Navid09
Registered Member
if Hezbollah's role is to act as a deterrent against Israeli bombing of Iran, did it succeed in that role? after decades of investment, it proved to be ineffective against Israel, and in fact required Iranian help to save it.
so, not a great investment. should we continue on this path again?
I do not suggest we abandon Hezbollah. they are our brothers. but we should be smarter about the costs we incur.
thankfully Israel's government is so retarded that the more they bomb Syria the more they make the 'rebels' realise Israel is their enemy and the more inclined they will be to work with iran.
we know back channel communications exist already.
Yes exactly what I was thinking about them in regards to bombing Syria. But maybe they want to provoke the rebels so they have the excuse to occupy more land?
In terms of Hezbollah, imagine iran never supported it from the start and if it was very weak like hamas, then all these years Israel/USA may have actually been even more aggressive towards Iran and bombed Iran's facilities in the earlier years (before Iran had better missiles) as they woudnt have feared a response from Hezbollah.
So Hezbollah may have saved Iran from strikes on its territory for the past few decades when Iran didn't have proper capability to strike Israel.
But now that Iran has better capabilities and other deterrences, the importance of Hezbollah somewhat drops.
So one could argue up until now they have been a good stop gap investment at roughly $700 million a year, around a few percent of the countries defence budget.








