The U.S. is poised to soon attack Iran. Israel's campaign into Lebanon is but a tactical pre-emptive strike against Iran's ability to deploy one particular means of retaliation for an attack upon it, namely the projected Iranian unleashing of Hezbollah assets from the North into Israel. Israel's immediate quid pro quo for shoring up this flank is U.S. tacit acquiescence of Israeli annexation of south Lebanese territory, ideally strecthing up to the long coveted Litani.
Israel makes little secret of its desire for expanded territorial lebensraum. Israel also desires the economic, military, and political degradation of its regional nation state competitors to leverage its own neighborly influence.
The U.S. wishes to open up Middle East markets to a variety of standard fare Western corporate interests by remodelling the governing legal and economic frameworks of how business in the region is to be conducted with a bias that gives Western firms considerable competitive advantages over regional parties. It's the same old formula we have wrought on Iraq and are struggling to profit from.
In the visionary challenged interim, the U.S. will also settle on denying the region's nations the ability to generate resources with which to buttress themselves against such encroaching designs and thus further their own competing national agendas. The creation of regional chaos will do nicely where utopian revolutionary designs fall short of blossoming into tangible windfalls for corporate friends. Iraq is a case in point.
Herein lies a confluence of U.S. and Israeli designs and the reason why Israel was willing to embark on a regionally destabilizing war against Lebanon; the attack, seen as a stand alone event, undermines Israel's regional interests and security unless understood and analyzed as being but an opening gambit in a plan soon to involve the deployment of massive U.S. forces against Iran.
At present, near all Western media and punditry are confoundedly attempting to portray Israel's war on Lebanon as a campaign defined by the rather restricted goals and ambitions remedialy laid out by the dominant narrative for the conflict, a narrative that is little more than a sturdy but false pretext tailored by the same boyz and girlz that conned the Iraq war upon us.
According to SMC, Israel's attack is in fact just the first tactical strike in the pending open war on Iran, designed as it is to deny Iran the resource of a retaliatory Hezbollah onslaught into Israel, an onslaught meticulously predicted by a pleothora of analysts both in and out of government.
Israel is in the process of pre-emptively securing its vulnerable flanks from a well anticipated retaliatory response from the Iranians.
In the process, Israel is desperately attempting to carve out its promised spoil of war - southern chunks of Lebanon.
Herein lies Israel's present panic - namely that Israel should fail to secure an annexation of Lebanese territory - buttressed, secured, financially offset, and legitimized by a multinational force preferentially dimensioned to also keep Iranian retaliatory strikes via remnants of Hezbollah firepower at bay.
The U.S. will acquiesce to such a de facto Isreali annexation of Lebanese territory- but we will not carve it out for Israel with our own troops. That's their job. And such is the secret deal between Israel and the U.S.
If a multinational force of some composition can be enticed to enter the region and bulwark Israel's Northern flank against Iranian retaliatory strikes per proxy then so much the better.
But such a force will not be accepted by the U.S. and Israel if its implementation denies Israel from cashing in on the promise of annexing a significant and strategically invaluabe (think water) chunk of southern Lebanon.
Preferably this multinational should have some firepower with which to offer a convenient counterweight to any remaining Hezbollah assets when Iran is attacked. In that regard, an expanded UNIFIL force would be but a paper tiger but could provide de facto legitimization of Israel's annexation per way of the UN brand.
A NATO force would probably supply the reverse of benefits, providing convenient near theater firepower come the crunch on Iran, and firepower that brings to bear otherwise publically reticent Western forces against Iran through a back door opened easily enough by any number of naturally occuring pretexts that might conveniently arise once Iran is attacked. But NATO's legitimizing value to Israeli annexations of Lebanese territory would suffer per the generally perceived dominance of American sway over NATO. But all such guesses are far out of this meatball's bimboidal depth.
Nonetheless, such is SMC's typo-rich and grammatically challenged lay of the land. What's going on in Lebbyland has nothing to do whatsover with two weeny IDF hacks and tough stances on negotiating with terrorists. It's about securing flanks for the pending attack on Iran and spoils of war for our little mercenary friend, Israel.