Follow us on social

41yrs ago: 220 Marines involved in Israel's war on Lebanon killed

41yrs ago: 220 Marines involved in Israel's war on Lebanon killed

Have we learned the lesson? If the US hadn't got ensnared in Tel Aviv's affairs, the bombing would never have happened.

Analysis | Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s goal of ensnaring the United States in a wider Middle East war is already partly realized. Earlier this month, U.S. forces were directly engaged for the second time this year in shooting down missiles that Iran had fired in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Iranian interests.

The United States also has been attacking targets in Yemen, even with long-range B-2 heavy bombers. The combat with Yemen, like the exchanges of fire with Iran, is a direct outgrowth of Israel’s policies of subjugation of Palestinians and carnage in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ October 7 attack.

One of the most recent expansions of U.S. involvement in Israel’s wars has been the deployment to Israel of the THAAD missile defense system, along with about 100 U.S. military personnel to operate it. Such deployments not only put Americans increasingly in harm’s way but also embolden Netanyahu to escalate his wars further by reducing the impact of the inevitable retaliation from those whom Israel attacks.

With no end in sight to the Israeli escalation, and with that escalation focusing in recent weeks on an Israeli assault in Lebanon that has begun to duplicate some of the suffering in Gaza, Americans should reflect on how the United States got ensnared in an earlier Israeli war there, and a tragic result of that involvement that occurred 41 years ago this week.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, which was the beginning of an occupation that would not end completely until 2000. That Israeli invasion of Lebanon, like the current one, was directly related to the same Israeli policy of bashing and subjugating the Palestinians. Israel’s chief objective in 1982 was to destroy the capabilities, resident in Lebanon at the time, of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and to drive the PLO out of the Levant. Israel also sought to tip the balance of forces within Lebanon — which had already been engulfed in civil war — toward ones partial to Israel.

The Israeli invasion and occupation substantially increased the suffering of Lebanese as well as Palestinian refugees there. One of the most horrifying low points was the massacre in September 1982 at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Phalange militiamen slaughtered an estimated 3,000 civilians while the Phalange’s ally, the Israel Defense Forces, fired illuminating flares so that the killing could continue through the night.

A couple of weeks earlier, the United States under the Reagan administration had agreed to deploy U.S. Marines, alongside small military contingents from France, Britain, and Italy, as part of a multinational force in Lebanon. At least on the face of it, this deployment had a noble peacekeeping mission of quelling the violence in Lebanon. But Lebanese and other observers had reason to perceive the U.S. action as a weighing in on the side of Israel and the internal political forces it favored.

In addition to the background of the overall U.S.-Israeli relationship, the principal accomplishment of the multinational force was to facilitate the exit of the PLO from Lebanon, which was part of Israel’s objective in invading Lebanon in the first place.

Besides, as with other deployments of U.S. military personnel to already dangerous places, the lethal logic of force protection kicked in, and peacekeeping morphed into offensive action. President Reagan authorized “aggressive self-defense” against hostile forces that posed a threat to the Marines, with those same hostile forces also being adversaries of Israel and its Lebanese militia allies. The U.S. engagement on the ground was supported by naval gunfire, which would later include the battleship New Jersey firing 16-inch shells at targets in the mountains near Beirut.

All this was in addition to the usual loathing by domestic elements of any foreign military presence, which at other times and places has fed violent responses, including suicide terrorism.

The deadliest response to what the United States was doing in Lebanon came on October 23, 1983, when a suicide driver drove an explosives-laden truck into the building at the Beirut airport the Marines used as a barracks. The detonation of the truck bomb killed 220 Marines plus 21 other U.S. military personnel. It was the deadliest day for the U.S. Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II and the highest single-day death toll for the U.S. military as a whole since the opening day of the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968.

It is legitimate to argue that this high price was incurred in vain. The United States withdrew its forces, and the multinational force was dissolved a few months later, while the Lebanese civil war continued until 1990, and the Israeli occupation of parts of Lebanon would continue for 10 more years after that.

Responsibility for the bombing was claimed in the name of Islamic Jihad, which was later generally understood to be Lebanese Shia elements that would coalesce into what is now known as Hezbollah.

Hezbollah owed its origin and early rise in the 1980s to its stout opposition to the Israeli invasion and occupation. It has never looked to pick fights with the United States based on some al-Qaida-like transnational ideology. It has been sharply focused on its objectives of gaining and maintaining political power in Lebanon, defending the interests of Lebanese Shia, and defending Lebanon as a whole against Israeli depredations.

The overseas operations of Hezbollah have grown out of those objectives. These include two bombings of Israeli or Jewish interests in Buenos Aires, each of which was retaliation for Israeli attacks back in the Middle East, and Hezbollah’s support for its local ally, the Assad regime in Syria. The one attack on U.S. interests that may seem removed from fighting in Lebanon and in which Hezbollah may have had an indirect role (by supporting like-minded Saudi elements) — the bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 — was again a matter of a resented U.S. military presence on foreign soil.

The bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 was a direct result of the United States allowing itself to be sucked into involvement in one of Israel’s offensive wars. Without that involvement, the bombing never would have happened.

A similar price to be paid for the United States getting sucked into Israel’s current wars will not necessarily be paid within Lebanon. The battering that the Israeli offensive has inflicted on Hezbollah’s capabilities in Lebanon has probably not diminished its capability for asymmetric operations elsewhere. Its willingness to use that capability against U.S. interests grows to the extent that the United States allows itself to become associated with Israel’s lethal offensives and to the extent those offensives make parts of Lebanon similar to the ghastly rubble of Gaza.


Top image credit: A cloud of smoke rises after the explosion of the Marine Corps building in Beirut, Lebanon October 23, 1983. US Marines/Handout via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.