Setting up the argument. Read the rest at the link.
[ZeroHedge] BEYOND THE FIRST VEIL
In 'Reading Between the Lies,' we explored how to recognize patterns of institutional deception—the carefully crafted narratives that keep humanity trapped in a matrix of perceptions.
Theodore Dalrymple identified how this first matrix of control operates in totalitarian regimes: "In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."
This principle of forced participation hasn't disappeared - it has evolved. Today's system doesn't merely demand silence but active complicity in its narratives, weaponizing resistance itself as a means of influence. Watching trusted voices expose real corruption, only to redirect into managed solutions, reveals an even deeper pattern: The system doesn't just create propaganda - it creates contained paths for those who see through propaganda. Breaking free from mainstream programming is only the first step. What follows is both subtler and just as disturbing. Untethering from institutional narratives creates an immediate vulnerability—the need for new answers, new leaders, new direction. Those who steer the first matrix wouldn't leave the off-ramps unsupervised.
This illuminates the deeper mechanics of the second matrix: capturing awakening through sophisticated channels of inauthentic opposition.
THE MECHANICS OF CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
The pattern becomes clear when we examine how systemic criticism is managed: Those who expose corruption are permitted to speak, but only within careful boundaries. Take banking for instance - even those who reveal central banking's predatory nature rarely demand abolition. The 2008 crisis pushed financial fraud into mainstream awareness through popular exposés like 'The Big Short.' Yet understanding bred only mistrust - no accountability, just bailouts for perpetrators and a more fragile system for everyone else. Like any sophisticated confidence game, it works in stages: first gain trust through real revelations, then build dependency through exclusive "insider" knowledge, finally redirect that trust toward constrained outcomes. Watch how alternative media platforms follow this pattern: expose genuine corruption, build devoted following, then subtly shift narrative focus away from systemic accountability. Each revelation seems to lead deeper into a labyrinth of coordinated awakening. Note: I'm deliberately avoiding naming specific targets - this analysis isn't about creating new heroes or villains, but recognizing patterns that transcend individuals.
What makes this model so effective is that the same institutions that transformed money from gold to paper also convert genuine resistance into managed opposition. As I wrote in ‘Fiat Everything,’ just as synthetic currency replaces real value, fiat opposition movements offer synthetic versions of independent awakening - containing just enough truth to feel real while keeping opposition within safe boundaries.
Understanding these patterns of controlled opposition can feel overwhelming. Each revelation seems to lead to another layer of deception. It's like discovering you're in a maze only to realize there are mazes within mazes. Some get lost documenting every turn - debating financial system minutiae, arguing over medical protocols, dissecting geopolitical chess moves. Or in ‘conspiracy circles’ - was the virus isolated? How did the Towers really go down? What's really on Antarctica? While these questions matter, getting stuck in endless maze-mapping misses the point entirely. Healthy debate and disagreement are natural - and even healthy - in truth-seeking movements - but when these debates consume all energy and attention, they prevent effective action toward core goals.
[PJMedia] As the inauguration of Donald Trump ...dictatorial for repealing some (but not all) of the diktats of his predecessor, misogynistic because he likes pretty girls, homophobic because he doesn't think gender bending should be mandatory, truly a man for all seasons... looms on the horizon, we can expect an uptick in the prognostications of doom, gloom, and nightmare scenarios of a conservative dictatorship. I would have hoped the Left would have gotten all that out of its system by now, but who are we kidding?
Talking about an article in the Sunday edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Post highlighted a move on the Left, in this case, LGBTQ groups, to purchase guns before 45/47 is sworn in. The groups have such names as the Liberal Gun Club, the Socialist Rifle Association, and Pink Pistols. The Liberal Gun Club says it has received "thousands" of training requests since Trump was elected, with about a quarter of those coming from the LGBTQ community.
One person told the Inquirer, "Three months before the election, that’s when the alarm bells started to ring. Minorities that are armed are more difficult to legally oppress." While not a gun enthusiast myself, I have often heard 2A advocates make the same argument on behalf of all people. New Jersey resident Matthew Thompson said that he decided to buy a gun after the Pulse Nightclub attacks. He commented:
The people I’ve been seeing on the left and the gay people who are out purchasing guns for the first time it’s all about self-defense and fear. We’re not looking to arm up and storm the capital. We just don’t want to be put in concentration camps.
The Post pointed out that the shooter, Omar Mateen ... the Afghan-"American" who decided he was a soldier of the Caliphate and shot fifty unarmed people to death in a Florida gay bar he used to frequent... , was a home-grown Islamic terrorist sympathizer who, as it turns out, likely had no idea that he was in a gay nightclub.
One particular glaring fact that keeps getting glossed over is the fact that Trump has been very supportive of the LGBTQ community to the point of appointing gay people to his administration. But facts like those only serve to dampen the mood of a good screed.
It goes without saying, or at least it should, that no one is planning on putting LGBTQ people into concentration camps. Are there people who are vehemently opposed to LGBTQ lifestyles and non-traditional marriages and relationships? Are there those who are prejudiced against LGBTQ people? The answer to both questions is yes.
That said, every conservative I have ever met has not cared what LGBTQ people do with one another. And I have never met one who wanted LGBTQ people killed, deported, or placed in camps. Every conservative I have met just wants to be left alone. And that includes the LGBTQ conservatives I have met. Many conservatives have objected to the introduction of sexual agendas into classrooms and efforts to promote the trans agenda among children, which to some on the Left is tantamount to violence. But no one is planning on rounding anyone up.
So why the worry about concentration camps? Well, I am writing this on January 6, and we all know what happened the last time we certified a presidential election. It is true that on that day, some people who entered the capital committed crimes — not all, but some. That gave the Left, which studiously ignored and even advocated for previous bouts of violence, the opportunity to declare January 6 the worst thing since (insert catastrophe here).
That paved the way for waves of incendiary rhetoric from the Biden administration and provided the necessary rationale for various governmental entities to harass, surveil, and kick in the doors of school board parents, pro-lifers, and people who dared question the trans agenda, not to mention wanting to round up anyone at the capital that day and working feverishly to suppress dissenting ideas. Under the guise of fighting totalitarianism, the Democrats ...every time you hear the phrase white people, white supremacy,white anything but paint, you're listening to a Democrat. Ask him/her/it to reimagine something for you; they do that a lot, though not well. They can hear a dog whistle a mile or two away. They invented the spoils system and Tammany Hall, and inspired the addition of the word (Thomas) Nasty to the English language. They want to stop continental drift and repeal the law of unintended side effects... became totalitarians.
The rhetoric and the other rhetoric that came before it found a home with many. And now we have people who honestly believe that the guy with a Trump bumper sticker wants to behead them or toss them in an oubliette and that anyone who objects to sexualizing children is a proponent of genocide. And that raises an uncomfortable question: what will these people perceive as a threat worthy of using a gun? One thing we have consistently seen from the Left is a propensity to project its fears onto its opponents.
[BEE] PALO ALTO, CA — Social media users rejoiced today as in an initiative to fight back against censorship, the guy who said Facebook was not suppressing free speech announced that Facebook would stop suppressing free speech.
Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg released a video statement outlining the upcoming changes that would be made to content restriction policies on Facebook and Instagram, revealing that Facebook would stop suppressing all the free speech he had previously insisted wasn't being suppressed on Facebook.
"This is a major shift toward no longer doing the things I said we weren't doing," Zuckerberg said in the statement. "While we never suppressed free speech and expression at Facebook, we felt that the election of 2024 was a cultural pivot point that made it clear that we had to stop suppressing free speech and expression. Even though we absolutely never did it, starting now, we're going to stop doing it."
Conservatives who had been victimized by the social media platform's oppressive policies were pleased to find out that the conduct Zuckerberg said never happened would reportedly come to an end in the coming months. "Even though it wasn't ever happening, we're not going to do it anymore," Zuckerberg emphasized. "We owe it to our users who were never censored to stop censoring them."
Zuckerberg stressed that these changes would be implemented over time, with the goal of putting an end to the policies that he said were never in place.
At publishing time, Zuckerberg's video promoting free speech and limiting censorship on Facebook had been censored by Facebook.
[JPost] The Obama administration’s decisions left a significantly more fragmented and futile world than the one he inherited.
When Barack Obama took the oath of office as US president in 2009, he ignited a wave of hope and a belief in transformative change that would define his presidency. His foreign policy, however, remains a topic of heated debate.
While Obama aimed to position the United States as a moral leader on the world stage, his actions often fell short of American expectations, leaving behind a legacy of instability and unfulfilled promises, particularly in the Middle East.
Obama’s approach to foreign policy was often summed up by the phrase “lead from behind.” This strategy prioritized building alliances and avoiding unnecessary wars, reflecting a preference for diplomacy over military intervention. While the philosophy seemed ideal, its practical application led to unintended, devastating consequences.
WHEN OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY BACKFIRED
In 2012, for instance, Obama declared a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Yet, when evidence showed Assad’s regime continued to use such weapons, the Obama administration opted for a Russian-led deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical stockpile rather than taking military action.
Obama’s decision was widely criticized. Although it avoided immediate conflict, it failed to deter future chemical attacks. The Syrian Civil War raged on, killing over 500,000 people and displacing more than 13 million, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The war’s continuation fueled a humanitarian crisis of massive scale; more decisive US action may have prevented the suffering of millions.
The effort to sanction Syria for its use of chemical weapons only adds to Obama’s growing list of setbacks in handling the crisis, as he was ultimately ineffective due to strong opposition and substantial support for Syria from Russia and China. In 2015, for example, Russia intervened directly in the Syrian conflict by providing aerial military support to the Syrian Army, significantly strengthening the Assad regime. China used its veto power alongside Russia in the UN Security Council to block resolutions against Syria, preventing further international sanctions and interventions.
Obama aimed to weaken Assad’s regime through economic sanctions; however, substantial assistance from Russia and China counteracted his efforts.
Obama’s inaction in Syria also had repercussions for Israel. The ongoing chaos in Syria enabled Iranian-backed militias, such as Hezbollah, to expand their influence near Israel’s borders. According to a 2017 report from the Israel Defense Forces, Hezbollah built an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets, many of which were transferred through Syria.
These developments heightened tensions in the region and posed a direct threat to Israeli security, further illustrating the ripple effects of Obama’s Syria policy. In 2018 alone, Israel conducted over 200 airstrikes in Syria targeting Iranian assets to prevent further threats, showcasing the security challenges made possible by US inaction.
THE 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya is another example of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy. The operation successfully toppled Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi but failed to establish a stable government in his place. Libya descended into chaos, becoming a failed state plagued by civil war and hardship.
The increase of weapons from Libya, perpetuated by the war, fueled conflicts across Africa and the Middle East. For instance, weapons from Libya were used in Mali’s civil war and reportedly fell into the hands of extremist groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria. Even Obama acknowledged this failure, calling the lack of planning for Libya’s aftermath the worst mistake of his presidency in a 2016 interview with Fox News.
The consequences of the Libyan intervention were global. In addition to regional instability, Libya became a hub for human trafficking and extremist groups, including ISIS. By 2017, Libya’s migrant crisis had worsened, with thousands risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean, contributing to Europe’s refugee crisis. According to the International Organization for Migration, over 3,000 migrants died attempting the journey in 2017 alone.
Obama’s biggest failure was the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement aimed to halt Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. While some viewed it as a diplomatic success, others criticized it for being a freebie to Iran. The US Treasury Department reported that the deal unfroze approximately $150 billion in Iranian assets, a significant boost for a country with a GDP of around $408 billion.
The JCPOA failed to ensure Iran’s compliance with its terms. Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed gaps in monitoring, such as Iran’s refusal to grant inspectors access to suspicious sites like the Karaj facility.
Israeli intelligence further highlighted these issues, uncovering evidence that Iran continued developing missile technology and maintaining capabilities that could facilitate a rapid nuclear breakout. In 2018, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a 55,000-page document proving that Iran had lied about its nuclear program, further undermining confidence in the deal.
The JCPOA also sparked controversy within the United States. Obama bypassed Congress by treating the agreement as a deal rather than a treaty, avoiding the Senate’s ratification process. This decision drew criticism for ignoring constitutional norms.
The deal’s impact on regional stability remains questionable, as it emboldened Iran’s regional influence without addressing its ballistic missile program or support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
A 2017 US State Department report emphasizes that Iran’s support for terrorism remained “unabated,” with the country providing over $700 million annually to Hezbollah alone – money that may have very well been given to Iran by the US through the Nuclear Deal.
Despite a peaceful ideology, Obama often struggled with execution. While he sought to redefine America’s role in the world through diplomacy and alliance, his administration’s actions led to greater instability.
Whether Obama’s foreign policy ranks the worst in recent history depends on one’s perspective. The evidence, however, suggests that his administration’s decisions left a significantly more fragmented and futile world than the one he inherited.
For all his rhetorical brilliance and strategic aspirations, Obama’s foreign policy ultimately highlights the inability to govern a nation solely based on ideology.
The writer is a high school student from Great Neck, New York, passionate about advocacy and government. Through his writing and activism, he engages others in meaningful conversations about US politics, international relations, and Israel’s significance as both a homeland for the Jewish people and a key ally of the United States.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Vladimir Dobrynin
[REGNUM] Spain's ruling left-wing coalition, led by Socialist leader Pedro Sánchez, has effectively declared 2025 the country's year of remembrance for Francisco Franco.
No, it was done, as is customary among the country's high-ranking politicians, not in a direct ultimatum form, but a little allegorically, when in form it is one thing, but in content it is completely different. And if opponents object, you can always note that "it was taken out of context and misinterpreted."
Formally, the country will be celebrating the half-century anniversary of the establishment of democracy for the entire coming year. In fact, according to the press and the population, the planned hundred different cultural and mass events (most of them with political overtones) look more like a tribute to the memory of the "leader to whom Spain owes the establishment of economic stability" than to the "dictator who threw people in jail for a sidelong glance and an unfortunate word."
Sánchez claims that the anniversary of Franco's death (20 November 1975) is an occasion to look back on the history of Spanish democracy. The opposition, represented by the head of the People's Party (PP) Alberto Feijóo and the leader of the Vox party Santiago Abascal, believes that the Prime Minister has decided to "play the trump card that he always has in reserve."
Five years ago, Sanchez played, as stockbrokers say, "for the increase" (of his rating), having organized the removal of the ashes of the caudillo (caudillo - leader, Spanish) from the family crypt in the Valley of the Fallen, declaring that this memorial complex is for the real heroes who died in the struggle for democracy. And the tyrant can and should rest somewhere aside, so as to attract less attention and not provoke the emergence of his positive image in society.
The path of Francisco Franco, the Spanish caudillo who promoted himself to generalissimo and remained at the helm of the country from 1939 to 1975, from veneration to removal from the grave took 44 years.
The ex-dictator was reburied, but something, as they say, went wrong in society.
He’s still dead, though. That’s the important thing.
THE DEAD IN THE SERVICE OF THE LIVING
All these years, the topic of reburial has not exactly been on the pages of the press. No, it has appeared there periodically, reflecting the coming to power of one or another party (socialists or populists) and serving them both faithfully as an instrument of political struggle. But precisely episodically. And the people, frankly speaking, were indifferent to this topic.
In 1976, a year after Franco's death, when the Spanish press, which had entered a period of democratization (that is, the ability to express one's opinion without worrying about the consequences), no longer denied itself the pleasure of dancing on the bones of the now safe dictator, several private individuals created the Francisco Franco National Foundation (Fundación Nacional Francisco Franco).
It was not difficult to find an official justification for this act: “the need to preserve part of the history of Spain.” The foundation began writing its history by organizing an archive that collected about 30 thousand documents from the period of the caudillo’s rule.
The amount of funds received into the Fund’s accounts, as well as the names of donors (individual, corporate and government) were not made public, so as not to irritate the people.
Privacy and banking secrecy were the rule. State subsidies to the foundation were accompanied by politically correct formulations, such as "due to the need for digital processing of documents for subsequent storage in computers" and the like.
The financial aid provided by the state to the Franco Foundation was defended by prominent scientists in the country, such as the director of the Royal Academy of History, Gonzalo Anez, who repeatedly emphasized that “at any time, any document will be accessible to any user of the World Wide Web.”
In fact, the availability of documents is very limited today, but there are no media disputes on this topic or calls to declassify everything.
The common people are ready to gossip about the Franco Foundation only over a glass of beer, and only if they are prompted with a leading question. The masses are sure that considerable money, inaccessible to ordinary people, is laundered through the foundation. Otherwise, why would such offices be needed?
A poll conducted by one of the country's leading newspapers, El Mundo, on the eve of the exhumation yielded results that slightly shocked those in power. Only 43% of respondents supported the reburial, while 32.5% were against it.
"The number of those who are not concerned about this issue is astonishing. It reaches 20%, that is every fifth person surveyed," the publication reported. And then the readers' comments poured in, often diametrically opposed. As a result of the squabble that arose under the newspaper's text, the winners were two statements with which the majority agreed:
"I believe that we are the only country on the planet that insists on distorting and rewriting its history, replacing objective history with crude and shameless lies. Yes, Franco was a dictator, but he and millions of Spaniards like him were the result of a time full of violence and radicalism. And this cannot be changed. Personally, I am grateful to him," wrote one user.
"When I see the politicians who govern us today and compare them to Franco, he seems to me a model of virtue. That's why the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party - Ed.) constantly attacks his memory - so that he can't serve as a beacon for us," added another reader.
A fair description of socialists everywhere and -when, for any eminent personage not their own.
The exhumation of Franco's remains and his reburial in the cemetery in the Madrid quarter of Mingorrubio naturally did not go unnoticed by newspapers, radio and television. But the process of covering the event, although it demonstrated close attention to what was happening, still did not allow one to free oneself from the feeling of the routine of articles and video reports, speeches of politicians and comments of passers-by on the street who happened to meet the reporters.
The wish “let’s just get this over with and move on” was in the air. Towards the night of October 24, 2019, the wish came to a stop and seemed to have disappeared from the modern Spanish agenda forever.
TO WRITE A FAIR HISTORY…
The five years that have passed since then are called by some political scientists the “period of Franco-silence.” This name not only indicates silence about the former Spanish dictator, but also a play on words: franco in Spanish means “sincere, pure.”
That is, the parties that are "for" and "against" carefully avoided the topic, so as not to stir up trouble in society. They were silent not without reason: the occasional polls showed a noticeable polarization of public opinion.
In addition, it turned out that the majority of respondents born before 1950, that is, the part of the population that was a priori considered to have suffered the most from the caudillo dictatorship, recall those years as a time of stability in life and a virtual absence of crime.
And a very large group of young people born after Franco's death believed and believes that the establishment of a dictatorship now would be positive for the state and would put the economy in order.
Sober political scientists explain this by the fact that school textbooks describe the period of General Franco's rule in a one-sided and too brief manner. Which, according to Menorca.info columnist Julia Navarro, prevents the younger generation from fully appreciating the scale of fear and repression.
"The Socialists, by inventing a hundred events to commemorate Franco's death, are in fact glorifying him and creating a nasty impression of the democratic period that followed his death," she said.
… OR COVER UP A CORRUPTION SCANDAL?
The Spanish press also reports the opinion of representatives of the opposition People's Party, who say that the Sánchez government needs the anniversary events in order to distract the people's attention from the corruption scandal, the main character of which is the Prime Minister's wife, Begoña Gómez.
In the same context, Alberto Feijóo announced that the members of the NP will not take part, at least in the first of the celebrations, which will take place on January 8 at the Reina Sofia National Museum.
Whether the "populists" will participate in others is an open question. Most likely, they will announce their participation or non-participation immediately before each event. In order to attract additional attention to themselves and gain political points.
The current King of Spain, Felipe VI, also announced that he would not attend the first two of the hundred celebrations planned. The monarch cited “his notebook being full” — on January 8, he is scheduled to visit the former concentration camps of Auschwitz and Mauthausen, and then he has a busy day ahead of him, presenting credentials to new ambassadors from several countries.
"The Socialists' attempt to involve the King in the celebrations in honor of Franco failed," La Razón states with undisguised triumph, hinting that the monarch should have performed some act of gratitude to the late dictator.
After all, the very preservation of royal power in the country was a gift from Franco, who wrote in his political testament that after him Spain should be led by His Majesty Juan Carlos I, who had reigned until that moment somewhere abroad.
Philip, who took over the monarchy ten years ago from his father Juan Carlos, preferred to stay above the fray and not to stir up the periodically flaring debates about whether it is time to abolish the throne and everything that goes with it in Spain. Especially since the king's power in the country is formal, but the upkeep of the royal household costs a pretty penny.
The Socialists did not hesitate to respond to the Narodniks, reminding Alberto Feijóo that the PP was founded in 1976 by former Francoist minister Manuel Fraga Iribarne. They say that with such roots, telling us that we glorify the dictator is, at the very least, illogical.
In general, the celebration of 50 years of democracy in Spain has caused an intensification of political struggle and could lead to increased polarization of the population, Spanish newspapers note.
[IsraelTimes] Focused for now on reconstructing Lebanon and rebuilding support, the terror group will also seek to reconstitute its arsenal in hopes of fighting Israel another day
As a fragile 60-day truce between Israel and Hezbollah approaches its end, the expectation that the prevailing calm along the Lebanese border will continue and transform into a long-term detente is suddenly being challenged by tough talk from both sides.
It’s a hudna — that’s to be expected.
In Israel, officials are concerned that the terror group is not pulling out of southern Leb ...The Leb civil war, between 1975 and 1990, lasted a little over 145 years and produced 120,000 fatalities. The average length of a ceasefire was measured in seconds. Only one of those statements is an exaggeration.... , and that the Lebanese Armed Forces, or LAF, which is supposed to move in, is moving too slowly to take over control of the area by the January 26 deadline. On Sunday, Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that the Israel Defense Forces could be "forced to act" in response, and some in the military are apparently preparing for the possibility that the army could remain deployed north of the border beyond the 60-day deadline.
In the meantime, the IDF is continuing to carry out strikes against Hezbollah operatives and infrastructure in south Lebanon, accusing Hezbollah of repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement.
On the Hezbollah side, the Iran-backed group’s new leader Naim Qassem ... the Grand Vizier of the Hezbullies... threatened in a Saturday speech that its "patience may run out" with Israeli behavior even before the end of the 60-day withdrawal period.
The comments have sparked worries that the deal could fall apart sooner rather than later, sending US special envoy Amos Hochstein back to Beirut in a bid to get the deal back on track.
But even if Qassem wanted to make good on his threat, it remains unclear what kind of actions the Shiite terror group would be able to undertake once its "patience" runs out, with its leadership largely decapitated and its rocket and missile stock reportedly reduced by at least 80%.
"Hezbollah is in an extremely unenviable position," Hezbollah expert Matthew Levitt told The Times of Israel by phone recently. "It’s on life support right now."
"The Axis of Resistance® stood [on] a three-legged stool of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. Two of those legs don’t exist anymore," said Levitt, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former FBI counterterrorism expert.
However,
ars longa, vita brevis... there are multiple indications that the terror group has only been temporarily deterred, and could resume fighting if it is allowed to reconstitute its arsenal. The process will also involve rebuilding its base in Lebanon by helping stabilize and reconstruct the country after bringing about widespread destruction and turmoil at the service of a foreign entity, angering many Lebanese.
In a December 14 speech, Qassem indicated that the group’s agenda moving forward was to focus on domestic Lebanese issues, namely "the implementation of the agreement south of the Litani River, reconstruction, the election of a head of state on January 9, and positive dialogue on the problematic issues."
The political crisis has been particularly daunting. The country has been without a president for over two years, chiefly due to Hezbollah’s political arm insisting on elevating its candidate, Sleiman Frangieh, though he lacks the support of other political parties.
"Hezbollah understands that the country is already quite angry and quite worried, especially with the fall of the [neighboring] Assad regime. There is now a regime in Syria that hates Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn’t want another civil war. It doesn’t have the support that it had before," Levitt said. "It will fight to protect its position."
While the ceasefire agreement — backed by international guarantors — may keep Hezbollah from regrouping in areas south of the Litani River, from which it poses the most direct threat to Israel, there is no reason to think the terror group will lay down its weapons or desist from regrouping militarily anywhere else in the country; renouncing its arsenal would imply losing clout and power, and ultimately its raison d’être.
And despite Western backing and funding, Lebanon’s military has yet to actively confront the terror group or seize its weapons as far as is known.
Earlier this month, four sources briefed on updated US intelligence told Rooters that the Iran-backed Lebanese terror group will likely try to rebuild its arms and forces, allowing it to once again pose a long-term threat to Israel.
"If the LAF goes after Hezbollah in a way that makes it feel threatened, then Hezbollah will open fire against them," David Daoud, a Lebanon expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank. "But there has not been a single move against them. So Hezbollah will try and get what it wants quietly, through political means. The resistance prefers the path of least resistance."
THE DANGER FOR ISRAEL HAS NOT SUBSIDED
Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah began in earnest in mid-September, when thousands of the group’s pagers and walkie-talkies booby-trapped by Israel went kaboom!.
The operation followed nearly a year of almost-daily rocket and drone attacks on northern Israel starting on October 8, 2023, when Hezbollah, unprovoked, began firing at Israel in support of fellow Iran-backed terror group Hamas ..a regional Iranian catspaw,... , which a day earlier had stormed southern Israel to kill some 1,200 people and take 251 hostages, starting the war in Gazoo
...Hellhole adjunct to Israel and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, inhabited by Gazooks. The place was acquired in the wake of the 1967 War and then presented to Paleostinian control in 2006 by Ariel Sharon, who had entered his dotage. It is currently ruled with a rusty iron fist by Hamas with about the living conditions you'd expect. It periodically attacks the Hated Zionist Entity whenever Iran needs a ruckus created or the hard boyz get bored, getting thumped by the IDF in return. The ruling turbans then wave the bloody shirt and holler loudly about oppression and disproportionate response... But while the autumn 2024 offensive saw Israel take out much of the group’s rocket arsenal and command and control structure, it has not been completely defanged.
"In terms of the threat to Israel, [Hezbollah] has become more of a traditional terrorist organization," said Levitt. "They can still do a cross-border raid. They will try to move material south of the demarcation line. At some point in the not-too-distant future, they can still shoot a rocket. They can certainly carry out attacks abroad."
"Those are very dangerous things that are not to be minimized. But they are nothing like the full-scale rocket and missile threat that Hezbollah posed before," he added.
Consequently, the IDF will need to remain vigilant even after the 60-day truce during which it is allowed to remain on Lebanese territory, and to continue targeting Hezbollah operatives violating the late November ceasefire agreement.
"Israel is not going to be expected to sit back and watch as enemies begin to prepare over time to be able to strike at Israeli civilians again," Levitt said.
Israel also does not have the luxury of complacency based on the fact that the new Syrian regime helmed by rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa is hostile to Hezbollah and Iran.
Sharaa and his government are currently bent on gaining international legitimacy, but the new regime’s overstretched security forces will need time to extend their control over the whole of Syria’s territory. In the meantime, Iran ...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for spontaneously taking over other countries' embassies, maintaining whorehouses run by clergymen, involvement in international drug trafficking, and financing sock puppet militias to extend the regime's influence. The word Iran is a cognate form of Aryan. The abbreviation IRGC is the same idea as Stürmabteilung (or SA). The term Supreme Guide is a the modern version form of either Duce or Führer or maybe both. They hate JewsZionists Jews. Their economy is based on the production of oil and vitriol... is expected to exploit the power vacuum in parts of the country to attempt to smuggle weapons to its Lebanese proxy, according to Mike Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and an expert on Iran-backed militias
"Although the collapse of Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Leveler of Latakia... ’s regime is certainly encouraging, this does not mean its former patron Iran will simply give up on using Syria as a corridor for reconstituting Hezbollah next door in Lebanon," Knights wrote in a recent analysis. "Quite the opposite: Iranian arms smuggling has historically thrived in collapsed or weak state environments."
"As Syria presumably reopens post-Assad, it will see an influx of people, vehicles, money, humanitarian aid, reconstruction supplies, and consumer goods, much of it via truck transport from neighboring states. Iran could easily use this influx to reconstitute both Hezbollah and its proxy factions in Syria," Knights wrote.
HEZBOLLAH’S DOMESTIC BASE STILL PERSISTS, ALBEIT ERODED
While many Lebanese have raised their voice against Hezbollah’s military adventures and for dragging the country into a destructive war, popular support for the terror group has not completely eroded, particularly among Shiites, who make up about a third of the country’s population of over 5 million.
An Arab Barometer survey conducted between February and April 2024 found that 85% of Lebanon’s Shiites have "quite a bit or a great deal of trust in Hezbollah," while only nine percent of Sunnis and six percent of Christians expressed the same sentiment.
Scenes of Lebanese waving Hezbollah flags in jubilation after the ceasefire suggest that base may still be solid.
"Hezbollah is at the weakest it’s ever been, but finishing it off requires a ’final squeeze’ from within Lebanon — and that’s not going to happen," said Daoud, pointing to images of displaced Shiites returning to their homes in Hezbollah strongholds hailing the "resistance" and its slain leader His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ...The late, lamented satrap of the Medes and the Persians in Leb...> "They still have a bit of breathing room in which they can learn to maneuver," he added.
One of the tools with which Hezbollah has managed to attract and maintain a vast base among Shiites is through financial assistance. While the terror group’s finances were hard hit in the war — branches of its bank al-Qard al-Hassan were targeted in IDF Arclight airstrike ...KABOOM!... s — Hezbollah still has liquidity at its disposal.
In early December, Qassem said the terror group had paid more than $50 million in cash to families affected by the war, almost all of them Shiites, giving out $300 and $400 per person. He said the group planned to pay out more than $77 million in total, plus lump sums between $4,000 and $8,000 to those whose primary homes were destroyed.
The payments would be financed mainly by Iran, he added.
Can Iran afford it?
In the upcoming reconstruction phase, Hezbollah will also be able to draw from foreign contributions made to Lebanon’s state coffers, and will receive donations from the Shiite Lebanese diaspora abroad, Daoud predicted.
In addition, Hezbollah will continue to play a prominent role in Lebanese politics as a legitimate political party. It still sits in the government and still has 15 members of parliament (13 from its ranks and two independent Hezbollah supporters), and maintains alliances with other political factions.
In 2022, the last time Lebanon held an election, Hezbollah and pro-Hezbollah independents received over 356,000 votes, more than any other party.
"Other political forces cannot just tell a party that got that many votes, from the sect that is Lebanon’s largest and fastest growing, that ’we don’t want to listen to you,'" Daoud said.
While Hezbollah attempts to repair its reputation and mend ties with its domestic allies, Israel will need to stay vigilant, watching the group’s movements and preventing any attempt at reconstituting its military capabilities, the expert said.
"Lebanon is giving them time to rest and relax. And that’s that’s the scary part. The more time they have, the more they can rearm and go back to where we were," Daoud said. "So what Israel should do is not let them rest and relax."
#4
Trump’s agenda is domestic improvement, but he has no interest in funding Iran or the Taliban. The State Department would likely continue to follow their habitual stupidity, but he has set up a structure of special envoys to have ME oversight. The State Department will seek to work around that block, but Trump has had four years to strategize against the DS. Interestingly, their focus will have to be domestic based on his DOGE initiative.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
01/08/2025 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
accusing Hezbollah of repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
... the Afghan-"American" who decided he was a soldier of the Caliphate and shot fifty unarmed people to death in a Florida gay bar he used to frequent...
...every time you hear the phrase 
[BEE] PALO ALTO, CA — Social media users rejoiced today as in an initiative to fight back against censorship, the guy who said Facebook was not suppressing free speech announced that Facebook would stop suppressing free speech.
..a regional Iranian catspaw,...
