Does anybody know what exactly is the military situation in Lebanon? It is impossible to tell because there is very little coverage in the mainstream media and what we have is mostly the Israeli point of view as told by embedded journalists.
Israel's ground invasion of Lebanon has been on for more than four weeks now. Reports of the progress made by Israel vary widely. Israel wants to push the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, beyond the Litani river. It would like to clear an area of about five kilometres into Lebanon from the border of bunkers, tunnels and Hezbollah fighters so that Hezbollah cannot fire artillery rounds into Northern Israel. (It would still be able to fire rockets).
How far have these objectives been achieved? The Institute for the Study of War, a US based think-tank, contends that Israel has had considerable success. Other military analysts dispute this claim. They say the IDF is heavily bogged down,it has not penetrated more than three kms into Lebanon and it withdraws after making incursions. In other words, the IDF is loath to stay deep inside Lebanese territory for fear of inviting fierce reprisals from Hezbollah. The IDF top brass says it has substantially achieved its objectives in Lebanon and the time is ripe for a political settlement. That is not quite the same as what PM Netanyahu wants to achieve, which is to change the strategic situation in Lebanon drastically, with the elimination of any political role for Hezbollah.
Now, let's turn to Iran. About a week ago, the long promised Israeli attack on Iran materialised. The Israeli version is summarised by the Economist:
How effective were the Israeli strikes? So far there is too little evidence to be sure. Israeli officers claim they destroyed most of Iran’s advanced air-defence capabilities and that, as a result, their air-force can operate freely in Iranian airspace. If true, it means a future Israeli strike could be much more extensive.
According to Israeli security sources, most of the targets this time were hit by air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBM) fired from aircraft well out of the range of Iran’s defences. Israel’s stock of ALBMs is limited and a more intensive air-strike campaign against Iran would call for a large number of jets using munitions at a shorter range. If Israel’s claims about this strike are true, this is now possible. It will take many months for Iran to rebuild its air-defences, especially when its Russian suppliers need their own batteries for their war with Ukraine.
Other reports say that important sites that produced material for ballistic missiles were hit. Iran's ability to produce long-range ballistic missiles is thus seriously impaired and Iran's military capability compromised. It will not be in a position to mount any more attacks on Israel in the near future.
However, several media reports suggets that a strong Iranian response is pretty much on the cards. One military analysts, Alastair Crooke, says that the IDF had planned several waves of attacks but it had to stop after the first wave because Iran displayed an air-defence mechanism that the IDF was not aware of. If these stories are correct, the Economist version becomes suspect.
It is impossible to go by what appears in the mainstream media. The media merely cite Israeli and Western sources but have no means of independently verifying what is told to them. I have been reading and listening to several independent military analysts. I do not know how right they are but what they say is certainly interesting. Let me list a few prominent ones:
i. Elijah Magnier: He's a veteran war correspondent who tweets regularly on X. His tweets are free. He has more detailed analyses. A basic part is free but the rest is available only through subscription. I have access to the full versions. Magnier is emphatic that the ground invasion has turned out to be unsatisfactory, if not disastrous, for IDF and that Israel will sue for peace before long.
ii. Colonel Douglas Macgregor: A former US army officer who has also served in the Defense department. Macgregor is among the analysts who predicted long back that Ukraine and Nato would face defeat in the fight with Russia. He has been proved right although the conflict has stretched out much longer than he had forecast. Macgregor does not see the conflict in Lebanon going well for Israel.
iii. Scott Ritter: He's a former US marine and weapons inspector in Iraq. He has had the same views on Ukraine and the Middle East conflict as Macgregor.
iv. Alastair Crooke: He's a former UK diplomat who served extensively in the Middle East and developed contacts with Palestinian groups, Hezbollah and officials in the government of Israel. Only recently, I have been hearing that he was, in fact, an MI6 agent- I don't know if that is true. Crooke sees Israel's plans unravelling swiftly. He has also forecast certain doom for Ukraine.
iv. Andreas Krieg: He's a faculty member at King's College, London. He too tweets on X and provides extensive background to the Middle East conflict and views on the unfolding situation.
v. Rania Khalek: She's an American journalist of Lebanese origin. She gives expression to the outrage amongst people of Middle East origin in the US over the destruction of Gaza and Lebanon.
vi. War Monitor: This is again on X. I don't know who the author is. But this is a source that provides frequent updates on the war front in Gaza as well as Lebanon.
For the official Israeli and Western version, there is the website of the Institure for the Study of War.
One thing is for sure. The social media has become an indispendable to getting a complete picture of events. The mainstream media can at best give only a partial account and often a distorted account.
No comments:
Post a Comment