Israel Humbled By Arms From Iran

Abandoned Hizbollah positions in Lebanon yesterday revealed conclusive evidence that Syria - and almost certainly Iran - provided the anti-tank missiles that have blunted the power of Israel's once invincible armour.

After one of the fiercest confrontations of the war, Israeli forces took the small town of Ghandouriyeh, east of the southern city of Tyre, on Sunday evening, hours before a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations took effect.

At least 24 Israeli soldiers were killed in the advance on the strategic hilltop town as Hizbollah fighters were pushed back to its outskirts, abandoning many weapons.

The discovery helped to explain the slow progress made by Israeli ground forces in nearly five weeks of a war which Hizbollah last night claimed as "a historic victory." Israeli political and military leaders are facing mounting criticism over the conduct of the offensive, which was intended to smash the Iranian-backed Shia militia.

Outside one of the town's two mosques a van was found filled with green casings about 6ft long. The serial numbers identified them as AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles. The wire-guided weapon was developed in Russia but Iran began making a copy in 2000.

Beyond no-man's land, in the east of the village, was evidence of Syrian-supplied hardware. In a garden next to a junction used as an outpost by Hizbollah lay eight Kornet anti-tank rockets, described by Brig Mickey Edelstein, the commander of the Nahal troops who took Ghandouriyeh, as "some of the best in the world".

Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: "Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."

Brig Edelstein said: "If they tell you that Syria knew nothing about this, just look. This is the evidence. Proof, not just talk."

The discovery of the origin of the weapons proved to the Israelis that their enemy was not a ragged and lightly armed militia but a semi-professional army equipped by Syria and Iran to take on Israel. The weapons require serious training to operate and could be beyond the capabilities of some supposedly regular armies in the Middle East. The Kornet was unveiled by Russia in 1994. It is laser-guided, has a range of three miles and carries a double warhead capable of penetrating the reactive armour on Israeli Merkava tanks. Russia started supplying them to Syria in 1998.

Israeli forces were taken by surprise by the sophistication of the anti-tank weapons they faced. They are believed to have accounted for many of the 116 deaths the army suffered. Dozens of tanks were hit and an unknown number destroyed.

The missiles were also used against infantry, in one case bringing down a house and killing nine soldiers. They played an important part in Hizbollah's tactics of using a network of concealed positions to set up ambushes for the Israelis as they inched in. Last night, Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, said his men had achieved "a strategic, historic victory" over "a confused, cowardly and defea-ted" enemy. He said the militia would not disarm, as Israel and the UN Security Council were demanding. It would be "immoral, incorrect and inappropriate," he said. "It is the wrong timing on a pyschological and moral level."

As the militia leader was claiming victory, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, defended his handling of the crisis and said that the massive air, ground and sea attack had changed the face of the Middle East. But he admitted that the military and political leadership was guilty of "shortcomings", not least in underestimating the threat from anti-tank weapons.

Critics say that he placed too much faith in the ability of the air force to break the back of Hizbollah and delayed launching a major ground offensive until it was too late.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and a rival, said: "There were many failures - failures on identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."

Last night, President George W. Bush blamed Iran and Syria for fomenting the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah. "We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks," he said.

"Speaking of "rogue" nations, they are called this way only by U.S. allies and satellites. Russia is not ally nor sattelite of U.S., and will treat those nations as 'rogue' only when entire international community will recognize this status. Until then, they are just customers, and arms sales to them is ok."

Your posts highlights the two positions on arms sales to foreign nations. Russia, in their arms trading with countries like Iran, etc., KNOWS they are "rogue states" in behavior, but since they do not officially pronounce them as such they (the Russians) feel justified in selling said arms to them. However, while for Russians selling arms may make economical sense, on the "world's stage" it does not. For two main reasons:
1.) The arms will eventually be used against Russia. Be it via the Wahabiists operating within the Russian territory, or weapons turned on Russia when Iran or another Islamofascist supporter decides they've gained enough from Russia and do not need their arms anymore.
2.) It's not a moral activity: For example, If your neighbor was known to hate Pigmies, stated frequently he wanted to kill Pigmies, and then asked you to sell him (legally) a weapon after Pigmies moved in the neighborhood would you?

Or perhaps a better scenario would be the US selling arms to the Ukraine or one of the Baltic states and turning a blind eye when people in the aforementioned countries smuggled them to Chechnya to be used against Russian troops? After all, trading arms to Ukraine and the Baltic states is completely legal....

"There always has been regimes hostile to neightbours. Both U.S. and Soviet Union (now - Russia) were helping them one way or another. You know - there were some dictator regimes actively supported by U.S.
Nothing changed in the world since USSR gone. We just changed positions: now U.S. is an ideology driven state, and Russia is pragmatic state driven by rising income and money."

First of all, the US and the Soviet Union engaged in propping up various regimes as a part of the end-sum bi-polar world that the Cold War was. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of communism in that region, the playing fields changed, as did the world - switching from bi-polar to mono-polar with the US being the singular pole. This disturbs some in the world community, who seek a multipolar system. Russia believes in a multipolar system - only to the point where they can counter any US moves they see as dangerous to their influence in their neck of the woods. This is a foolish game for Russia to play. Mainly, because Russia is not close to being a legitimate "super" power. Russia would be better off fixing its own problems with infrastructure, dying villages, epidemic drug use, low birth rates, high infant mortality, low life expectancy in males, inadequate housing, rampant corruption, and a conscript army that kills more of its own troops than its enemies do. You and I both know that none of the energy and arms riches are being spent on solutions to these problems.

Trying to play "superpower" in the World only highlights these weaknesses - the ME for example. Russia has shown support for Hamas, Hizbelloh, Iran, and Syria. Russia claims to have influence over these groups, but is impotent to resolve any problems that arise connected to the aforementioned groups. In short, Russia is being used by the groups to arm themselves and Russia is left looking like a fool when these groups cannot be controlled.

Russian impotence on the world's stage, as pointed out above, only serves to encourage states such as Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, to actively and openly oppose Russian policies in the region. It also encourages groups within the Russian Federation to seek independence. If Russia continues with its current policies in 20 years time the Russian Federation will be splintered. And whereas Gorbachev is known in Russia as the guy who lost the Soviet Union, Putin will be known as the guy who lost Russia.

"They were dying since Khruschev. With fall of USSR we got most of them already dead. Farmers are slowly rising, i see this from visiting local malls, seeing what food is sold there, and where this food originates."

And they continue to die - the "small farmer" does not exist in Russia. By the way, a lot of the food at Sedmoj Kontinent, Metro, Stokmanns, Ramstore, etc., is grown outside of Russia. I read labels too and when I shopped at these stores I found most products were non-Russian.

"This is legacy, we are steadily going away from this. With fall of USSR, there were many people who lost jobs, became alcoholics, and finally, died in poverty. It's normal situation where such a big country rapidly changes it's course.
Comparing current situation and what i seen 10 years ago on the streets, i see no homeless adults or children. There were some, they all gone - mostly died. There are no new. Society adopted itself to disappearance of socialism. "

I agree that there are less homeless than there were 10 years ago. However, all you need to do to see homeless adults and/or children is go to Kievskyj Vokzal, Staryj and Novyj Arbat, the park next to the US Embassy (btwn the US Embassy and Novinskyj Passazh), Leningradsky Prospekt - several area, etc., etc. I'm sure you recall how many homeless died winter before last? Astonishing figures.

Of course, that's just Moscow - if you go to Ekaterinburg, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, Tver, Nizhnyj Tagil, Chelyabinsk, etc. - you find the same (although in smaller numbers).

"Please, no. Have you been to Russia last years? Many old houses are demolished and new are built in steady rate.
In my city (~700 mil to the east of Moscow) we had wooden houses in the central part mixed with "modern" buildings of the Soviet times. No all these 'izbas' are gone (what Soviet power was unable to do), and new modern houses are built. Everywhere i go, i see construction sites - houses, malls, office centers. Lots of them. "

Igor, I lived, traveled, and worked in the Former Soviet Union - based out of Moscow - from 1995 to 2005. I've probably seen more of your country than you have.

What I have seen is old buildings being demolished - the people moved outside of the city, and then "Elite" apartments put in. Housing in Russia, and in Moscow particularly, is overpriced and unaffordable to anyone other than the upper class. Plus, there are literally thousands of cases where buyers have been ripped off by unscrupulous contractors - leaving them thousands of dollars poorer and homeless.

Shopping malls are a plus, but how many people can actually afford the goods they display?

"Drug use: "During 90s it was epidemic, but now, as people became wealthy and busy at job, drug use reduced."

Igor, that's not true. Take a look at what MinZdrav is saying about drug use in 2006 - "Epidemic" - and it is directly tied to HIV infection rates which are also labeled as "Epidemic." Do you know the statistics for HIV drug users in Irkutsk, or Magnitogorsk, Murmansk, Vladivostok, St. Pete, Moscow? Horrific.

"Our army has to deal with so large territory, that contract army of adequate size will eat up all money. Anyway, we are moving to contract army where possible."

Sorry Igor but that's rubbish. A contract army of adequate size is the only way to go for Russia. Russian efforts to move to a contract Army have been hamfisted and fraught with corruption. Generals, such as Shamanov, Troshev, Manilov, Gromov, and others have criticized the "Pskov" experiment with a contract army because corrupt officers have been able to steal from the kontraktniki.

Plus, the conscripts in the Army are basically slaves. Nothing disgusting me more - as a professional military man - than seeing poor underfed Russian soldiers begging on the streets for cigarettes so they won't get beat by the dedy for coming back to the barracks empty-handed. Having been to Russian military bases - I can say that your army is only a paper tiger. You will never be able to defeat a halfway decent opponent if you continue to keep your army in the condition it is in. Ivanov has been powerless to correct this situation.

"It was Yeltsin who almost lost Russia. How can Putin be one who lost Russia, when life improved, and order established under his rule? "

Life has improved under Putin - but only nominally. I would debate your "order established" statement. Some order has been established, BUT, there is a long way to go. In Putin's first term he seemed to have his eye on the ball - i.e., was working well at increasing the average Russian's lot. Now, in his second term, he is ignoring pressing issues at home in his attempts to bring Russia again to the forefront of the "World's Leaders" - The fact that Russia, after boasting it could control the likes of Hizbelloh, Hamas and Iran , cannot even negotiate peaceful settlements in crises shows they are just an arms dealer/energy trader and nothing more.

The regimes your country is dealing with are not long for the world. All corrupt regimes eventually fail. The problem Russia will have is doing with the new leaders of places like Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Venezuela, etc. when the regimes fall. The new leaders and the people of those countries will remember Russia helping keep the old corrupt regimes in power.

Re: Putin and the Loss of Russia: He will lose Russia if the current situation continues. He has taken his eye off of the prize and has ignored the regions of Russia where people are "living" but "Surviving." How can a country make claims to international leadership when their citizens in the Far East are without electricity for long periods of time during the Winter? People in the provinces are starting to look elsewhere for leadership. So, while Putin tries to play on the World's stage the first cracks in the Russian Federation are appearing.

Personally, Igor, I want to see a strong and stable Russia. I believe the world would be safer if Russia was legitimately strong and stable. I don't expect Russia to agree with the US on every issue, but, I would expect they would recognize that sometimes the "moral highroad" is better than "$$$$$." Russia has enormous potential, but she should solve the acute problems within her own borders first.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.