Published by AstroAwani, image by AstroAwani.
Make no mistake about it.
Israel’s unrelenting aerial bombardment and now (so-called “limited, localised and targeted”) ground invasion of Lebanon shows that it is not only about neutralising Hezbollah’s threat at the northern front.
The pariah state is actively preparing for a regional war.
The assassination of the late Hassan Nasrallah – erstwhile Secretary-General and leader of the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah – is not only ultimately aimed at instigating a regional war.
As Hezbollah is the proxy/frontliner of the Shia resistance movement in Lebanon, this means luring Iran into full-scale confrontation with the Zionist entity, indirectly and directly.
Recall that prior to the assassination, the Zionist entity had triggered the near-synchronised pager explosions which killed many high-ranking Hezbollah operatives and key personnel.
It is a decapitation strategy targeted at weakening the command structure and, by extension, centre of gravity of Hezbollah.
Such a strategy is normally in preparation (i.e., the initial step) for something full-scale and “harder hitting” like an invasion with the final goal of the annihilation of the enemy completely.
More specifically, Israel wants to prepare for or rather “pre-empt” a two– or multi-front war.
Zionist propagandists say that Israel wants to avoid an October 7 situation on its northern front.
An absolute fallacy.
Hassan Nasrallah is a known moderate (not a hardliner). Furthermore, Hezbollah does not gain any strategic advantage from such limited incursions which will and can only invite the repeat of a full-scale response in the form of an invasion by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
In short, Hezbollah’s strategic situation is different from Hamas’s.
Gaza continues to be under occupation whereas southern Lebanon is not. The IDF withdrew in 2006 after suffering a knockout blow at the hands of none other than Hezbollah.
As it is, the carpet bombing of southern Lebanon ostensibly intended at degrading and destroying Hezbollah infrastructure clearly points to Israel’s preparation and “anticipation” of a multi-front war.
Nasrallah’s murder parallels the assassination of the late Ismail Haniyeh, former Chairman of the Political Bureau of Hamas and the de facto head. Haniyeh’s murder was supposed to kill off any negotiations with Hamas, thus prolonging the Zionist genocidal drive in Gaza.
Netanyahu “desperately” wants a regional war but without having to fight defensively on multi fronts.
IDF planners know full well that Israel cannot afford a multi-front war whereby the country is “simultaneously” attacked/“surrounded”.
Unless the US directly intervenes.
Even then, there is no guarantee of a quick and decisive end.
American “boots on the ground” could not only portend the resurgence of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). Only this time, ISIS might shift its focus on terrorist attacks against American and Western targets outside of its territorial base.
This would also provide further “incitement” for the masses of the Arab world to take up arms and join in what is a jihad against the “new crusaders”.
EMIR Research in our previous articles had already “envisaged” a scenario of a two-front escalation (“Why Israel must engage with Hamas”, June 16, 2021) which can develop into a full-blown multi front war (“The pathology of Zionist rejectionism”, May 25, 2021).
Israel wants to turn southern Lebanon into a buffer zone to provide strategic depth in the event of a regional war.
At the same time, the buffer zone will deny Hezbollah the launching pad for their offensive operations – land and air. This means the buffer zone will not only protect northern Israel but simultaneously the Golan Heights too which is a buffer zone in its own right.
Netanyahu is also hoping that a regional war would involve a “grand alliance” of Sunni Arab nations against Iran – not quite but close to creating a reverse multi front war.
Such is Netanyahu’s myopia, delusion and ruthlessness compounded now by his desperation to avoid jail – that he is eager to engage in a high-stakes escalation that risks a regional conflict.
In the course of the IDF’s strategic and tactical manoeuvres in Lebanon, atrocities, i.e., war crimes, have been committed in addition to the illegal and immoral assassination of Nasrallah and other officials of Hezbollah.
A regional war – which means the horrifying prospects of war crimes on a larger scale by the Zionist entity – would only further isolate Israel in the wider international community, entrenching its pariah status.
Already, the Zionist entity is becoming more isolated in the United Nations (UN).
The latest embodiment was the staged walkout led by Turkey at the 79th UN General Assembly (GA) in protest at Netanyahu – who is now a legally confirmed war criminal by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Lead Prosecutor Karim Khan pending the issuance of an arrest warrant – being allowed to speak.
Turkey’s commendable act was followed by the vast majority of the sitting member-states’ representatives, including not least Malaysia.
A regional war could well also result in the region engulfed in a conflagration whereby Israel is “boycotted” by its closest neighbours – Jordan and Egypt – where the masses are decidedly anti-Zionist.
Worst still, it would irreversibly destabilise the region for decades to come.
And the Zionist entity’s dream of a grand Sunni alliance led by Saudi Arabia, no less, over-against Shia Iran would be in tatters.
Rightly so, if it needs to be added.
One thing that Netanyahu in his determination to save his skin has left out.
That is, rapprochement has been in the making between Saudi Arabia and Iran, thanks to the initiative and under the auspices of China.
The normalisation of bilateral relations took place ever so memorably during the blessed month of Ramadan last year (“Saudi, Iran foreign ministers in Ramadan call, agree to meet soon”, Al Jazeera, March 23, 2023).
It is simply incredible that Netanyahu has not factored in the possibility that the Abraham Accords and Israel’s proposed normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia would be in jeopardy with his unforgivably reckless act of instigating a regional war as part of his desperate plan to save his skin.
Not only would Israel be isolated internationally and regionally, at least on the formal and superficial level, save for the continued backing of the Anglo-American duo which are now completely beholden to and under the clutches of the Zionists via their local proxies, especially in the political sphere.
Israel’s own security – external and internal – would now be in grave danger and highly exposed.
That is, Israel will become more vulnerable and susceptible, not less.
In fact, we are already seeing the revival of “terror” attacks by resistance fighters from the West Bank after what was a period of “normalcy” and “calm” (“Seven killed in shooting and knife attack in Tel Aviv”, BBC, October 1, 2024).
This goes back again to the very root of the problem.
That is, Netanyahu himself.
Netanyahu, the cunning operator that he is, has so intertwined his personal interests with that of the country’s.
The two can no longer be separated unless he goes.
This means, and it cannot be strongly emphasised enough, the following.
That the US as the pre-eminent and number one (numero uno) backer of the Zionist entity (“across the spectrum” – financial, military, political) is actually at the end of the day risking a regional conflict just for the sake of protecting war criminal Netanyahu and ensuring his political survival.
In turn, this zooms into the morality of the US exercise of its veto power as the lead member of Permanent Five (P5) of the UN Security Council (SC).
In protecting Netanyahu, and not merely upholding Israel’s right to exist with all the implications (such as the so-called “right to self-defence”), this calls into question the very moral entitlement of the US to exercise its veto power.
By extension, it casts aspersion on the relevance and applicability of the veto power by the UNSC as a whole – since it has been misused by the US time and again to effectively whitewash Israel.
Hence, it is no longer merely a question of strategic judgment by the lead member of the P5 of the UNSC.
But we are confronted with a purely moral and ethical poser – of reality being twisted and perverted to fit the Procrustean bed of the genocidal Zionist narrative in the name of the “right to self-defence” – that is further undermined by the shifting global tectonic plates and foundations towards multipolarity and away from US hegemony.
This is why Malaysia’s taking up of the cudgels and leading the charge in calling for the abolition of the UNSC vote is so timely and opportune/propitious.
As highlighted in EMIR Research article, “Responsibility to protect – undertake military action to prevent Gaza displacement” (March 22, 2024), early this year (on March 8, 2024), Malaysia had reiterated the country’s call for the UNSC veto to be abolished at the Intergovernmental Negotiations Meeting on the Security Council Reform.
In what is a bold and unprecedented move, H.E. Ahmad Faisal Muhamad articulated the need for an interim period until such time when the veto can be completely abolished.
Specifically, Malaysia asserted “… that the [utilisation] of the veto by [UNSC] members … be regulated, preventing it from being used unjustifiably, or abused. [That is], the application of veto should be prohibited in situations involving mass atrocity crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes”.
Unabashedly, our ambassador to the UN unequivocally argued that “… the veto is incompatible with a contemporary and democratic multilateral framework, reiterating [the] call for its ultimate total abolition”.
It is hoped that other countries will follow suit in joining Malaysia’s call for the veto to become “extinct” in due course.
Indeed, when exercised, the veto has been a long-standing obstacle for the UN in working towards and achieving a more equitable, fairer and peaceful world order.
Most recently, Malaysia once again reiterated its stance for the UNSC veto to be limited or abolished altogether as articulated by our own Minister of Foreign Affairs Dato’ Seri Mohamad Hasan in conjunction with the UNGA debate on September 29, 2024 (“A voice for change: Malaysian confronts the UN on veto, Islamophobia and Palestine”, The Star, September 29, 2024).
Dato’ Seri Mohamad Hassan was quoted as saying, “[t]he veto must be limited. The world is watching as the [UNSC] struggles to free itself from a deadlock, in which one voice can overrule the majority and support the continued violation of international law”.
To recapitulate, the issue of the right to veto power in the UNSC is no longer confined to the strategic and diplomatic judgment of the P5, with especial reference to the US as the sole culprit.
It is a question of (deep and profound) moral and ethical standing.
In fact, the actions by the US are also reflective not only of the P5 of the UNSC but of the UNGA as a whole.
The veto represents a stumbling block for which the UNGA yearns to be free from.
The Zionist entity’s genocidal drive in Gaza and now escalatory action in Lebanon has simply brought to the fore the urgency for such an “emancipation” to take place.
In the final analysis, the ultimate goal of escalation that risks a regional war is to prolong and extend the October 7 incident.
Every step which prolongs and extends the October 7 event coincides with Netanyahu’s own personal survival.
The one principal way to prevent and pre-empt a “World War 3” scenario is none other than the right use or otherwise disuse of the UNSC veto power altogether.
As such, the current events under consideration should propel the UN in undertaking the first step towards reforming or even outright abolition of the UNSC veto power itself.
Jason Loh Seong Wei is Head of Social, Law & Human Rights at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focussed on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
