No surprise

The Jerusalem Post has reported that the guided missile which struck an Israeli ship was fired with the assistance of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

As of Saturday night, one body had been recovered and identified and three were still missing after elite Iranian troops assisted Hizbullah in firing a radar-guided missile at the INS Hanit (Spear) stationed off the Lebanese coast on Friday. The C-802 missile struck the ship, part of a larger Israeli naval force laying siege to Lebanon, causing severe damage.
....
The C-802 missiles, a senior Military Intelligence officer said Saturday, were made in China but upgraded by Iran, which had made improvements to the radar-guided system and delivered it to Hizbullah. Senior naval officers admitted Saturday night that they were taken completely by surprise by the missile attack, claiming that they did not know that Hizbullah possessed such advanced capabilities. The missile has a 100-kilometer range.
....
Senior IDF intelligence officials said that Iran had approximately 100 soldiers in Lebanon and that they were assisting Hizbullah in its attacks on Israel.

It should not come as a surprise that Iran is involved on the ground in Lebanon. In this post, I laid out signs that Iran has been planning this. And as such, we should expect Iran to be involved because Iran started this.

An interesting note. Ari Larijani, who is Iran's top national security offical, and their nuclear negotiator, flew to Damascus earlier this week. Debka says it is part of the Iran-Syria defense pact. Perhaps. But it is interesting to note the Larijani was also a commander in the Revolutionary Guards, and I believe was once acting head.

Soon after he arrives in Damascus, the Revolutionary Guard is firing an Iranian missile at an Israeli ship. Are the two related? Is Larijani in Damascus to provide command support?

One question I've had is how far Iran is willing to go now that this is started. It seems unlikely that Iran could go to such length to provoke this, and then step back.

The news that Iran is firing at Israeli suggests this is only the beginning of something that could grow. However, I said this in a comment over at SWT:

Iran might be making the mistake Saddam did, in that he went into Kuwait without nuclear weapons. Iran may have played its hand too early, and might end up costing them their nuclear program, if not their regime.

Both sides must calculate how far are they willing to go. Israel must gauge how far to go into Lebanon, do they put in ground forces, and do they eventually hit Syria. Iran must judge their response if Israel does those things.

Iran is opening itself up for action that could cost it dearly. It may have calculated that the US is too tied down in Iraq (and too politically wounded by the feckless Democrats and media back home) to pose a serious threat to Iran.

But, World War I started in a similar vein. An act of violence in relatively minor Serbia sparked allies to act, and long-simmering tensions erupted.

There has been much violence in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon over the last 20 years or so. But it hasn't led to open warfare throughout the region.

This is different. If Iran is acting openly against Israel, Iran may be willing to risk a wider conflict.

Why? Perhaps several reasons. Iran views itself as a regional power, one that deserves respect. Iran views itself as a torchbearer for Islam, even though Islam originated with the Arabs. In the excellent book I've mentioned before, Eternal Iran, Rubin and Clawson write about how Iran believes the golden age of Islam came when Islamic dynasties and rules were following Iranian principles of government.

There is still time to pull back from this. If we see Israeli ground forces go into Lebanon in force, particularly if they head for the Bekaa Valley, you'll know we are in for a serious fight. If Iran feels it has no choice but to meet such a development with more force, there is a chance Syria and will become a target. If so, Iran will certain react, and that could bring the US in.

Frankly, the US is reaping the consequences of not dealing with Syria and Iran two years ago. It's been known for a long time that Syria was allowing insurgents into Iraq, and it's been well know that Iran has been working against US interests in Iraq. And yet, we did nothing to, shall we say, strongly discourage such actions.

Others who are far smarter than I have said it many times before. This trouble in the Middle East will not truly come to an end until the regimes in Syria and Iran are removed. (One might also toss Saudi Arabia into the mix.)

Iran may have unwittingly kicked the world down a path that will lead to just that.