Hezbollah chief to move to Iran for security concerns: report

[TheImmortal]

So Israel started a war against Lebanon in 2006, destroyed their cities, killed their civilians but didn't want to escalate the situation by killing the Nasrallah?! lol, you are oficially dead brain!

Once again @mohsen you make yourself look like a moron. Which is to be expected.

You apparently don’t even remember how the 2006 war started. It was started by Hezbollah not Israel.

Hezbollah was attempting to gain leverage and did a diversion attack to draw away attention from a raid on an Israeli patrol. Killed some soldiers and abducted a couple soldiers in the attack. The goal was an attempt to do a prisoner swap for Lebanese prisoners in Israel. That was Hezbollah’s intention.

Israel attempted a rescue operation and failed leading to more deaths. This lead to an escalation spiral that kicked off the war.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel intended to enter a war. And Israel did not start the 2006 war.

 

[khansaheeb]

Once again @mohsen you make yourself look like a moron. Which is to be expected.

You apparently don’t even remember how the 2006 war started. It was started by Hezbollah not Israel.

Hezbollah was attempting to gain leverage and did a diversion attack to draw away attention from a raid on an Israeli patrol. Killed some soldiers and abducted a couple soldiers in the attack. The goal was an attempt to do a prisoner swap for Lebanese prisoners in Israel. That was Hezbollah’s intention.

Israel attempted a rescue operation and failed leading to more deaths. This lead to an escalation spiral that kicked off the war.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel intended to enter a war. And Israel did not start the 2006 war.

Whatever, and Israel got decisively defeated so resorted to dropping 1 ton bombs on civilians in Beirut.

 

[TheImmortal]

Whatever, and Israel got decisively defeated so resorted to dropping 1 ton bombs on civilians in Beirut.

Doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The war would never had started if HZ didn’t do that operation. And later on it was revealed that HZ underestimated the Israel expected counter strike. That is why war is dangerous. You think your enemy will do one thing and then they do something much worse forcing you to respond. Causing an escalation spiral.

That is Israel’s philosophy. Whatever strike you do, Israel will do 1000x worse including to attack civilian population in order to turn local population against the military/militia. Wether right or wrong is not the point. It’s how they have operated in the Middle East for decades.

 

[IceCold]

No offense but Iranians could not protect their top scientist heading their nuclear program, what chance does Hezbollah Chief have? He should take care of his own security.
Iran needs to massively revamp its security apparatus including finding those black sheep within who are betraying the country for Israeli and US dollars

 

[Arian]

No offense but Iranians could not protect their top scientist heading their nuclear program, what chance does Hezbollah Chief have? He should take care of his own security.
Iran needs to massively revamp its security apparatus including finding those black sheep within who are betraying the country for Israeli and US dollars

Iran needs a new president. Period.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Pretty sure they could identify them at the time. They just weren’t willing to escalate a small war into a massive regional war.

As we saw how easy it was to kill Solemani when deterrence is no longer maintained.

2006 was not that small

Iran needs a new president. Period.

Well it ha nothing to do with president as the vip protection is not his duty . i knew several years ago it was responsibility of a branch of basij.
But don't worry in just several month another president will come .

 

[SalarHaqq]

Israel attempted a rescue operation and failed leading to more deaths. This lead to an escalation spiral that kicked off the war.

So zionist shortcomings (in the rescue attempt, where five zionist troops were killed after crossing into Lebanese territory) lead to escalation spirals that ignite wars...

That said, the main phase of the war wasn't kicked off in an uncontrolled manner, independently of the will of both sides, or simply as a result of escalating, mutual tit-for-tat strikes: in fact the zionist regime reviewed alternative options for a major military assault on Lebanon, each with a precise plan of action and clearly defined goals, and it chose one.

In a paper we read:

To develop a campaign plan to achieve its strategic objectives, the Olmert government turned to Lt. General Dan Halutz, the Chief of the Isreal Defense Forces’ (IDF) General Staff and a former Israeli Air Force (IAF) pilot. On 12 July, General Halutz had two plans on the books for a war against Hizbullah. The first plan was Operation Stone of Fire—a plan that the Israelis had developed and refined since 2000. This plan called for multiple Army divisions to invade southern Lebanon and push Hizbullah 40 kilometers north to the Litani River, reducing the organization’s ability to strike Israel with rockets. There were significant drawbacks to this plan. A large Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon risked provoking regional and international condemnation for the inevitable destruction to civilian life and property that it would cause. A large ground war also risked more IDF causalities that would likely lead to increased domestic political pressure, just as it did during the occupation of southern Lebanon during the late 1990s. General Ido Nehushtan, who served as General Halutz’s chief planner, believed the plan “had lost its relevance after Syria's military withdrew from Lebanon [in 2005]. “Hizbullah,” he believed, “required a different approach.”

The second plan under consideration was a 48-72 hour bombing campaign, codenamed Operation Ice Breaker. This plan was more in line with the Israeli General Staff’s preferences. General Halutz, however, wanted to expand the scale and intensity of the original version of the campaign. He envisioned an aerial blitz that would attempt to destroy Hizbullah’s entire military apparatus. General Halutz also believed that the size and scope of the campaign could convince the Lebanese people to turn on Hizbullah and disarm it.[14] Israel, General Halutz warned, would “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years” in order to remove the Hizbullah threat. The IDF General Staff was so confident in the expanded version Operation Ice Breaker that they promised U.S. officials a decisive Israeli victory within 35 days.[15]

The 2006 Lebanon War: A Short History | Small Wars Journal

What began as an Israeli air campaign rapidly evolved into an extensive ground war of bloody house-to-house battles that the Israelis were ill prepared to wage.

smallwarsjournal.com

Thus Tel Aviv wasn't involuntarily and gradually dragged into a war at this large a scale, but deliberately opted for it.

The war would never had started if HZ didn’t do that operation.

And Hezbollah would not have conducted said operation if Tel Aviv had stuck to the terms of an aforegone deal on the release of Lebanese prisoners.

That is why war is dangerous. You think your enemy will do one thing and then they do something much worse forcing you to respond. Causing an escalation spiral.

Which is why the US and zionist regimes are refraining from overt military aggression against Iran, knowing that this would force Iran into retaliating severely.

It is debatable however to what extent the zionist regime was really forced into escalating as much as it chose to in 2006 (a limited border skirmish and the wholesale bombing of nuclear infrastrure in the heart of a country being two different sets of events).

That is Israel’s philosophy. Whatever strike you do, Israel will do 1000x worse including to attack civilian population in order to turn local population against the military/militia.

Wether right or wrong is not the point. It’s how they have operated in the Middle East for decades.

That modus operandi revealed its limits during the 2006 war, where Isra"el"i forces were defeated.

From the above cited paper:

Through military action, the Olmert government sought to recover its captured soldiers and improve Israeli national security by eliminating or significantly reducing the military and political power of Hizbullah. Israel intended to achieve this strategic ends by accomplishing three supporting goals. First, destroy or seriously degrade Hizbullah’s military strength, with a focus on its rocket arsenal. Second, reduce popular support for the organization in Lebanon by convincing Lebanese Shias and other groups to turn on Hizbullah. Finally, pressure the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah and deploy the Lebanese Armed Forces to southern Lebanon to secure the borders. Achieving these goals, according to Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, would reshape the Lebanese political landscape—a highly ambitious objective that far exceeded the objectives of previous Israeli attacks against the organization.

Apart from some partial success on the third mentionned supporting goal (having someone else than Hezbollah secure the southern border of Lebanon), the Isra"el"i regime reached none of the objectives that its massive campaign and all the dead civilians were supposed to serve.

On zionist miscalculations (same source as above):

Israel’s military strategy and planning rested on three assumptions. The first assumption was that a heavy-handed military operation could both destroy Hizbullah’s military wing and erode popular support for the organization. Military force, although appropriate for degrading Hizbullah’s military power—at least in the short-term—risked undermining the second goal by increasing popular support for the organization. Hizbullah’s popularity originated from its history of fighting Israel and providing reconstruction aid and social services to its communities. Bombarding Hizbullah targets that are often deeply embedded in civilian neighborhoods worked in favor of Hizbullah’s political strategy, by providing the organization the opportunity to play the role of Lebanon’s defender against Israel, while also enabling it to act as first responders to the communities harmed by the fighting. The impending Israeli military operation, therefore, had two conflicting aims.

Israel’s second assumption was that it could quickly defeat Hizbullah with limited costs and commitments.[16] The Israeli military had the means to destroy or seriously degrade Hizbullah’s military capabilities, when given the necessary time and political support to do so; and three times in the past, Israel’s small disciplined military, withstood the combined power of nearly the entire Arab world. If Israel could successfully wage a multi-front war against multiple well-equipped armies, logically, the same force could handily defeat a group of militants. However, Hizbullah, in 2006, was a different kind of enemy. Hizbullah is not a conventional army, like Israel’s former Egyptian or Syrian adversaries, nor is it mostly unconventional, like Hamas. Hizbullah is a highly evolved militant organization that possesses a deadly combination of conventional and unconventional military capabilities. The organization also has a robust political wing that operates independently and within the Lebanese government. Israel did not anticipate the strengths and capabilities of this so-called “hybrid” threat; consequently, it went to war overly confident that it could vanquish its enemy, who, as it discovered, was far more tenacious and capable than anticipated.

Israel’s third assumption during the lead-up to the 2006 Lebanon War was that its military was ready for war with Hizbullah. On the eve of the conflict, Israeli Army personnel had little to no training or experience fighting an enemy as disciplined and capable as Hizbullah. After the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, the IDF focused on combating undisciplined, low-tech Palestinian militant groups. These militants, unlike Hizbullah, generally operate in small, lightly armed squads (about a dozen men) and lack formal military training. A typical Israeli Army unit could easily outgun and outmaneuver most Palestinian militants. Hizbullah fighters, on the other hand, are well equipped and trained in modern infantry and guerilla tactics. By focusing their attention on Palestinian militants, Israeli soldiers became increasingly unprepared for combat against larger more disciplined enemies. Tank crews, for instance, had little or no experience operating their vehicles in open land combat. Many crews had spent more time as riflemen on foot patrol than they did inside their vehicles; and when they did fight inside vehicles, they operated more like pillboxes or armored bulldozers. Without proper training and experience, Israeli tank crews were unprepared for combat inside their tanks while operating in open terrain that required large, complex maneuvers.

 

[WudangMaster]

What the original article in the Lebanese paper claimed, was that sardar Qa'ani asked Hezbollah to prepare for any possible confrontation while at the same time refraining from taking actions capable of triggering an escalation.

That's different then; I was really under the impression that Nasrallah was ready for a throw down and Qa'ani had to cool him down whereas the real is a bit more boring.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

I thought former Persian empire was too big to fail.

 

[mohsen]

Once again @mohsen you make yourself look like a moron. Which is to be expected.

You apparently don’t even remember how the 2006 war started. It was started by Hezbollah not Israel.

Hezbollah was attempting to gain leverage and did a diversion attack to draw away attention from a raid on an Israeli patrol. Killed some soldiers and abducted a couple soldiers in the attack. The goal was an attempt to do a prisoner swap for Lebanese prisoners in Israel. That was Hezbollah’s intention.

Israel attempted a rescue operation and failed leading to more deaths. This lead to an escalation spiral that kicked off the war.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel intended to enter a war. And Israel did not start the 2006 war.

As usual you repeat Zionists propaganda which is expected from an ignorant American.

No, Hezbollah didn't start that war, it was US and their plan for a new middle east.

Hezbollah did capture two Israelis but that was because Israelis had betrayed them during previous prisoner swap and kept few Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah's attack wasn't first or biggest either, but Israelis' response was always limited. yet Zionist/Americans were preparing for a master plot in middle east, what they refereed to as new middle east. Hariri's assassination a few moths earlier was part of this plot too.

Based on American's admission, Israel was preparing to invade Lebanon in autumn, for a complete ethnic cleansing in south of Lebanon ( Condoleezza Rice called it the "birth pangs" ) to get ride of not only Hezbollah but any potential future resistance, Hezbollah's attack provoked them to start their plan a few months earlier while they weren't fully prepared.

Just as ignorant and moron like you, Israelis thought they know everything about Hezbollah and could finish their military capabilities just by air raid. massive bombarding of civilians was to force Shiah civilians migrate from Lebanon (even ships were ready for the huge refuges).

Yet Israel's intelligence and assessment on Hezbollah's capabilities turned out to be utterly incorrect, to the end of that war they couldn't identify the location of Hezbollah's missiles, their air raids were ineffective , their ground forces couldn't advance, and on the sea, their ships were targeted.

Contrary to your and their fantasies, Israelis even kidnapped a Lebanese man who had a similar name to Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and Israel's mighty intelligence thought is the Hezbollah's leader!

 

[SalarHaqq]

it was US and their plan for a new middle east.

Good point. How could we forget Condoleezza Rice's (Secretary of State under US president George Walker Bush) famous declaration that the 2006 war supposedly represented the "birth pangs of a New Middle East", pointing to a larger zio-American plan to remodel the entire region, and showing how Washington believed (or rather, deluded itself into believing) that Tel Aviv's 2006 onslaught would serve the realization of that wider hegemonic plan.

New birth pangs for the Middle East

No one can say with certainty what Israel's new aggression will unleash, but one can point to some likely outcomes. The attack on Gaza will not destroy Hamas, and even if Israel kills every person who ever supported Hamas, the attack will not end resistance. On the contrary, resistance will be...

electronicintifada.net

Hariri's assassination a few moths earlier was part of this plot too.

Another important reminder right here. Indeed, the false flag assassination of Rafic Hariri was obviously conceived as a catalyst for the pursuit of wider objectives in Lebanon. Such operations always have underlying goals of far-reaching nature.

 

[Cherub786]

Iran and their agents always cower before the mighty Israel. Run, coward, run, terrorist monkey

 

[khansaheeb]

Iran and their agents always cower before the mighty Israel. Run, coward, run, terrorist monkey

You sound like a Hindjew kid.

 

[Cherub786]

You sound like a Hindjew kid.

You sound like a typical Pathan.

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

Iran and their agents always cower before the mighty Israel. Run, coward, run, terrorist monkey

Yawn!!!