Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Hezbollah and the Policy of "Scud Ambiguity"

“We do not confirm or deny if we have received weapons or not, so we do not comment and we will not comment. This is our position.”

– Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, on charges that the group has acquired long-range Scud missiles from Syria, 1 May 2010

The story first broke in mid-April when the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai Al-Aam reported that Syria recently transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, having trained them in their use the past summer. Days later, when Israeli President Shimon Peres publicly accused Syria of supplying Hezbollah with the notoriously inaccurate rockets, media attention became widespread. The pretense for a “pre-emptive” Israeli strike on Lebanon had been nicely set.

The Syrian government, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri (who has no particular affection for Syria or Hezbollah) and his country’s president, Michel Suleiman, all denied the allegations. Even Egypt’s foreign minister, whose regime had just sentenced 26 alleged Hezbollah operatives for purportedly planning attacks inside Egypt—from confessions extracted under torture no less—dismissed the accusations as “laughable.”

Although Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton intimated that Lebanon was inviting an attack on itself, the Obama administration could not confirm Hezbollah was in possession of the Scuds. In fact, several weeks after the story in Al-Rai Al-Aam appeared, the source of the leaked suspicions was revealed: the United States.

According to American officials, hinting that Syria was providing Hezbollah with Scuds was done in order to “lay the groundwork for a proposal to the U.N. Security Council to put together a resolution on the deployment of U.N. forces along the Syrian-Lebanese border.”

Bint Jbeil MP Hassan Fadlallah of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc came to a straightforward conclusion:

“The United States is asking us to accept Israel’s alleged superiority to ensure Israel remains capable of launching attacks at its will while we are stripped of the ability to face these aggressions. We have no interest in acceding to these attempts to concretize Israeli superiority.”

As for Nasrallah’s response, in an April 29 interview with Kuwait’s Rai TV he said, “We don’t speak through the media about the rockets we have or their details.”

It is understandable why the governments of Lebanon and Syria were so vocal in rejecting the Scud story. They want to stave off an Israeli attack—historically done under a flimsy (and often, manufactured) pretext. But why is Hezbollah being so deliberately elusive?

In essence, they are taking a page directly from the Israeli playbook; its longstanding policy of “nuclear ambiguity” has served it well.

Were Hezbollah to confirm the presence of Scud missiles (or any other technology for that matter), it would only invite condemnation and confirmation of floated suspicions, and justify belligerent action from its adversaries. Were they to deny possession, it would not only fail to placate their enemies, but might embolden thoughts of military action if believed. Thus, neither confirming nor denying the acquisition of new military equipment, in the eyes of Hezbollah, serves its interests best by keeping Israel guessing.

Does Hezbollah believe the U.S. and Israel will exploit the current situation to rationalize an attack? Nasrallah characterized their protestations as mere “noise” and “intimidation.” He is already capitalizing on the strategy of “Scud ambiguity” though, by reminding Israel of the disastrous consequences should it recklessly decide to initiate an assault on Lebanon:

“Do we have what is more or less sophisticated than a Scud missile — these are details I don’t want to speak about. If a war breaks out … we said we will attack their [Israeli] infrastructure. We are able to fulfill these promises.”

Israel would be wise to remember the 2007 admonition made by current Industry, Trade and Labor minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer: “We have to take Nasrallah seriously. He has never lied.”

RANNIE AMIRI is an independent Middle East commentator. He may be reached at: rbamiri [at] yahoo [dot] com.

 

WORDS THAT STICK

 

More articles by:

Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on Middle East affairs.

May 21, 2018
Ron Jacobs
Gina Haspell: She’s Certainly Qualified for the Job
Uri Avnery
The Day of Shame
Amitai Ben-Abba
Israel’s New Ideology of Genocide
Patrick Cockburn
Israel is at the Height of Its Power, But the Palestinians are Still There
Frank Stricker
Can We Finally Stop Worrying About Unemployment?
Binoy Kampmark
Royal Wedding Madness
Roy Morrison
Middle East War Clouds Gather
Edward Curtin
Gina Haspel and Pinocchio From Rome
Juana Carrasco Martin
The United States is a Country Addicted to Violence
Dean Baker
Wealth Inequality: It’s Not Clear What It Means
Robert Dodge
At the Brink of Nuclear War, Who Will Lead?
Vern Loomis
If I’m Lying, I’m Dying
Valerie Reynoso
How LBJ initiated the Military Coup in the Dominican Republic
Weekend Edition
May 18, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Donald, Vlad, and Bibi
Robert Fisk
How Long Will We Pretend Palestinians Aren’t People?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Wild at Heart: Keeping Up With Margie Kidder
Roger Harris
Venezuela on the Eve of Presidential Elections: The US Empire Isn’t Sitting by Idly
Michael Slager
Criminalizing Victims: the Fate of Honduran Refugees 
John Laforge
Don’t Call It an Explosion: Gaseous Ignition Events with Radioactive Waste
Carlo Filice
The First “Fake News” Story (or, What the Serpent Would Have Said)
Dave Lindorff
Israel Crosses a Line as IDF Snipers Murder Unarmed Protesters in the Ghetto of Gaza
Gary Leupp
The McCain Cult
Robert Fantina
What’s Wrong With the United States?
Jill Richardson
The Lesson I Learned Growing Up Jewish
David Orenstein
A Call to Secular Humanist Resistance
W. T. Whitney
The U.S. Role in Removing a Revolutionary and in Restoring War to Colombia
Rev. William Alberts
The Danger of Praying Truth to Power
Alan Macleod
A Primer on the Venezuelan Elections
John W. Whitehead
The Age of Petty Tyrannies
Franklin Lamb
Have Recent Events Sounded the Death Knell for Iran’s Regional Project?
Brian Saady
How the “Cocaine Mitch” Saga Deflected the Spotlight on Corruption
David Swanson
Tim Kaine’s War Scam Hits a Speed Bump
Norah Vawter
Pipeline Outrage is a Human Issue, Not a Political Issue
Mel Gurtov
Who’s to Blame If the US-North Korea Summit Isn’t Held?
Patrick Bobilin
When Outrage is Capital
Jessicah Pierre
The Moral Revolution America Needs
Binoy Kampmark
Big Dead Place: Remembering Antarctica
John Carroll Md
What Does It Mean to be a Physician Advocate in Haiti?
George Ochenski
Saving Sage Grouse: Another Collaborative Failure
Sam Husseini
To the US Government, Israel is, Again, Totally Off The Hook
Brian Wakamo
Sick of Shady Banks? Get a Loan from the Post Office!
Colin Todhunter
Dangerous Liaison: Industrial Agriculture and the Reductionist Mindset
Ralph Nader
Trump: Making America Dread Again
George Capaccio
Bloody Monday, Every Day of the Week
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Swing Status, Be Gone
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail