mumena3a non-stop, be so quiet about Iran caving under sanctions to relinquish its nuclear weapons ambitions and stop its shaytan akbar tune and all of a sudden the US is fine, nuclear weapons just forget about it, let's get these sanctions lifted! Where are the mumena3a hawks of the forum?
    I give Obama credit where credit is due. I didn't think the deal would move forward this fast if at all but it did and yes it is a win for the US it tamed Iran's nuclear weapons.

    The fat lady singing is related to the day Lebanon elects a President :) not gonna be Aoun his chances are still next to nil. If I'm wrong about this you can gloat :) but on this Inukes issue I support the US policy when it delivers positive results for the states.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Amrika_Chaytan also already defeated Iran a few years ago!!
    Of course the US did. it delayed their nuclear ambitions. Trump is now kicking it up a notch or three :)

    and still, it is wins through pressure and diplomacy, not wars... Even when the Islamic Republic is so desperate for provocations :)
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    delayed? ma 3a ases forced to relinqish?

    ya shametit abla zaza Iran bii Amrika Chaytan :D
    Oh I see and you thought I did not know that the deal was for 10 and 15 years limits :)
    It was a win for the US at the time under Obama. Now with a more hawkish Trump, a better deal will be extracted :)
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The US is already crippling Iran and nothing happened.
    War using bombs and missiles is a little different story. Let me hear your opinion: if Iran and the US clash militarily in an open out war, and Iran gets severely spanked as expected, will HA retaliate against American targets inside Lebanon any way it finds suitable? For example, in lack of other abundant fat targets, would they bomb the American embassy at Aoukar for being a huge weker 7ayyeh in the region? We saw them in Iraq send "warnings" missiles to their embassy in Baghdad right after the latest escalation started.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    War using bombs and missiles is a little different story. Let me hear your opinion: if Iran and the US clash militarily in an open out war, and Iran gets severely spanked as expected, will HA retaliate against American targets inside Lebanon any way it finds suitable? For example, in lack of other abundant fat targets, would they bomb the American embassy at Aoukar for being a huge weker 7ayyeh in the region? We saw them in Iraq send "warnings" missiles to their embassy in Baghdad right after the latest escalation started.
    I do not think a war is in the cards at all between Iran and the US. However, entertaining your hypothetical, HA will not go after the US, they will more likely ignite conflict on the southern border, as it is a more effective pressure point.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I do not think a war is in the cards at all between Iran and the US. However, entertaining your hypothetical, HA will not go after the US, they will more likely ignite conflict on the southern border, as it is a more effective pressure point.
    Me, I think not, if Israel does not interfere, they'd leave Israel be. Israel has been on a regular basis directly hitting both Iran and HA in Syria, and nothing happened. They chose to ignore the hits and didn't even bother threaten to retaliate against it.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Me, I think not, if Israel does not interfere, they'd leave Israel be. Israel has been on a regular basis directly hitting both Iran and HA in Syria, and nothing happened. They chose to ignore the hits and didn't even bother threaten to retaliate against it.
    This is not a relevant example. Taking a few kicks in Syria is different than the US opening a front directly on Iran.

    The US doesn't want war with Iran. not at all. It wants Iran to play ball. I think a strong sanctions regime is the best option, and Iran foolishly is giving the US even more reasons to justify a stronger sanctions regime... Zarif is losing his touch :)

    If the US wants to engage militarily, it can do so indirectly by providing more indirect support for the war against Houthis, for example, or by working against Iranian interests in Iraq, or by increasing US meddling in Syria... But the US is not even all that interested in that either...
     
    Last edited:
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    This is not a relevant example. Taking a few kicks in Syria is different than the US opening a front directly on Iran.
    You get kicked by Israel, you ignore the kicks. You get smacked by the US, you retaliate against Israel which you usually avoid even after directly kicking you? mannak logiky. Besides, why draw in one more militarily strong enemy in a conflict against you where you're already the weaker opponent?
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    ....

    The US doesn't want war with Iran. not at all. It wants Iran to play ball. I think a strong sanctions regime is the best option, and Iran foolishly is giving the US even more reasons to justify a stronger sanctions regime... Zarif is losing his touch :)

    If the US wants to engage militarily, it can do so indirectly by providing more indirect support for the war against Houthis, for example, or by working against Iranian interests in Iraq, or by increasing US meddling in Syria... But the US is not even all that interested in that either...
    Yes, all that I know.. Unless we're up to much hidden ulterior goals that are so murky my wildest conspiratorial mind wouldn't even detect, there's probably no war.

    But as one should never say never, war could break out still.. Remember, we're dealing with humans here, ye3ne from time to time much unreliable habal.
     
    Top