Still angry at the assassination of top Hamas figure Saleh al-Harouri in Beirut last week, the Hezbollah movement carried out what it called a “preliminary response,” trading heavy fire with Israel along the Lebanese border.
Hezbollah focused the attack on a hilltop observation post, firing off 62 rockets. The outpost was purported to be for “observation” and “aerial control.” Israel later confirmed the attacks hit the strategic airbase at Mt. Meron.
Though Israel was somewhat late in commenting at all, beyond saying they’d retaliated against the “terrorist cell,” Israeli officials ultimately admitted Mt. Meron sustained “extensive damage” from the strikes.
Mt. Meron is an aerial control site for the Israeli Air Force, and essentially serves the northern air control unit. The Hezbollah strike came with anti-tank missiles, not smaller ones that could be intercepted by Iron Dome.
What’s embarrassing is that Israel doesn’t have a way to intercept these missiles, which fly at low altitude. Essentially, they had to sustain all the damage to the base. It is not clear how functional it remains after the attacks.
Hezbollah did, however, release videos showing a number of direct hits, destroying radar systems that gave Israel coverage of airspace far into Lebanon. Such coverage may well have helped Israel in Tuesday’s assassination, which was against the capital of Beirut. The base may still be used for direct observation, but anything else is probably destroyed.
The assassination is politically difficult for Israel because Harouri was a high-profile player in negotiating the hostage exchange with Hamas and was said to be trying to work on another when he was killed. Israelis with family members held by Hamas in the war are not happy to see the opportunity for an exchange squandered by military force.
Israeli hawks are practically champing at the bit to start a big fight in southern Lebanon, but here too there is some strong opposition. The United States, usually a backer of all things unilateral in Israeli action, have actually warned against significant escalation.
This is related to an intelligence assessment by the DIA, which says Israel would have a very difficult time contending with a lot of additional military action on their northern border. Given the already enormous undertaking of the Gaza War, they would be spreading themselves very thin indeed.
State Dept. spokesman Mark Miller said it was “in no one’s interest to expand the war beyond Gaza.” Israel DM Yoav Gallant said Israel would stick to an “agreed-upon diplomatic settlement,” but ominously cautioned that they are “close to the point where the hourglass will turn over.”
“sustained “extensive damage” ” What is the definition of extensive damage? A couple of radar domes were destroyed and along with some antennas. The backup radars have kicked in and base is running according to the IDF.
Each rocket/missile that Hezbollah successfully fires just add more fuel to those in Israel who are pushing for an all out assault on Hezbollah. That would be bad for the region.
Wait till Israel finds out U.S. support is not what it makes itself out to be.
I thought the US had Israels back in the north when they moved in Navy vessels.
Here comes the lesson many have learned on U.S. meandering and posturing.
US had to move one aircraft carrier home in case Venezuela takes on England and Guyana.
That aircraft carrier — the Ford — had already been extended on deployment three times before returning to port. It was replaced in the eastern Med by something scarier than a carrier group — an amphibious ready group. And the Eisenhower is covering more or less the same AO from the Red Sea. To the extent that carrier groups are useful the US has plenty of them to cover both hemispheres.
“To the extent that carrier groups are useful…”
Aircraft carriers and tanks are becoming passé.
Yes, they are.
But when it comes to carriers specifically, the US is likely to fall into the “sunk cost” fallacy. They’ve spent so much on so many of them, and built so many other systems around them, that they’re unlikely to abandon the paradigm until it comes down around them in a spectacular and ugly way.
The Russians seem to have given up on the “supercarrier,” model some time ago, whether from sound judgment, or from the high costs of pursuing it, or both. The Chinese started down that path, but it’s still early days for them so they might give up on it before they’ve got too much sunk into it.
The obsolescence doesn’t seem to be so much a matter of ship vulnerability, as some around here believe, as a matter of expensive manned fixed-wing aircraft beginning to be obsolete themselves. Drones are smaller, they’re cheaper, their pilots don’t take their expensive training to the grave with them when the aircraft go down, and they tend to require a lot less (if any) runway and such. At some point, the equivalent of a carrier air element will fit into a few conex boxes and need a platform the size of a high school football field.
Drones can be hacked and the signals disrupted or blocked the defemse tech to them will catch up quickly, it always does.
As for carriers , Russia prefers subs anyways. China seems to be patiently waiting for the US war machine to end up bogged down elsewhere
I dont see a US ground invasion up north of Israel, US deaths are bad publicity for the administration. but anything is always possible
Yes, drones, like manned fixed-wing aircraft, can be hacked or have their signals disrupted or blocked.
So it’s nice that they cost a lot less and that their pilots don’t get killed when they get shot down or crash.
There might or might not be a US ground operation in the area, but if there is, that would be an escalation rather than a continuation of the status quo. Which is why an amphibious element is scarier than an air element.
A good friend of mine, retired Air Force, F-16 pilot, said that the assessment of the aircraft carrier is that it needs the jets on them to protect them from being sunk. Large, floating targets. Low flying hypersonic missiles could take out one.
Then where is the US swift and decisive answer to this. Seems absent as always, Mostly for show I think.
Secondly how is ground force scarier than an aircraft carrier.
You mean ground force like in afghanistan? That type of ground force? My hopes are not encouraged. If they get wiped out. How will you replace them. The nation no longer wants to fight for the wealth of a few prats in charge. A draft?
When soros did the whole protest thing in the US a while back the people learned they could mass protest with resilient posture.
Prospects dont look good. Tehe US citizen has been wore down with Patriotism propaganda. National debt is spiraling with trades between rising interest rates and high inflation combined with a treaury that loves to print iou,s and take extended sight seeing in foriegn lands. A congress that loves to spend, and a fed reseve that loves to fertalize it all with rediculous speaches.
Its all getting messed up because of the fear and greed of a few prats, No one wants to support this war or the other five wars going on right now and the piper is calling in the debt marker.
This is not fear mongering propaganda or comspiracy here. This is reality. (Well except for the soros mention anyways. . . Cheers)
“how is ground force scarier than an aircraft carrier”
The aircraft carrier is fairly redundant as far as current uses of air power are concerned. Everything’s moving toward drones.
The presence of an amphibious ground element implies an intent to land troops somewhere and do something other than blow things up randomly from the air, as has been the habit for the last decades or so.
US ground troops in Beirut — or even Beit Hanoun or Bethlehem — is a scarier idea than the possibility that the US Navy might use an F-18 to do a little more of what it’s already been using F-18s (off the carriers) and other aircraft of other types and from other platforms to do a lot of for a long time.
I don’t think our troops would want to take on the “army of g-d”.
How many wars are we in now?
A few that are not advertised by the MSM. to fund our little military machine, taxes are not used as that would upset the folks at home. No, deficit spending it is. Very stealth. That is why the neocons want to see things that are fundamental to the general welfare (gee, is that term mentioned in the Constitution somewhere) see their funding cut and cut again, or fought. Perhaps I read it wrong, but since 2001 $5 trillion has been expended on the military industrial complex, all funded via deficit spending. Dick Cheney said that deficits no longer matter. You Tube has a wonderful article from Sheerpost, and article by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs:https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/07/us-foreign-policy-is-a-scam-built-on-corruption/ We, citizens of the “indispensable nation” are f*cked.
It’s occupied territory. The mountain is called Mt Jarmaq and it is the highest peak aside from the Golan. While the zionist base is called Meron, the rest is badly re-labelled Palestinian land. The base itself got hit hard. Zionist air capabilities have been severely degraded for the remaining duration of hostilities. The sad little blimp they deployed to cover the lost capability isn’t going to help much comparatively, especially when Hezbollah can pop the damn thing anytime they want.