Israeli-Iranian War

[Loki]

I doubt anyone knows for sure, including Iran. Iran has a lot of decentralized proxies over which it doesn't have full and direct control. The official Iranian government would probably try to strike some symbolic blow, perhaps by hitting Jerusalem or Tel Aviv with a missile, or shooting down a few planes or ships. It could certainly shoot enough missiles at Israel to kill a few hundred Israelis. Hezbollah would probably shoot a few hundreds rockets at Israel. Other local groups might attempt minor measures against Israel. Hezbollah-affiliated individuals abroad might attempt to assassinate Israelis/Jews abroad, perhaps in the US or Britain. I don't think Iran is so stupid as to directly strike the US or Britain though, as that would lead to the kind of escalation that might lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

[RandBlade]

Would it even necessarily be a few hundred rockets and not just a few rockets and claim those as a success?

[Loki]

A few will get shot down. They might also do no damage even if they hit.

[wiggin]

The concept of aggression would have no meaning if any state can attack any other state just because the latter might be a threat at some point in the future?

I don't mean to allow preventative/preemptive strikes as a blanket policy, but I think it's reasonable to allow a strike on a rogue state developing WMDs given the significant consequences for proliferation.

Obviously you need to meet a pretty high bar to justify a strike - notably, repeated recalcitrance by the regime to change in response to diplomatic/economic pressure, and ironclad intelligence that a weapons program is in the works.

I doubt anyone knows for sure, including Iran. Iran has a lot of decentralized proxies over which it doesn't have full and direct control. The official Iranian government would probably try to strike some symbolic blow, perhaps by hitting Jerusalem or Tel Aviv with a missile, or shooting down a few planes or ships. It could certainly shoot enough missiles at Israel to kill a few hundred Israelis. Hezbollah would probably shoot a few hundreds rockets at Israel. Other local groups might attempt minor measures against Israel. Hezbollah-affiliated individuals abroad might attempt to assassinate Israelis/Jews abroad, perhaps in the US or Britain. I don't think Iran is so stupid as to directly strike the US or Britain though, as that would lead to the kind of escalation that might lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

I think it's a very open question what Iran would do. The obvious threats that would make the world pay attention would be mining the Straits of Hormuz or attacking US bases in the Gulf. But those are serious escalations that could easily provoke a dramatic US response. The Fifth Fleet has been preparing for precisely this kind of threat and it's likely an Iranian retaliation would be met with a fairly comprehensive response.

Absent that, Iran can act directly against Israel through proxies (Hamas and Hezbollah) and directly using their fairly small supply of medium to long range ballistic missiles. I find it unlikely Hamas would do much - they have distanced themselves to some extent from Iran now that they're running Gaza, and they have little scope to do much given the Iron Dome system and fairly comprehensive Israeli coverage of the border. Hezbollah is a much bigger threat - they obviously can attack the occasional Israeli target abroad (e.g. Bulgaria, Argentina), and they can effectively shut down all of Israel north of Tel Aviv - they have a very large arsenal of short and medium range rockets (tens of thousands), the run of Southern Lebanon, and it's likely they could kill dozens to hundreds of Israelis in a concentrated attack. Israel doesn't have an effective answer for the Hezbollah rocket threat - even with the increased sophistication of their combined arms training since the 2006 war, they don't have interception systems in place for northern cities (the medium-range system is still in development), and there's no good solution for that kind of guerilla warfare. That being said, it's possible that given the turmoil in Syria, Hezbollah would be somewhat constrained in terms of their ability to be resupplied.

Direct attacks from Iran to Israel would be fairly limited. Iran is very far away, and normal Scuds can't reach Israel; they have maybe a few hundred Shahab-3 missiles with the range to hit Israel; they each carry a ~1000 kg warhead (or 5 MIRVs), though I don't know their CEP or reliability. Those are pretty big threats, but fairly limited in terms of actual destructive power and targeting ability, and Israel's upgraded Arrow system may be able to register a decent number of intercepts. The Iranian Air Force is a joke and can't possibly be a threat.

So, if Iran wanted to make a big splash they could, though it would be a more limited response if they avoided non-Israeli targets. I can only hope that if an attack does occur it doesn't unleash full-scale conflagration in the Middle East. The US could easily end up having to comprehensively bomb the Iran's military and infrastructure, which could turn into a protracted, bloody, and unfortunate mess. It's likely that the potential Israeli civilian casualties could go into the hundreds, maybe thousands if Iran gets lucky.

[Loki]

I think you're severely overstating your case. Firstly, Iran is not a rogue state in most areas, though it certainly has opposing foreign policy priorities to most Western countries. Iran is no North Korea or Qaddafi's Libya. It supports Hezbollah, which even the US hasn't designated a terrorist group, and Hamas, which isn't particularly threatening to anyone but Israel. Iran carries out various shadowy actions, but those are certainly no worse than Pakistan's, and not much removed from Israel's. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are much more active funders of terrorism. Iran's main area of intransigence is its nuclear program, which it's technically allowed to have according to the NPT. Based on how the NPT is structured, Iran won't be in grave violation of the treaty until it's on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. I doubt you can make a case that this in itself makes Iran a rogue state seeing that Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all acquired nuclear weapons outside the scope of the NPT.

Secondly, it's far from clear that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel in an offensive maneuver. Despite all the rhetoric, the Iranian state has never taken direct hostile actions against Israel (no more so than Israel assassinating Iranian scientists and using cyber-warfare against the Iranian nuclear program). Without massive provocation, I can't really see Iran doing an about-turn (in actions, not words) and launching a nuclear attack against Israel. Neither do I think that Iran is sufficiently stupid to pass its nuclear material along with launch capability to a group like Hezbollah, though it can't completely be ruled out.

What it comes down to is that Iran has mutually opposing interests to the US and Israel. It backs countries we don't like. It funds and arms non-state groups we don't like. It uses various unofficial channels to improve the military capabilities of our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. With nuclear weapons, Iran would be able to continue all these policies without us being able to do much to stop it. It might lead a few weak countries in the area to become more overtly pro-Iranian, deciding that Iranian influence isn't going to decrease for the foreseeable future. It might make Iran itself more aggressive on all fronts. None of this can really be considered an existential threat by Israel or the US, nor would it meet a stringent criteria for aggression, which is to say that attacking Iran will neither preempt nor prevent a direct Iranian attack.

In sum, Iran is not a nice country. It does not have a nice regime. It actively supports groups that kill Western civilians and soldiers, but those killings are not directly perpetrated by the Iranian state. They definitely do not rise to the level of war. A nuclear-armed Iran will be an even bigger pain to deal with, and it might feel emboldened enough to step up its rather unfriendly activities. If we are to attack them, it will be because we no longer want to tolerate Iranian behavior, most of it in grey corners of international law, and are fine with engaging in international aggression to accomplish that objective. You'll be hard-pressed to find any jurists outside of Israel and the US who will consider such a move legal. Cloaking the argument for a war with Iran in the terms of legality and preemption does more to discredit that argument than to make people consider the true pros and cons of an attack.

[wiggin]

I think you're severely overstating your case. Firstly, Iran is not a rogue state in most areas, though it certainly has opposing foreign policy priorities to most Western countries. Iran is no North Korea or Qaddafi's Libya. It supports Hezbollah, which even the US hasn't designated a terrorist group, and Hamas, which isn't particularly threatening to anyone but Israel. Iran carries out various shadowy actions, but those are certainly no worse than Pakistan's, and not much removed from Israel's. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are much more active funders of terrorism. Iran's main area of intransigence is its nuclear program, which it's technically allowed to have according to the NPT. Based on how the NPT is structured, Iran won't be in grave violation of the treaty until it's on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. I doubt you can make a case that this in itself makes Iran a rogue state seeing that Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all acquired nuclear weapons outside the scope of the NPT.

Secondly, it's far from clear that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel in an offensive maneuver. Despite all the rhetoric, the Iranian state has never taken direct hostile actions against Israel (no more so than Israel assassinating Iranian scientists and using cyber-warfare against the Iranian nuclear program). Without massive provocation, I can't really see Iran doing an about-turn (in actions, not words) and launching a nuclear attack against Israel. Neither do I think that Iran is sufficiently stupid to pass its nuclear material along with launch capability to a group like Hezbollah, though it can't completely be ruled out.

What it comes down to is that Iran has mutually opposing interests to the US and Israel. It backs countries we don't like. It funds and arms non-state groups we don't like. It uses various unofficial channels to improve the military capabilities of our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. With nuclear weapons, Iran would be able to continue all these policies without us being able to do much to stop it. It might lead a few weak countries in the area to become more overtly pro-Iranian, deciding that Iranian influence isn't going to decrease for the foreseeable future. It might make Iran itself more aggressive on all fronts. None of this can really be considered an existential threat by Israel or the US, nor would it meet a stringent criteria for aggression, which is to say that attacking Iran will neither preempt nor prevent a direct Iranian attack.

In sum, Iran is not a nice country. It does not have a nice regime. It actively supports groups that kill Western civilians and soldiers, but those killings are not directly perpetrated by the Iranian state. They definitely do not rise to the level of war. A nuclear-armed Iran will be an even bigger pain to deal with, and it might feel emboldened enough to step up its rather unfriendly activities. If we are to attack them, it will be because we no longer want to tolerate Iranian behavior, most of it in grey corners of international law, and are fine with engaging in international aggression to accomplish that objective. You'll be hard-pressed to find any jurists outside of Israel and the US who will consider such a move legal. Cloaking the argument for a war with Iran in the terms of legality and preemption does more to discredit that argument than to make people consider the true pros and cons of an attack.

Okay, a few points:

1. Hezbollah is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, including but not limited to the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the AMIA and embassy bombings in Argentina in the early 90s, a plane hijacking in the 80s, etc. Just this year there were bombings in India, Bulgaria, and an attempted attack in Cyprus. That's even ignoring all of the help/training given by the Revolutionary Guard to insurgents in Iraq. Even ignoring Hamas (which is admittedly less strong of a connection that Hezbollah), there's ample reason to label them a rogue state. (The whole thing with nukes is only part of the picture - agreed that they might not yet be in violation of the NPT (they were earlier due to undisclosed enrichment facilities and weapons design work), but they might be - there's some evidence they're working on weapon design based on some implosion test work going on at Parchin et al. Even so, the record of repeated lying, obfuscation, etc. tied in with clear sponsorship of terrorism against Western targets and a sketchy human rights/democratic record... I think that's pretty much the definition of a rogue state.

2. I personally agree with you that it's likely Iran won't use its nukes offensively. But I don't think it's ruled out at all, and the concerns of proliferation are also pretty significant (I'm not as sanguine about Iran's connections with terrorist groups). I think that given the weight of rhetoric and Iran's continued intransigence to international pressure it's very hard for a country like Israel to rely on a gut feeling that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons capability they'll act rationally. I think that in such a situation preemption/prevention is justified. If one was doing it just because of some concern over Iranian influence, I'd agree with you, but I don't think that's the motivation. The motivation is existential, even if you, from the comfort of the US, think it's unlikely to be a threat.

I think the case for intervening in Iran is much stronger than the case was in Iraq. Iran is more ideological, has stronger direct ties in funding and direction to global terrorism, and has an active and large (and largely undisputed) nuclear weapons program. I personally think that regime change would be challenging and a bad idea (and probably illegal outside of UNSC approval), but a limited strike to take out their nuclear sites seems reasonable.

[Flixy]

Isn;t Iran also suspected in the recent bombing in Bulgaria?

[wiggin]

Already said that, chum. And it's less 'suspected' and more 'known'. Israel has intercepts of a surprising amount of chatter between Lebanon and Burgas in the weeks preceding the bombing, data from the bombing itself points pretty clearly to Hezbollah, and it is tied by methodology and intelligence to other attacks in India, Georgia, and Thailand. Iran is also implicated in an attempt to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington (I only count this as 'terrorism' because they were going to do it by blowing up a restaurant).

[Loki]

Okay, a few points:

1. Hezbollah is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, including but not limited to the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the AMIA and embassy bombings in Argentina in the early 90s, a plane hijacking in the 80s, etc. Just this year there were bombings in India, Bulgaria, and an attempted attack in Cyprus. That's even ignoring all of the help/training given by the Revolutionary Guard to insurgents in Iraq. Even ignoring Hamas (which is admittedly less strong of a connection that Hezbollah), there's ample reason to label them a rogue state. (The whole thing with nukes is only part of the picture - agreed that they might not yet be in violation of the NPT (they were earlier due to undisclosed enrichment facilities and weapons design work), but they might be - there's some evidence they're working on weapon design based on some implosion test work going on at Parchin et al. Even so, the record of repeated lying, obfuscation, etc. tied in with clear sponsorship of terrorism against Western targets and a sketchy human rights/democratic record... I think that's pretty much the definition of a rogue state.

2. I personally agree with you that it's likely Iran won't use its nukes offensively. But I don't think it's ruled out at all, and the concerns of proliferation are also pretty significant (I'm not as sanguine about Iran's connections with terrorist groups). I think that given the weight of rhetoric and Iran's continued intransigence to international pressure it's very hard for a country like Israel to rely on a gut feeling that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons capability they'll act rationally. I think that in such a situation preemption/prevention is justified. If one was doing it just because of some concern over Iranian influence, I'd agree with you, but I don't think that's the motivation. The motivation is existential, even if you, from the comfort of the US, think it's unlikely to be a threat.

I think the case for intervening in Iran is much stronger than the case was in Iraq. Iran is more ideological, has stronger direct ties in funding and direction to global terrorism, and has an active and large (and largely undisputed) nuclear weapons program. I personally think that regime change would be challenging and a bad idea (and probably illegal outside of UNSC approval), but a limited strike to take out their nuclear sites seems reasonable.

1. My mistake on the Hezbollah designation. It's not considered as a terrorist groups by our European allies though. Yes, Iran-backed groups/individuals have carried out terrorist attacks. Iran is far from the only country to do this. The Saudis and the Gulf States are probably responsible for an even greater number of terrorist attacks, and Pakistan-linked groups have killed a greater number of Americans. Whether Iran has violated the NPT in some minor ways isn't exactly a game changer either. If this was done by about 180 other countries in the world, we would do little more than publicly censure them (I believe the sanctions against India and Pakistan were leveled after they tested their first nuclear devices). Regardless, Iran is not a pariah in international relations. It has decent relations with most non-Western and non-Arab countries. It carries out far fewer overtly hostile actions than countries like China, Russia, or Turkey (which regularly invades its neighbors to kill their Kurds). I wouldn't even be surprised if Iran would have decent relations with most of Europe if the latter weren't trying to restrain the US and Israel by agreeing to sanctions. In essence, Iran is at most a medium threat to Israel and Bahrain, and a minor threat to the US.

2. Again, you're conflating actions that might be beneficial to the US and Israel with actions that would be legal. There's no inherent reason why the latter should take precedence over the former, but the two are not the same. The fact that a country might do something aggressive at some point in the distant future wouldn't justify a preventive war (where the threat has to be more obvious), let alone a preemptive one (where the threat has to be immediate). Western policymakers might very well decide that say a 10% chance of Iran doing something irresponsible with its nukes is a sufficient rationale for invading it, but you're not going to get many international jurists to agree. You're certainly not going to get the Security Council to agree.

I don't disagree with your Iraq point. Iran is a bigger nuisance to Western interests than Iraq, though that's mostly because Iraq was an incredibly minor nuisance. Assuming the fallout from an attack on Iran can be contained, attacking the country might not even be a bad idea. But it certainly won't be legal, and the case for war will have to be made predominantly in national interest terms.

[Flixy]

Already said that, chum. And it's less 'suspected' and more 'known'. Israel has intercepts of a surprising amount of chatter between Lebanon and Burgas in the weeks preceding the bombing, data from the bombing itself points pretty clearly to Hezbollah, and it is tied by methodology and intelligence to other attacks in India, Georgia, and Thailand. Iran is also implicated in an attempt to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington (I only count this as 'terrorism' because they were going to do it by blowing up a restaurant).

Woops, missed that line. My bad. Skipped straight from the 80s to Hamas That was the plot with the mexican cartels, right?

1. My mistake on the Hezbollah designation. It's not considered as a terrorist groups by our European allies though.

I think us Dutchies do consider them a terrorist organisation. I think that a bunch of EU countries (like France) consider it a political movement, with a military wing, rather than the other way around.

[wiggin]

I'm not much concerned about the EU's designation of terrorist groups. They also don't include Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiah, etc. I don't deny that the Saudis and Gulf States are also criminals; that doesn't stop Iran from being in the same boat. So far, the Gulf States and Saudi have not pushed their terrorist groups to carry out attacks to further their national goals (mostly it's a religious thing), and they aren't flouting international sanctions and building nuclear weapons. If they were, I'd be all in favor of a strike on their nuclear facilities as well. Pakistan is a good example here - they are a huge issue as a putative 'ally' given their complete lack of control in the AfPak border region, their open support for terrorism in India and Afghanistan, and their general instability (not to mention collusion in hiding OBL and other AQ leaders). This is a big issue, but we can't do much about it since they have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons. We didn't do anything about Pakistan's nukes because of historic reasons, but I don't want to make the same mistake with Iran. Pakistan has been a huge proliferation headache (though thankfully not to terrorist groups that I know of) and an extremely bad actor. I think Iran would be worse given their ideological stance. Similarly, while NK doesn't do the global terrorism bit, they are also very bad actors wrt proliferation and it would have been preferable if we could have stopped their program before it started (unfortunately, in the case of NK a strike on their nuke facilities would likely have resulted in an all-out war killing hundreds of thousands of SK civilians).

I think you underestimate the aggressiveness of Iranian actions and overestimate those done by China et al. Turkey and Russia are belligerent to their immediate neighbors, no question (Turkey on Greece and Kurdistan, Russia on Chechnya, Georgia, et al), though not in the 'we'll wipe you off the map' existential kind of belligerence. China makes noise about the S. China Sea and brutally puts down internal dissent, but it not even remotely interested in a shooting war. Iran, on the other hand, is actively engaged in a worldwide effort to attack Westerners and Western power, and is fueled by extremist religious ideology. I have serious doubts about their ability to restrain the nuts in the regime, and treating them like any other country with a few diplomatic disputes is ridiculous.

I agree completely that Iran is a minor threat to the US. They don't have ICBM capability and have little to no chance of developing it in the near future. So what? They're a threat to their region, and are clearly working on developing becoming a much larger and more existential threat. I think that the US should only act because of its role as the only country that can effectively intervene, or in conjunction with its allies in the region who are facing existential threats from Iran... NOT because the US is threatened. But even so, we're not talking about a US strike, we're talking about an Israeli one, and I think it's legally and morally justified. Whether or not it's a good idea is another issue entirely.

As for the narrow question of legality, I don't know what IS legal right now, but I do know what SHOULD be legal. That's what we're debating, right? As I said:

I don't mean to allow preventative/preemptive strikes as a blanket policy, but I think it's reasonable to allow a strike on a rogue state developing WMDs given the significant consequences for proliferation.

Obviously you need to meet a pretty high bar to justify a strike - notably, repeated recalcitrance by the regime to change in response to diplomatic/economic pressure, and ironclad intelligence that a weapons program is in the works.

I still think the above is true, and I think Iran fits the criteria I've set up. They're a rogue regime that pose a very serious threat to proliferation of WMDs and their potential use against ideological adversaries. IMO attacking their nuclear program should be legal as a last resort. I think that even is your international jurists may disagree with me in theory, I don't think that there's any real body of int'l law (written or case law) that has really stood the test of time on this issue. Preemption and prevention are used, and have been for decades in precisely this sort of intervention. I think international law is only relevant in that it is respected and followed, and AFAIK this isn't really the case here. If it is indeed illegal, they should change the law.

[wiggin]

I'm inclined to think this is bullshit, but whelp, it is relevant if not:

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...cret-war-plan/

I'm very skeptical this would be an effective plan, but who knows? Doesn't sound very 'surgical' either.

(It does have an uncanny resemblance to a Hebrew forum post from four days ago, though, so it's probably just bull.)

[Loki]

Looks a bit vague, but I have no idea what war plans are meant to look like.

[wiggin]

It looks like a Hollywood script. I'm sure that the Kirya has much more detailed war planning, and I'm also sure even their top-level summary documents read less luridly. I'm nearly 100% sure it's bullshit, but I had to post it just for shits and giggles. The BBC picked it up, which was probably a big mistake on their part.

[Loki]

Why are so many "peace" activists peddlers in lies and deceit?

[wiggin]

I think Silverstein was probably duped by his 'source'. A Hebrew post from four days ago here is nearly identical to his translation; someone probably passed it off to him either as a prank, misinformation, or as a political ploy, and he bit.

[Flixy]

Why are so many "peace" activists peddlers in lies and deceit?

Same reason the pro-war activists are?

(they probably believe in it themselves)

[Loki]

Peace activists are meant to be better. The ones from the past used to argue about the immorality of the use of force. The ones since Vietnam have been more concerned with spreading lies.

[Flixy]

There's a lot of those left too, but the ones with lies tend to be more vocal in life.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/wo...ic-eye.html?hp

[wiggin]

I love this part:

“There is no consensus among the E.U. member states for putting Hezbollah in the terrorist-related list of the organizations,” Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, the foreign minister of Cyprus, which holds the European Union’s rotating presidency, said at the time of Mr. Lieberman’s visit. “Should there be tangible evidence of Hezbollah engaging in acts of terrorism, the E.U. would consider listing the organization.”

[Flixy]

I suppose attacks vs Israel are not deemed acts of terrorism, but part of the conflict (and haven't the IDF caused more civilian casualties than Hezbollah?).

(note: I don't agree with this, but I can see the reasoning)

[Loki]

Last I checked, Israel and Lebanon are not at war. I also don't think that the Jews in Argentina that were killed by Hezbollah were at war with Lebanon either. And Hezbollah is of course not Lebanon, so it wouldn't have the right to engage in extra-territorial killings even if Lebanon was at war with Israel.

[Flixy]

Last I checked, Israel and Lebanon are not at war. I also don't think that the Jews in Argentina that were killed by Hezbollah were at war with Lebanon either. And Hezbollah is of course not Lebanon, so it wouldn't have the right to engage in extra-territorial killings even if Lebanon was at war with Israel.

Like I said, I don't agree with it.

[Loki]

Just more European appeasement of terrorism, not much different to what the Europeans did during the Cold War. At least the Netherlands decided that coddling terrorists isn't the best way of dealing with them.

[wiggin]

I suppose attacks vs Israel are not deemed acts of terrorism, but part of the conflict (and haven't the IDF caused more civilian casualties than Hezbollah?).

(note: I don't agree with this, but I can see the reasoning)

I don't begrudge Hezbollah attacks against military targets. Oh, I think they're wrong and have a dangerous ideology and have hijacked Lebanon and should be defeated, but they're not terrorists because of attacks against military targets (e.g. IDF soldiers invading Lebanon). That's not the issue, nor is their political wing.

The issue is their outright terrorist attacks. In the case of Israel, indiscriminate attacks against cities with the intention of causing civilian casualties would at least be a war crime, quite possible terrorism. There's no question that in conflicts with Israel, the IDF's superior firepower means that more civilians end up dying on the other side. This is because Arab fighters have wisely stopped trying to defeat the IDF in a conventional battle, but have instead resorted to attacking civilians from within cities and towns of their countrymen. It means that collateral damage inevitably goes up, but the distinction of who is targeted and the principles of proportionality are relevant here.

Let us imagine, though, that we were to agree that Hezbollah's conduct in the last decade wrt Israel constituted war crimes but not terrorism. We can even explain away things like the 1983 barracks bombing of MNF peacekeepers in the context of some legitimate military objective. A reasonable though IMO flawed approach. What it doesn't address, though, is Hezbollah operatives blowing up tourists in Bulgaria or Jews in Argentina, the kidnapping (and in some cases killing) of random Westerners, the hijacking of TWA flight 847, bombing random embassies, etc. These are all textbook cases of terrorism, and for the EU to stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU' doesn't make it any less true.

I know you don't subscribe to this position, Flixy, so this isn't a diatribe directed at you. I just don't see how any reasonable person would fail to see that Hezbollah (or at least their military wing) is a terrorist organization. It's obvious that the EU is refraining from designating them as such not because of a lack of conviction that's what they are, but because of political reasons that have nothing to do with 'tangible evidence'.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/wo...n-iran.html?hp