Brief Update: 'As Long As It Takes' In The Middle East

Here’s a question: How long has “as long as it takes” in the Middle East already taken? From an historical standpoint you can definitely trace the American Empire’s military engagement in the region—including regime change, support for terrorists, genocide against regional Christians and Yazidis, etc.—back to 1948. And we’re still at it. Of course the two wars against Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan marked major escalations of American military involvement. It looks like it’s official that we’re heading into another “surge”. This is supposedly about “freedom of navigation”, but everyone knows that the continuing war and occupation in Syraq, the terror attacks against Iran across the region, the blockade of the Red Sea—it’s all about enabling Israeli genocide against Palestinians:

US Plans Open-Ended War Against Houthis, But Biden Officials Assure It Won't Take "Years"

Right. That’s how it’s always sold by the Neocons. We’ll hit ‘em hard and then they’ll give up. If they don’t, well, we’ll hit ‘em harder. And on and on it goes. Somehow, “they” never really seem to give up, and we just go on killing people.

It's no secret that ongoing Houthi attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea is a massive headache for the Biden administration going into the November presidential election. If the US does nothing (or opts simply for occasional missile strikes on Yemen), then commercial transit will continue being choked off in the vital waterway which serves 12% of all global trade. But doing more to go on the offensive also risks the US being sucked into another regional quagmire which steadily escalates, but with no guarantee the Houthis will halt the attacks.

Over the weekend US officials told The Washington Post that the Biden administration is planning for a "sustained military campaign" against the Iran-backed Yemeni rebels, even after some seven rounds of major strikes have done nothing to deter or degrade their drone and missile attacks. Notably, US leaders have still refused at this point refused to use the word "war" in relation to the large-scale US coalition attacks on Houthis as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian.

…

Officials acknowledged to WaPo that they are unable to identify an "end date or provide an estimate for when the Yemenis’ military capability will be adequately diminished."

Critics have said there's another option that Biden refuses to consider--a major peace deal or negotiated permanent ceasefire...

Biden is starting another war in the Middle East just so that Israel can continue slaughtering people in Gaza.

A ceasefire in Gaza would likely end the Houthi attacks.

But Biden is choosing war instead.#CeasefireNOW https://t.co/PFDzKacjLp

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 21, 2024

This kind of rhetoric in the early phase of a conflict is always alarming and eyebrow-raising considering the pattern of US intervention in the region over the past two decades. When there's a US "debate" over not putting an "end date" to a new offensive or area of operations, that's a sure sign things are headed toward escalation with no off-ramp.

In Gaza, Israel too has refused to put an end-date to its ground and aerial offensive. The Houthis have vowed to keep up the attacks on foreign vessels so long as Israel stays in Gaza. The conflict has steadily been spilling over into Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon too. As for the prospect of the US sinking into a bigger regional war, mainstream media has increasingly claimed there are 'no alternatives'. New analysis in Moon of Alabama exposes this tactic, which is typical whenever the American military machine prepares expanded action.

Is this time any different? Maybe. The US is unquestionably in a much weaker geostrategic position than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Time will tell—and time is likely to keep stretching out into the future of this conflict. It’s not on our side.

Alastair Crooke: Netanyahu: Ploy or Reversion?

In this video discussion between Judge Nap and Alastair Crooke, Crooke lays out what he refers to as the Ariel Sharon strategy. This involves the concept of an Israel with "fluid" borders. In other words, Israel's strategy is to go anywhere and do anything it considers necessary to safeguarding its security--a sort of Middle East version of American Exceptionalism. No, that's not some weird ideological coincidence. Sharon's record speaks for itself--for all the warfare and massacres he was a part of it never brought security. But now Netanyahu is rolling those dice again, according to Crooke. Toward the end of the video Judge Nap asks what Netanyahu's political future will be "once the war is over". That leads to Crooke's response which I've transcribed:

25:59 A: [Laughs] 'Once the war is over' is the critical point of that, isn't it? Who knows how long that will be? And [Netanyahu] calculates that it's going on for a long time. I have to say, it would be very, very hard for most Israelis--and [Netanyahu] is right on this, I think. I'm not taking a side, I'm just stating the facts as they are. Most Israelis would be horrified if most Palestinian prisoners were released for the hostages in Gaza. They don't have that in mind. They would like a few people released, perhaps, like we saw earlier. But that's the Hamas demand: All for all. In other words, 'We [Hamas] deny your whole security paradigm over Greater Israel--West Bank and here [Gaza]--we're not prepared to accept and we are forcing you to release these people [Arab prisoners] as the first step to liberating our territory from Zionism.' He [Netanyahu] would be asking a lot for Israelis to accept it because there's no alternative.

Q: Do you think Israel is in danger of imploding?

A: Yes! Because it's overreaching. What we've just described--trying to put a military matrix over the whole of Greater Israel--includes Hezbollah [remember, Sharon led the 1982 invasion of Lebanon that led to the rise of Hezbollah]. It includes the West Bank, which is on a knife's edge now. So they are really overreaching and taking a big gamble. Now, I don't know what the agreement is with the Americans, with the White House, about the war against Hezbollah. But we're getting closer and closer. You'll recall, only yesterday four more Hezbollah leaders were assassinated by Israel, and we've seen the rising tensions with Iran. What is going to happen from that? Is America going to join in? Is [America] going to support [Israel] or is [America] going to leave [the war on Hezbollah] to Israel? Israel is taking a huge gamble to save Zionism by taking on Hezbollah as well as Hamas as well as the West Bank. It's a big gamble.

Q: Is the shelling of the Houthis by the United States likely to widen and expand the war?

A: It already has, because the reaction to this was in Iraq, when 20 ballistic missiles were fired on the big American base, the Ein Al Asad base. The US forces there have the latest Patriot missile defense system, and it wasn't effective. I don't know the exact figures, but obviously many of these ballistic missiles reached their targets. And there were heavy casualties--there is a lot of talk that there were four American deaths. I can't confirm that, but there is a lot of speculation that there were American deaths this time, in this attack. But 20 ballistic missiles!--not just rockets or drones--were fired from Iraq, not Iran. That is clearly not unconnected to what is happening in Yemen.

Q: Does PM Netanyahu want to expand the war in order to draw the United States in?

A: Yes--of course! I mean, this is the trap he has set for the United States, and I've been saying that he's trying to do precisely that. He'd love it to extend even to Iran, but that's not going to happen, I think. But, clearly, if there's a conflict in the north [against Hezbollah] he will want to see not just American legitimizing of his actions--which has already been given--but to see actual American support. Because Hezbollah is a formidable opponent. It's not like Hamas. It has 150k missiles--sophisticated, new, trained, experienced forces on the ground. It will be a very different and much tougher war. But it seems that inevitably we're going that way, and inevitably America is going to get drawn in more deeply--not only in Yemen, but I know there's a lot of pressure on the White House to really send a clear, hard message in Iraq, to the forces there. And that will escalate it and we will find the Americans drawn into more and more responses against attacks on American bases in Iraq and Syria.

Q: If there is a wider war will the British be involved, or does that depend on who the PM is at the time the war widens?

A: [Laughs] You know, it embarrasses me when you ask what the British are going to do. They'll do whatever they're asked to do. That's the short and long of it. But they said when they joined on Yemen, and I thought it was a very foolish commitment to make, 'Oh, this is just gonna be a one off strike against the Houthis--we don't have any intention of going to war against Yemen!' Well, why did you fire all those missiles into it, if you knew what [the Houthis] are like? It was very silly if that was the basis of your decision.