From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Israel worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. Recent exploding pager attacks in Lebanon killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children.

Israel has launched a new form of terrorism according to former CIA director Leon Panetta, which he says will have far reaching “repercussions” throughout the world.

The terrorist campaign is said to have killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children, who are not engaged in the fighting against Israel.

Describing last week’s wave of remotely detonated pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, Panetta told CBS News on Sunday:

“This has gone right into the supply chain. When you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, ‘What the hell is next?’ This is a tactic that has repercussions, and we really don’t know what those repercussions are going to be.”

Panetta’s remarks, reported in the Times of Israel on September 23, referred to revelations that Israel had spent 15 years preparing the attacks, infiltrating mobile device supply chains to transform handheld electronics into remotely triggered bombs.

An indication of how far-reaching these repercussions will be was given by Panetta, also the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

“The forces of war are largely in control right now,” Panetta continued, warning that the “ability to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days” has brought the world into a new “war of terror,” in which anyone with a mobile electronic device may be targeted without warning.

“Mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future,” said Panetta, echoing reports that state “Israel’s pager attacks have changed the world,” leaving “us all vulnerable.”

The New York Times report presented a stark conclusion:

“But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.”

“It could be deployed against a military during a war or against civilians in the run-up to a war.”

The attacks conducted by Israel have been largely reported to have targeted members of Hezbollah. The examination of the facts tests the claim that the pagers were detonated solely against a “military” in this case. The United Nations has already condemned the tactic as a war crime.

Copycat attacks?

With the initial wave of attacks often presented as a “James Bond” style flash of brilliance, later reports considered the possibility of “copycat” attacks.

Philip Ingram, a former senior British military intelligence officer, told Britain’s inews, “There are real risks of copycat actions. A large organized crime group could do something like this.”

Yet the planting of explosives and ball-bearings in pagers requires a degree of coordination beyond the capability of non-state criminals. Ingram explained, “However, something of the scale and sophistication we have seen this week is really only the purview of a nation state actor.”

So far, only the nation state of Israel has dedicated its resources to the transformation of personal devices into instruments of death.

A war crime?

The attacks have been reported to have killed and injured thousands of “Hezbollah members,” giving the impression of a targeted wave of sophisticated assassinations of enemy soldiers. Yet two children were among the 37 dead, with a UN report showing a diplomat was killed in what it termed an act of “murder” and “a terrifying violation of international law.”

“Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices … inevitably violate humanitarian law,” the report said, by “failing to distinguish” between civilians and combatants.

The Jerusalem Post reported that only “a majority” of the thousands injured and killed “were members of the group,” which is an admission that civilians were indeed targeted.

In addition to the “war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks,” the UN report pointed out that “[h]umanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects,” and that “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary.”

What is Hezbollah?

Hezbollah is not merely a military organization. It also runs supermarkets, provides education and healthcare, and has a political wing, with members elected to over a third of Lebanon’s Parliament. It is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, with various European nations reserving that label for its military wing alone.

The New York Post’s claim that “thousands of Hezbollah fighters” were injured in the attacks excludes this important distinction between civilian and military members, legitimizing the “horrifying wounds to the groins and hands” of people severely injured whilst at home or shopping in supermarkets.

The U.K.’s Channel Four News was more measured, reporting only that “Hezbollah fighters were among thousands injured” in the attacks, which also took place in Syria and in Iraq.

NPR’s report similarly offered no evidence that any of those killed and injured were in fact combat soldiers, stating, “Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.”

Doctors in Lebanon reported “apocalyptic” scenes, with thousands of patients arriving at once with injuries to their eyes and hands.

A media success with no military goal?

Early reports questioned the military success of the operation, with the New York Times describing it as “a tactical success with no strategic goal.” In an additional report, the Times confirmed the operation was ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, September 17.

The wave of heavy airstrikes on Lebanon which followed the detonation of pagers and walkie-talkies have also been reported as strikes on Hezbollah. With up to 500 killed, including 35 children, Reuters warned “tens of thousands of civilians” had begun to flee Southern Lebanon. The same report repeated Netanyahu’s address to the Lebanese people, in which he stated, “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah.”

Yet the claim that Israel’s attacks are destroying Hezbollah’s military capability have been strongly challenged.

“This is bunkum,” said Alastair Crooke, who lives in Lebanon. The former British diplomat explained to Judge Andrew Napolitano that most of those targeted in the pager attacks were not military members at all.

Secondly, he says, Hezbollah’s missiles are buried deep underground, rendering the airstrikes practically useless in destroying them.

Crooke’s blunt dismissal of these claims follows questions asked about the military purpose of both stages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon.

Israel has ‘no plan for peace’

Israel’s pager attacks have been recognized as a logistical and media victory by intelligence experts, but reports have also shown they have had no effect on Hezbollah’s war-fighting capability.

Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer who served in the Middle East told the Washington Post, “This is the most impressive kinetic operation I can recall in my career.”

“The scope was staggering.”

Yet the Post’s report goes on to cite White House and Israeli insiders expressing doubts over the move – and also concerning Israel’s apparent lack of any clear strategy at all.

“Some officials have questioned how much the United States should support Israel if that conflict spirals into a broader war that drags in the Americans even further,” said the Post, citing one anonymous “inside American adviser.”

“The U.S. will have to decide how much they want to do to help Israel, and I don’t know what the answer to that is,” said the source, who would only speak unidentified due to the “sensitive” nature of openly questioning U.S. support for Israel. The source went on:

“[The U.S. will] likely continue to supply Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself, but there are serious voices in the administration who wonder, ‘Israel did this to themselves – why should we help them?’”

As the Post also notes, “Israel did not inform its most important allies in Washington in advance, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it was responsible for the attacks.

Questions over Israeli grand strategy have persisted for months. In July, the Washington Post reported that Israel “has no plan for peace,” with no end in sight to its war in Gaza. In the wake of the pager attacks, Bronwen Maddox of the U.K.’s Chatham House concluded in a report filed from the Lebanon border, “The Hezbollah pager attacks prove that Israel has no strategy for peace.”

‘What’s the point?’

Additional reports also doubted any military rationale behind the attacks. In an article showcasing “Israel’s James Bond-style operation” former IDF officer Dr. Ahron Bregman asked, “What’s the point?”

Suggesting the goal was towards a media – and non-military impact – Bregman continued: “This Israeli operation will be at the heart of future Hollywood films, and for good reason, but let’s dive into the more grim reality.”

Bregman says in the absence of any “Israeli tanks” to follow up the attacks, their purpose may be to provoke a response from Hezbollah which “legitimizes” a major war.

“The Israelis are trying to humiliate Hezbollah – forcing it to react forcefully, which will give Israel the international legitimacy to embark on an all-out war with its sworn enemy.”

Warning of the dimensions of this conflict, Bregman, senior teaching fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, said, “These are dangerous days. It might be that we are marching into a big, regional, Middle Eastern war involving not only Israel and Hezbollah but also the likes of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.”

Both waves of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have been of questionable military value. Both have left the combat power of Hezbollah largely intact. The same cannot be said for the lives of those destroyed in them.

The White House is reportedly frustrated with Israel’s actions, seeing them as attempts to provoke a retaliation from Hezbollah and even Iran which would spark a regional war. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. officials also noted with angst that, for nearly a year, the White House and allies have worked to tamp the flames in Lebanon.”

Israel appears to be desperate to fan these flames. Its often insinuated goal is to draw the United States into a regional crisis the White House says it has been working to avoid.

With no plan for peace, Israel has worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. In the absence of any strategy beyond escalation, Israel appears now to be openly seeking to internationalize its war by any means at its disposal.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Morgan Murphy

During the ABC debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the former president issued a warning that should terrify every American: “[President Joe Biden] had no idea how to stop [the war in Ukraine]. And now you have millions of people dead and it’s only getting worse and it could lead to World War 3. Don’t kid yourself, David. We’re playing with World War 3. And we have a president that we don’t even know if he’s— where is our president?”

The debate “moderator” whistled right past Trump’s warning and asked him in response if he wanted “Ukraine to win this war?” I’ve heard more thoughtful questions from a 4th grader.

What Trump made clear — and ABC blithely ignored — is that the Biden administration is risking a world war over Ukraine. The last time we got this close to the use of nuclear weapons, the issues at hand were West Berlin and Russian missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Then, unlike now, the American people clearly understood what was at risk. The presidents who oversaw those crises explained their calculus to the public.

But the Biden administration has edged the country closer and closer to a world war with little public debate. The United States is currently mired chest-deep in what strategists coyly call a “proxy war” with Russia. We’re supplying weapons, military advice, money and intelligence — and Ukraine is providing the warm bodies.

As the price tag of this proxy war creeps towards $200 billion, few Americans even understand the ultimate goal. There has been precious little talk in Washington, D.C. about what a “win” might look like for Ukraine. Biden, who Trump rightly points out has been mostly missing in action, has ignored Vladimir Putin’s requests to negotiate a settlement. More worrisomely, the Biden administration seems to be seriously considering escalating the United States’ involvement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is said to be working on “a plan” to present to Biden about how to end the war. Zelensky darkly warned last month, “There can be no compromises with Putin, dialogue today is in principle empty and meaningless because he does not want to end the war diplomatically.”

Before Congress gives another red cent to Ukraine, the American people should have an opportunity to read and evaluate Zelensky’s plan. A “no compromises” end to the war is insanely unrealistic short of a complete collapse of the Russian army — Putin has made clear he will never accept Ukraine as a member of NATO or give up Crimea.

Last week, Biden said he is open to allowing Ukraine to hit targets deeper within Russia with American-supplied missiles. It does not take a military genius to understand that Zelensky would love to see the United States and NATO directly enter the war. That is Ukraine’s best shot at the “win” its leader has outlined, as Russia is out-producing Ukraine in soldiers and war materiel.

Zelensky’s requests to escalate U.S. involvement in the conflict should be evaluated with extreme caution. Specifically, Ukraine wants targeting restrictions lifted from the Army’s Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Biden sent the missiles to Ukraine as part of last spring’s aid package and is said to be considering lifting the restrictions as I write this.

It is a horrible idea.

Firstly, Russia has made clear that the lifting of restrictions would be tantamount to direct American involvement in the war. “Washington and other European states are becoming parties to the war in Ukraine,” Vyacheslav Volodin, the chairman of Russia’s State Duma, the lower house of parliament said.

Secondly, Ukraine has already attacked Moscow repeatedly with drones. Were it to bomb the Kremlin with a U.S.-manufactured and sanctioned ATACM, what would Putin’s response be? Imagine a Russian missile hitting Washington with the blessings of Moscow.

Lastly, pray that Biden’s team is taking seriously Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. Britain’s MI6 Chief Richard Moore recently remarked that the “Russian intelligence service has gone a bit feral,” while the CIA acknowledged that Russia nearly went nuclear over the Ukraine war in the summer of 2022.

As Trump warned at the debate, “[Putin has] nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually, maybe he’ll use them.”

Our best hope to avoid that scenario is a swift return to rational statecraft.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.