So this assessment is very welcome.
"many Israeli supporters seem to have adopted a negative definition...So this assessment is very welcome."
Both are right. Debka is correct, this was far more costly for Iran and Syria financially than it was for Israel. The reason I still see it as a defeat is that Olmert (inexplicably) did not apply ground pressure until the cease-fire was already called. Because of this, Israel is now in a position to crush billions of dollars of Iranian/Syrian funded military infrastructure, but can do nothing because it did not take this position until after the ceasefire was called.
It took Israel 30 days to destroy 75% of them.
You must remember the source. DEBKA does get it right about 50% of the time.
This war was only the beginning anyway.
Tehran hopes to pre-empt the American move by torpedoing the Lebanon ceasefire and preventing the termination of hostilities at all costs.
So then more Iranian/syrian funded infrastructure will be destroyed and more Hezbollah and Iranian revolutionary guards killed. I'm sure that the IDF is going to start exploring around Southern Lebannon and start finding all the weapons stashes & bunkers and destroy it. I've heard that christian and other non-shiite villages in the south have been informing the IDF on where Hezbollah has been hiding and where their infrastructure is located.
This is what happens when you appoint mullahs and morons like Iamjihadmadman to run a country.
Maybe it is a setback for Iran's program. Too bad DEBKA is alone telling this story.
"The MSM is spouting Muslim propaganda of a Hezbullah win. And many Israeli supporters seem to have adopted a negative definition of winning so that any win for Israel short of a perfect outcome is not a win, thus buying into Hezbullah's definition of a win, despite 530+ dead Hezbullah.
So this assessment is very welcome."
It is welcome and perhaps part of the grander plan which may have worked. However, I still believe Israel should have went in on the ground from day 1.
Questions like "since the enemy specifically targets our civilians, why should we be so concerned about theirs?", and "why, when the enemy hides among a "civilian" population which gives them aid and comfort and lets them store their rockets in the basement be a matter of concern to a civilized nation when it comes to collateral damage?"
Israel should have given warning for the Lebanese civilians to flee, and then destroyed every village and bunker south of the Litani with fuel-air explosives, the kind that reach right down into the bunkers and burn up the air in the terrorists lungs. In short, a genocidal action against Hezbollah.
The time has come to take off our self-imposed gloves and destroy these beasts.
"their compilers were concerned that Iran had been manipulatively robbed of its primary deterrent asset ahead of a probable nuclear confrontation with the United States and Israel."
No question that Iran is going to confront the US with the nuclear bomb.
This comes under the law of unintended consequences- but if it truly reduced both Hezbollah and Iran's ability to wage war, so much the better.
It takes money and time to build missiles.
Iran can always find more warm bodies for cannon fodder. Guess which are more valuable?
Wow!!! An assessment from DBKA that actually makes sense. Very positive news if anywhere near true.
I know this is Debka, but I find this analysis to be better than anything else I have seen.
Good find, DannyTN. I look at it this way:
1. Israel out killed Hezbollah on the battlefield and everywhere else.
2. Israel now has an army sitting on Hezbollah turf.
3. Israel got a UN Ceasefire thingy that doesn't have very good things to say about Hezbollah.
4. The Head of Hezbollah claims victory from underneath some desk somewhere in the Iranian Embassy in Damascus.
Hey, if this is "Losing" and if I were an Israeli .... well, I guess I could live with it. :)
bttt
ping
Doesn't matter since it didn't last long: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683643/posts
If this is what the Iranians are doing in Southern Lebanon, can you imagine the type of bunker system the nut-job from Tehran has constructed within Iran ? Also news here about possible Hezbollha Chemical and Biological WMD defenses. Obviously they suspected that either Israel would use them or that they would need protection from their own.
bttt
From Strategypage:
The Real Winner in Lebanon
August 16, 2006: The success of the ceasefire in Lebanon hinges on a condition that Lebanon and Hizbollah both insist will not happen. Hizbollah is supposed to disarm, but says bluntly that it will not do so. The Lebanese government says it will not force Hizbollah to disarm. So what's going to happen? It appears that Israel is going to hold the UN responsible for carrying out its peace deal, and disarm Hizbollah. To that end, Israel will withdraw its troops from Lebanon, and leave it to UN peacekeepers to do what they are obliged to do. But here's the catch, not enough nations are stepping forward to supply the initial 3,500 UN forces, much less the eventual 15,000 UN force. However, it is likely that, eventually, enough nations will supply troops. But many of those contingents may not be willing to fight Hizbollah. Israel says it will not completely withdraw from Lebanon until the UN force is in place.
The Israeli strategy appears to be to allow the UN deal to self-destruct. If the UN peacekeepers can disarm Hizbollah, fine. If not, Israeli ground troops will come back in and clear everyone out of southern Lebanon. At that point, it will be obvious that no one else is willing, or able, to deal with the outlaw "state-within-a-state" that Hizbollah represents. Hizbollah will still exist after being thrown out of southern Lebanon, and it will be up to the majority of Lebanese, and the rest of the Arab world, to deal with Hizbollah and radical Shias.
Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.
While Hizbollah can declare this a victory, because it fought Israel without being destroyed, this is no more a victory than that of any other Arab force that has faced Israeli troops and failed. Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel for over half a century, and Hizbollah is the latest to fail. But Hizbollah did more than fail, it scared most Moslems in the Middle East, because it demonstrated the power and violence of the Shia Arab minority. Sunni Arabs, and most Arabs are Sunnis, are very much afraid of Shia Moslems, mainly because most Iranians are Shia, not Arab, and intent on dominating the region, like Iran has done so many times in the past. Hizbollah's recent outburst made it clear that Iran, which subsidizes and arms Hizbollah, has armed power that reaches the Mediterranean. This scares Sunni Arabs because a Shia minority also continues to rule Syria (where most of the people are Sunni). The Shia majority in Iraq, which have not dominated Iraq for over three centuries, is now back in control.
Hizbollah did enjoy a victory in its recent war, but it was over Sunni Arabs, not Israel.