Nasrallah {say, since they call Gorbachev "Gorby," should we call this guy "Nasty?"} denies he is hiding in the Iranian Embassy, which probably can be taken as confirmation he is there.

As I recall, the Iranians don't much respect the sovereignty of other people's embassies, so I won't get all lathered up if the IDF takes this one out.

I'll bet the moonbats would go nuts, though. The spittle would be flyin' . . .

;-)

Uh oh. As if it wasn't already, it is "on" now.

It's MOAB time for the Iranian and Syrian embassies in Beirut.

I think this would qualify as "harboring terrorists". Let's see if Bush has the guts to enforce his own doctrine.

Legal question for anyone:

If Israeli intelligence discovers and confirms that Nasrallah is indeed seeking refuge inside the Iranian embassy, is the IDF within the international rules of engagement to take out the embassy given that a legitimate military target exists inside its walls? (Note: I do realize that embassies are in fact internationally recognized as being the sovereign (haha) soil of said country.)

The terrorists just love Western loopholes...

Isnt it about half pass the monkeys ass and quarter to His balls time to clean Irans clock?

We fight the Iranians now...or later. There is NO scenario where we do NOT fight them. The odds of a "Tehran Spring" have faded to ZERO! The madmen running Iran are too good at maintaining control.

If we fight them LATER we will face nuclear weapons...and they will use them.

I am certain our Pentagon, and the Israelis, must have war-gamed all this.

tic...tic...tic...

There is NO scenario where we do NOT fight them (Iranians).

I would tend agree, BUT...any action against Iran would likely have to involve the politically dreaded 'D-word' here at home--aka, a draft. And a serious ramp-up of military construction--vehicles, planes, tanks, you name it. The situation is going to have to get a lot more dire in order for ANY politician begins to bring the D idea up.

Peter F.:

Well given that Iranians have reportedly taken part in the fighting, that a number of casualties have returned to Iran, etc. I would argue that Iran is already a party to this war. Therefore, destroying their embassy would be a political escalation but not a military one, and legitimate.

I don't know just how much evidence there is of their involvement but it seems to me they've actually admitted it by now in some of their bellicose rants, if I remember reading them correctly.

Nicholas:

I'm not diagreeing with Justrand at all, nor you. Iran is certainly a player in the war, no doubt. I'm just wondering if Israel is within the international rules of engagement to legally--and God help me, that makes me sound like a moonbat--bomb the shit out of the Iranian embassy if it has a legitimate target inside. (Another related legal question might be: Just how the hell does one declare war on a state-within-a-state entity like Hezbollah? Or would Israel have to declare war on Iran in order to bomb that embassy? The fact that they (Hezbollah) are not an internationally recognized state (or army, for that matter) might it negate any recognized ROE or rules of warfare that might protect them. But Israel might get into political hotwater for bombing a "soverign" state like Iran who's not officially involved. As much bullshit as that is, it's kind of how the argument might go here in the West "Well, Israel didn't do that legally..." Blah, blah..."illegal war"...blah, blah, blah...See where I'm going here?)

I personally think they should. Just curious how batshit crazy the anti-Israel supporters would go over such an action....

Hi,

A few comments from an Israeli viewer
1) Great Site! I really like it.
2) It's not a ZilZal but rather a Fajr 5. Which means it is still a "dummy" rocket and not a missile - although the ranges are also very big and it can have up to 100kg of detonation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5
3) As Shimon Perez said, we are dealing with Hezbollah, and we'll let the rest of the world to deal with Iran (wink wink).
4) The rocket was aimed at Afula (which is like aiming it on Shebyogen - Green Bay). If Nasralla ment business he would have fired it on the power plant in Hadera. They say that he would fire the worst rocket when the cease fire is signed so Israel will not be able to repond.
4) The Israeli government assumes the civillian ability to withstand any number / range of rockets. Israelis can withstand civilians casualties, but cannot tolerate dead soldiers (kidnaped soldiers is the worst). Therefore the hot debate is whether to engage with more ground forces into Lebanon or not.
My opinion on this subject is expressed here: http://frenkelx.blogspot.com/2006/07/israels-strategy-in-and-out-of-lebanon.html

Regards and Keep up the good blog!
Itai Frenkel

Meanwhile, it seems that Hezbollah's leader extraordinaire Nasrallah is hiding out in the Iranian Embassy.

Wouldn't be a delicious irony if a bunch of college-aged IDF soldiers stormed the Embassy, and held them hostage, say, for about 400 days or so?

Shalom--Baruch haba, Itai.

Tell the IDF to aim for the little blue hats, there are bound to be some Hizb'allah hanging about there.

Good luck.