Update 9/18, 7 a.m. EST: In a press conference Wednesday, Lebanese Health Minister Firas Abiad updated the casualties, saying close to 2,800 injured and 12 dead in yesterday's exploding pager attack. An 11-year-old boy, in addition to an 8-year-old girl, are among the dead.
It's not clear at this juncture whether theexploding Hezbollah pager attack in Lebanon that has so far killed nine people — including an 8-year-old girl — and injured nearly 3,000 — including Iran’s ambassador, who was using Hezbollah’s phone network— was a between-meal snack or an amuse bouche preceding a lavish entrée.
Reports indicate this was a coordinated attack and a significant breach of the militants’ communications system. Presumably the Israelis, if they intend to strike, will want to do so while Hezbollah’s command and control is disrupted.
Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant has been eager to commence some sort of large-scale operation in the north; this is why he has been a proponent of a Gaza ceasefire. Apparently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the return of Israeli civilians to their homes in the north a war aim. He has said this publicly but more importantly directly to the senior U.S. official monitoring the situation. (For the record, Washington has noted that a war in the north would preclude the return of internally displaced Israelis to northern towns.)
Apart from Israel’s exploitation of Hezbollah communications to enable the detonation of thousands of pagers, there have not been any obvious precursors to a large-scale Israeli ground attack. It is possible, of course, that the IDF is content to stage an incursion with a smaller force than would seem prudent, along the lines of the one currently deployed to the northern front (1 active and 1 reserve division). But the operational risk could be considerable. So for the moment, it’s wait and see.
Steven Simon is a Distinguished Fellow and visiting lecturer at Dartmouth College and Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was the Robert E. Wilhelm Fellow in International Affairs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as the National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the Clinton White House and for the Middle East and North Africa in the Obama White House. He is the author of "Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East" (2023).
A person is carried on a stretcher outside American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) as people, including Hezbollah fighters and medics, were wounded and killed when the pagers they use to communicate exploded across Lebanon, according to a security source, in Beirut, Lebanon September 17, 2024. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir TPX
Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.
The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.
This proposed increase coincides with the Kremlin’s recent announcement that it would revise the country’s nuclear doctrine, saying that Russia could respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons and that it would consider any attack that is supported by a nuclear power to be a “joint attack” — a policy presumably meant to deter at any Ukrainian attack inside Russian territory with U.S/Western weapons.
Meanwhile, it appears the Ukrainian military and public at large are growing war weary. The Financial Times reported this week that “Ukraine is heading into what may be its darkest moment of the war so far” in the face of increasing battlefield losses, its struggles to replenish military ranks, and the prospects of facing another winter with regular power and heating outages. “Society is exhausted,” said the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee chair.
FT points out a poll conducted this summer by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology for the National Democratic Institute which found that 57% of the public supported negotiations with the Kremlin, up from 33% the previous year. Additionally, 55% are opposed to a deal that would include ceding land to Russia, down from 87% last year.
FT also noted that according to KIIS polling, “making any deal acceptable that allows Russia to stay in the parts of Ukraine it has seized since its first invasion in 2014 will hinge on obtaining meaningful Western security guarantees, which for Kyiv means NATO membership.”
Diplomats engaging with Ukraine also report that Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials seem more open to peace talks. One diplomat said, “We’re talking more and more openly about how this ends and what Ukraine would have to give up in order to get a permanent peace deal.”
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Reuters reports that China and Brazil, amongst others, compiled a peace plan to present to Ukraine and Russia last Friday. Seventeen countries met in New York during the last United Nations General Assembly meeting to discuss a potential end to the war, with China chairing the talks. Zelenskyy showed no interest in the peace plan, and questioned why they were drawing up alternative plants to his own.
Incoming NATO secretary-general says that the alliance will support Ukraine regardless of who wins in America’s November election. According to The Wall Street Journal, new Secretary-GeneralMark Rutte said, “I am absolutely convinced that on this issue, they both see what is necessary.” He added confidently that “supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. And it is also an investment in our own security.”
State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller responded to a question regarding Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian targets. Miller reiterated that Ukraine does not need permission to strike Russian targets with its own weapons. He also stated that the United States had given Kyiv permission to use some American weapons in a retaliatory fashion against targets in Russia.
He was pressed as to why Ukrainians are limited as to which American weapons they can use to strike targets in Russia. In his response he said, “We look at all of the capabilities and all the tactics and all the support that we provide Ukraine in totality, and look at how – when we approve any new weapon system or any new tactic, we look at how it’s going to affect the entire battlefield and Ukraine’s entire strategy. And that’s what we’ll continue to do.”
A reporter asked Mr. Miller if Washington was ready to start implementing Ukraine’s proposed victory plan, to which he responded with, “We took that plan, we reviewed it, we saw a number of productive steps in it. We’re going to engage with them about it.”
Finally, Miller interacted with a question which compared US support of Israel during the recent Iranian missile strike to the support which Ukraine has received. He explained that the United States gives Ukraine the support needed to shoot down missiles, saying that “we have made clear that we support Ukraine’s right to defend itself not just in words but in deeds, and we have provided them with the equipment they need to shoot down missiles.”
keep readingShow less
Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets after Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel, October 1, 2024 REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX
Today, Iran launched a massive missile attack against Israel, which Tehran billed as a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of the IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel now appears to be mulling a retaliation in turn that could push the sides into all-out war.
When Israel and Iran narrowly avoided a full-blown conflict in April, I warned that we shouldn’t let Biden’s help in averting escalation overshadow his broader, strategic failure to prevent such a dangerous moment from ever arising. Had the U.S. used its considerable leverage with Israel to end its war in Gaza, the region would not have found itself on the edge of a disastrous war in April; six months later, the Middle East is back at the brink of disaster.
Iran has made it clear that it does not want a regional conflict; Tehran doesn’t seem to believe it can afford such a war. But Netanyahu clearly thinks it’s in his interest to ramp up conflict right now, as Washington stands frozen — a month out from an election and with a lame duck president who seems incapable of telling Israel “no,” no matter the costs for American security.
One must hope that somehow, further escalation is avoided. But the risk of just such an outcome is enormous, and if the U.S. finds itself in a new forever war in the Middle East, the buck will stop with Biden. This White House has repeatedly chosen to keep the U.S. on the precipice of war, rather than restrain Israel’s military as its expanding wars killed more and more civilians in Gaza and now Lebanon. The Biden administration has helped bring about this extraordinarily dangerous moment by providing Israel with the weapons, political protection, diplomatic support, and money it requires to pursue the exact escalation that the Biden administration professes it does not want.
Biden’s strategy has been to put enormous effort into deterring Iran and its partners from retaliating against Israel, while doing virtually nothing to discourage Israel from escalating in the first place. This lopsided approach has in fact been a recipe for escalation, repeatedly proving to Netanyahu that Washington has no intention of bringing pressure to bear on Israel, no matter its actions.
If Biden enables further escalation from Israel, this could very well lead to a direct U.S.-Iran military confrontation that would be profoundly destabilizing in the region. The consequences for U.S. national security of such a war are hard to quantify — but it’s easy to imagine consequences on par with the disastrous military adventurism that George W. Bush’s administration pursued in the Middle East.
If U.S. service members find themselves in the line of fire in an expanding Iran-Israel conflict, it will be a direct result of this administration’s failure to use U.S. leverage to pursue America’s most core security interest here — avoiding war.
Joe Biden came into office promising to end the era of forever wars and the quixotic, costly efforts to transform the Middle East. Now, Biden appears to have fallen into the trap of thinking that U.S. military force will transform the region for good. It is stunning that Washington appears not to have learned this lesson yet.
keep readingShow less
The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) approaches the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) for a replenishment-at-sea. September 12, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tristan Kyle Labuguen/Released)
A U.S. Navy oil tanker running aground off the coast of Oman isn’t a huge event. The fact that it is the only tanker to refuel American warships in a Middle East conflict zone, is.
In fact, this only underscores the fragility of the Navy’s logistic systems at a time when the U.S. has chosen to lean in on an aggressive military posture when it may not have the full capacity to do so, and it may or may not be in the national interest for the Navy to be conducting these operations in the first place.
The first is a question for Naval experts, many of whom may not feel comfortable second guessing the mission. So let’s tackle that one first.
The issue: according to a statement by the U.S. Navy, “USNS Big Horn sustained damage while operating at sea in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations overnight on Sept. 23. All crew members are currently safe and U.S. 5th Fleet is assessing the situation.”
The Big Horn is a 33-year-old Kaiser class refueler. This ship is owned by the Navy and is operated by civilian mariners under the U.S. Sealift Command. These ships are responsible for getting jet fuel out to the carrier’s fighter planes and replenishments to the other escort ships at sea — in this case, the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which has been serving in the Arabian Sea area since August. It includes the flagship carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the air wing (including 5th generation F-35s) and three destroyers.
It is the only replenisher nearby, making refueling tricky for the strike group, which is busy in the throes of a fight with the Houthis. The Lincoln had been accompanied by the Theodore Roosevelt strike group which had departed the area in mid-September, according to reports.
Sal Mercogliano, in his “What's Going on With Shipping?” podcast last week laid out where the other refuelers currently assisting other Navy assets are in the world right now: the Mediterranean, Singapore, the Western Pacific, two on the West Coast of the U.S., one on the Southern coast at Norfolk, and a number that are being fixed or ready for decommissioning at various shipyards across the globe. There aren’t many to spare.
“What this means is that the ability of the U.S. Navy to deploy and sustain its battle groups is very precarious,” Mercogliano points out. “So to support U.S. battle groups, whether it's an amphibious group or a strike group, requires vessels that can go from forward bases, fuel up, and bring the fuel, ammunition, dry cargo out to them.”
“You don't have a lot of back backup in this and that's a big problem,” he added, “because if you don't have backup, when you lose a ship like Big Horn, you've got to scramble to fix it.”
The Big Horn was tugged to a nearby port but it is not clear when and if it will be ready to get back to work. According to reports, including this one by John Konrad at gCaptain, the Navy may have to turn to a commercial tanker for refueling the strike group but that will pose its own difficulties. It would require retrofitting for special rigs, hoses, fuel pumps, communications and most importantly a special team to be flown out to the Middle East to oversee it all.
“Commercial tankers are significantly slower than Navy oilers, which could leave the USS Abraham Lincoln more vulnerable to attack during aviation fuel loading operations,” Konrad wrote.
Experts say the real problem is the shortage of fuelers and other support ships throughout the entire Navy. Not only that but there is a shortage of qualified crew.
According to Sam Lagrone at USNI news in August, the Navy is weighing whether to dock 17 support ships in a “great reset” plan because of the shortage. They need to free up the crew. “For every billet on an MSC ship there are about 1.27 mariners to fill the positions, a ratio that two former MSC master mariners told USNI News on Thursday was unsustainable,” wrote Lagrone.
At that ratio, a mariner would be at sea for four months and off for about a month and then return. “No one is able to have a healthy work-life balance and be able to get off the ship and get adequate time to go home, have time at home with their family, take leave, take care of medical requirements [in that timeframe],” a former mariner told USNI.
Meanwhile, the Kaiser class oilers are supposed to be replaced by the new John Lewis class ships, which feature “double-hull construction, improved safety, and enhanced fuel capacity.” Three have been built and christened so far and more on the way, but as Mercogliano points out, they already “have some substantial issues that need to be corrected, and so we don't have them yet” out at sea.
Lyle Goldstein, who studies both Russian and Chinese militaries, said there are widespread issues confronting the U.S. Navy right now and the grounding of Big Horn “certainly illustrates this.”
He said there are similar issues with stretched oilers operating under the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which includes the 3rd and 7th Fleets, for a total of 200 ships, 1,500 aircraft, and 150,000 military and civilian personnel. “I have documents illustrating that Chinese strategists repeatedly identify weaknesses in the U.S. Navy logistics system stretching across the Asia-Pacific, particularly with respect to oilers,” he told RS.
Like other strategists he believes that the current capacity no longer matches the ambitions of the U.S. to be everywhere, all the time, and to engage in aggressive posturing in places like the Pacific while literally fighting a military upstart (Houthis) in the Middle East. American ships, along with the UK Royal Navy, have been intercepting and engaging Houthi attacks for almost a year. Critics say the kinetic mission is expensive and futile, and ultimately not in U.S. strategic interests.
On the Middle East, Goldstein said, “to me it is quite a dicey situation and may imply the need for a rethink of strategy across the board, including Naval strategy where clearly the force is over-taxed and there needs to be a readjustment and retrenchment. People should realize that we don’t need the largest Navy on Earth, but we need a competent Navy. And we will only have a more competent Navy if we rein in our objectives, train our crews closer to home, prioritize our people, and re-focus on warfighting competencies versus parading around to demonstrate 'presence."
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.