A Third Lebanon War? (and exploding pagers)
Dear Mr Smith,
I write this letter to you with some anxiety as it appears there may be a ‘third Lebanon war’ sometime soon. Hopefully, this does not happen, but it is highly possible. I want to highlight a few details about the recent attacks, the motives, the outcome, and where I think Israel is heading in the Middle East.
THE PAGER INCIDENT
Over the past few days, several attacks have taken place throughout Lebanon, particularly in Beirut. Initially, roughly 3000 people were injured and 26 were killed - including a 12-year-old boy and 8-year-old girl - by exploding pagers. The following day, reports circulated that mobile phones had also exploded, although it was unclear when or how. Then, later in the day, several ICOM-branded two-way radios began to explode, being caught on camera injuring and potentially killing several at a funeral in Lebanon. This has all been established by the media, however, I would like to highlight some other details about the event that are not being widely reported.
The first pressing question is about the origin of these pager devices. The official claim is that 5000 of these devices were purchased by Hezbollah to upgrade their older pagers. These archaic devices were still very useful, as they provided a method of communication that could not easily be intercepted by Israeli intelligence.
The shipment of these 5000 devices came from Taiwan and shipped about 5 months ago. During this time, the mainstream claim is that Israel intercepted the devices along the way, and manually deconstructed and then reconstructed the devices, planting 12 grams of nitro-glycerine within each one near the battery, and some sort of ‘backdoor’ that could allow for transmission or reception of signals sent by Israel. This would allow Israeli operatives to send a ‘detonation signal’ to the devices, which would cause them to overheat, setting off the small explosive within it. This mainstream report does seem to be the simplest explanation, although there is another.
After the initial attacks, the Taiwanese company in question - Gold Apollo Co Ltd - released a statement claiming that they do not manufacture the pagers but did have a licensing agreement with a Hungarian company that had permission to use their brand. This is common practice. Thus, supposedly this Hungarian company was responsible for the manufacturing of these devices.
This other company was BAC Consulting KFT based in Budapest, Hungary. Interestingly, when the media attempted to find the manufacturing plant for these devices, they found nothing. In fact, there was not even a headquarters for the company. The only proof of the company's legitimacy was a street address, which leads only to a graffitied-over building. A piece of paper was stuck to the door with the names of BAC and 13 other companies all supposedly operating from the same address, although according to reporters who attempted to visit the location the block was abandoned.
BAC was first incorporated in 2022 and has a single shareholder. According to several media reports, background checks reveal that BAC has no registered connections or shipments to other companies or firms. Records indicate the company made over $700,000 in 2022, and $500,000 in 2023 - a lot for a rather small company with no known database. The only log of information was to be found on the company website (which is now inaccessible) and the company’s LinkedIn, which stated that BAC had worked with the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the European Commission, alongside a further six organisations. The BBC attempted to reach out to both and received comments from the UK’s Foreign Office (who is responsible for DFID) who said they would investigate but did not have any involvement with BAC.
The only name associated with the company was Cristiana Barsony-Arcidiacono. NBC claimed to have managed to reach her, during which time she claimed “I don’t make the pagers, I am just the intermediate. I think you got it wrong”. This was quickly followed up by a comment from a Hungarian government spokesman - Zoltan Kovacs - who said that the pagers were never in Hungary, and claimed that the government had confirmed that BAC was simply a trading intermediary, with no manufacturing ability in Hungary. These two odd statements don’t add up; who was BAC an intermediary for, why did they fabricate business connections, and why did they shut down their websites immediately after the attack? This all points to some sort of control network at play.
The follow-up to this was - as I said earlier - a second attack. This time the devices were reported to have been ICOM-manufactured walkie-talkies - the IC-V82. The media reached out to ICOM, and their response was strange. They claimed that this model of radio had not been produced for over a decade and that the batteries needed to power the devices are not even available anymore. They also could not confirm that they ever even shipped these products to Lebanon. Again, this suggests an alternate source which was controlled by intelligence operatives.
INTELLIGENCE INVOLVEMENT
After this occurred, many assumed these shipments of devices had been intercepted, and along the way, Israeli operatives had planted explosives within the devices. This mainstream theory: that Israeli operatives intercepted these pagers on their way to Lebanon, and at some point manually deconstructed them to insert explosives and some sort of back door, does seem reasonable, but leaves a number of other events unaccounted for.
We could assume that a shell company was involved from the start, part of a more advanced operation, but nothing that US, Russian, and Chinese operatives haven’t done in the past. Presumably, Israeli operatives would have similar capacities. In this case, a shell company is used to manufacture consumer goods with backdoors already baked in, along with small explosive charges. It is fair to assume that Israeli intelligence has infiltrated Hezbollah to some extent (maybe to a significant extent), and could orchestrate the purchase of these pagers, walkie-talkies, and other devices which are now blowing up all over Lebanon.
The New York Times has - as of writing this - have taken the latter view. They believe that BAC was one of three front companies for manufacturing these weapons, run by Israel. This is roughly my consensus as well for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the fact that BAC had falsified information on clients, had shut down its website and was clearly not an operating company with a public face, points to it being a shell for nefarious purposes. Secondly, another event that took place in Beirut suggests a deeper connection.
On August 29th - several weeks before the attack - American students at the American University Medical Center in Beirut were sent emails announcing that they would be given new pagers. The old pagers were - supposedly - the same models used by Hezbollah. Whether or not they were part of the initial 5,000-pager shipment is questionable. This could be a coincidence, but maybe not. If it is not, then this means that not only was the attack pre-planned (unlike what the supposed narrative is saying) but it also suggests that all such pagers - not just those in the initial shipment - were armed to detonate once the signal had been sent out. This suggests deeper involvement with either the Hungarian company BAC or the company they were the intermediary for.
Again, it seems that the only way this could have been achieved with such precision is if Israeli intelligence had people inside Hezbollah who dictated what devices were to be purchased, and that all such pagers and walkie-talkies were embedded with explosives before being sent off – making any one of them a weapon at the discretion of the operatives.
But this still leaves questions; why was such an attack even necessary to begin with? Many are claiming that this was some sort of genius strategic move to weaken Hezbollah, which is questionable. It is logistically impressive what Israel has done, but from a strategic standpoint, such an attack has not weakened Hezbollah. It does, however, provoke a response, and that is probably the prime motivation.
GEOPOLITICAL REASONING
As of late, the ‘official’ narrative is that Israel feared Hezbollah was about to discover the explosives in the devices, and as such was forced to detonate them in a last-ditch effort to maximise effect. This is somewhat plausible, but how Israeli operatives discerned this is hard to say, so perhaps there was another reason.
But the main interest I have in this is the geopolitical reasoning for this event. The day before the initial attack, the US had warned Israel not to take further action in the north. Why? Because the US knows that Israel cannot fight a land war alone against Lebanese forces. They have tried this before and it was costly. A full-scale military incursion into southern Lebanon would see high casualties, and this isn’t even to mention any direct moves against Iran. The US knows that in either case, there is sufficient lobbying power in Washington to pull America into the middle eastern conflict. In other words, the US knows that if Israel escalates then Washington will be obliged to step in directly, possibly leading to a kinetic war with Iran or Hezbollah.
If this seems far-fetched, look at the recent rhetoric of the ruling Likud Party. They have taken out the one Hamas strongman seeking negotiations and peace. Netanyahu has said to his troops the next objective is ‘in the north’. More importantly, Netanyahu is now threatening to fire Defence Minister Yoav Gallant (again). Why? Because Gallant is more closely aligned with the US and is against Netanyahu pushing for a war in Lebanon.
All of this is being reported by Israeli media, yet Western media is silent on it. In the same manner, Israeli media is increasingly sceptical of Netanyahu’s government, the exaggerations about Oct 7 that justified the war, and now the plans for an expanded ‘greater Israel’. But again, media in the West is largely silent on this, either blindly supporting these offensives, or focusing on some liberal third-wordlist Gaza narrative.
This media complicity is roughly what we saw before the Iraq War. The difference is that this will be possibly larger than the Iraq War, and America today is not the America of 2003. It can no longer fight with such a failing economy and hope to emerge victorious in a real sense. This will be America’s ‘Soviet-Afghan War’, it will bankrupt the nation and the America we know will end.
WAR PLANS IN LEBANON
As of writing this, on September 19th Israel began a series of operations in southern Lebanon. This initially included probing by Apache helicopters into the territory, followed by several waves of airstrikes, supposedly an unprecedented amount since the 2006 war. The targets were primarily older Hezbollah launch pads, along with targets believed to be saturated with Hezbollah forces. It seems to be a mix of precision and suppression. Unlike what many are saying, if these reports are true then this is not very worrying; I don’t think striking offensive weapons in Lebanon is particularly ‘provoking’ for Hezbollah.
However, three other events occurred the other day. Firstly, an Israeli was arrested under suspicion of trying to reach Netanyahu, Gallant, or Shin Bet operatives with the intention of harming them, supposedly at the behest of Iran. This could be a false flag, but the intention seems to be to convince Gallant to stop resisting and allow an incursion into the north. Gallant did meet with Lloyd Austin shortly after this, so perhaps it worked. Secondly, IDF mechanised armour has been streaming to the northern border. Thirdly, the government has announced a media blackout for Israelis living in the north; no filming, photos, sharing on social media, and so on.
In addition to this, the Lebanese foreign minister used somewhat radical rhetoric, saying that after the device attacks, it was wrong to think that Hezbollah should ‘calm down’. Is this a Lebanese official endorsement of Hezbollah’s actions? I don’t think so, but I do think it is their way of saying what I have; that these are provocative actions made to compel a response.
THE FUTURE OF THE MIDDLE EAST
A lot of people talk about ‘Greater Israel’ and the religious significance it holds to certain fanatics in Israel, but few talk about why such a proposal would be attractive to those beyond the religious radicals. Modern Judaism is in some ways an ethno-religion, and this means that secular and faithful adherence alike must back each other up. Usually, this means supporting one another, and this is what the Likud party seems to be attempting to compel within the Israeli leadership; complete subservience to the war narrative.
The religious zealots - I would say - are the ones who dictate the direction Judaism spiritually heads in Israel. This makes sense, given that the secularists have no consistent worldview beyond backing up their ethnic group, while those with faith have powerful religious and ‘prophetic’ incentives to make change. Thus, while ‘Greater Israel’ may primarily be driven by religious beliefs about re-establishing the Israelite kingdom and a fervent desire to restart the temple system, it is attractive to those without faith as well, since it promises to expand Israel from a second-rate country to a world power. This is important in converting politicians in Israel into backing further Likud Party endeavours in the north.
This is completely possible. If Israel becomes the uncontested dominant power in the Middle East, they will hold the key to many oil reserves, they will get to dictate or compel the policies of neighbouring powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia, further affecting the flow of natural resources. They will be at the ‘centre of the world’, located at the intersection between Europe, Africa, and East Asia. The rapid expected growth in Africa as a manufacturing hub will make places like Nigeria akin to 1980s China, and China will lead in ways that the US once did.
This may sound attractive to some Israelis, but this vision casting has preconditions that will ruin the US and much of the West. Israeli lobbyists have a hold on foreign and domestic policy in the US, and on institutions. There are conflicting interests. This is evident even with the so-called conservatives. Many see America as expendable, and if all else fails, they will simply pack up and move to Israel.
The US is not respected. This is evidenced in the recent attack immediately following US warnings not to escalate. A regional conflict will pull in the US, and this will be the war to bankrupt America if it happens. It will cost us everything in the West, and those who abuse this system will have no regrets.
WAR GOALS
Finally, what are the goals here? Hezbollah and Iran both represent major threats to Israel’s regional hegemony, even though Iranian politicians are becoming increasingly open to peace negotiations.
Israel knows that it cannot engage in a war with Iran directly, even though the two may be equally balanced in terms of power. Hezbollah creates a stalemate in the region. If Israel ever strikes Iran, and the order is given to retaliate, then Israel will be struck in turn by Hezbollah. Unlike Hamas, the Hezbollah militants have larger and more advanced missile systems, and enough that they can overwhelm the Iron Dome system.
But even Hezbollah would be perhaps impossible to neutralise. Israel has already tried several times to neutralise insurgents in southern Lebanon; in the 80s, in 2006, and in smaller strikes in-between. These have been costly campaigns, and a full-scale conflict would likely end the same, with mass civilian casualties and so forth.
So again, this is where America would step in. The US already shares satellite information with Israel, but the US themselves have more advanced intelligence-gathering abilities and better capabilities with precision strikes. Therefore, it is conceivable that the US may even be forced into the conflict during a Lebanon phase of the war, before any direct conflict with Iran.
CONCLUSION
These pager and walkie-talkie attacks are most likely an attempt to compel a response from Hezbollah or Iran, to justify a full-scale war. In my view, this is by design; it compels the US to join in on the conflict (which is necessary for Israel to emerge victorious). This victory will ‘secure the realm’ for Israel (as the infamous ‘Clean Break’ report put it) and establish them as a supreme power in the region, with an even greater international sway. Such a scenario would cost America everything.
Even the US (or rather Western) position today is absurd; we cannot negotiate seriously with Iran, China, and so on. If America even dared to get into serious political talks with Iran (which some Iranians are now open to, as of the past few months) then I bet that this would set off alarm bells amongst the intelligentsia and Israeli lobbyists in Washington.
Meanwhile, Israel is friends with just about everyone; they want to normalise relations with Russia, China, India, and so forth. They may be on board with future Belt & Road Initiative plans in the region but are also on board with its ‘competitor’ IMEC. I foresee them being able to negotiate or mediate a compromise between the two, creating a unipolar trade corridor through the Middle East, which would give them extreme leverage in the world of trade, and essentially make them the mediator in inter-continental geopolitics (since they would sit in the middle).
Maybe that all sounds a bit off-topic, but it is relevant. Why do I care? Firstly, because it sounds like some end-times level system, which would bring ‘unity’ and ‘unipolarity’ across the globe under the direction of Israel, but of course, there would be the inevitable catch; be it control of policy, tyrannically government control, or something else. The Revelation prophecy is real, and this seems to be something that could - if it plays out - set the stage for the Biblical ‘end times’.
But secondly - and more pressingly - it will come at the cost of the West. A war in the Middle East will come at the cost of Western soldiers, western money, and Western sovereignty. The money has already dictated the moves of many within Washington for a long time, and when the time comes they will be obliged to cooperate.
The natural remedy to this conflict in the Middle East is obvious; the US needs to force diplomatic solutions with Hezbollah and Iran. The pretext to this is that the US needs to show its strength over Israel; limit weapons, limit support, and force a level of respect when the US says, ‘do not escalate’. Israel cannot go on these provocative strikes without assurance of US support, and only because of interest groups is the US compelled to continually go along with this. Peace is achievable in the Middle East as it currently stands, but the issue is that internal weaknesses and compromise have compelled the US to bend the knee to interest groups, and only by breaking free of this and having an actual level of sovereignty can change come about.
Sincerely yours
O’Brien
Source: Escaping Mass Psychosis
Comments
Post a Comment