It isn’t pretty.

Watching as the Israelis systematically denude Hizballah of its capability to harm the Jewish state is both a painful and sorrowful experience. We feel for the Lebanese civilians caught between the terrorists and Israeli warplanes. We sympathize with the Lebanese government who, like their counterparts in Iraq, have found it impossible so far to disarm the angry men with guns in their midst.

It’s no accident that those angry men with guns in both countries have the same patrone: The Iranian mullacracy. And while it is doubtful that Iran specifically ordered the aggression against Israel that has precipitated this latest round of Middle Eastern violence, everyone agrees with the notion that the mullahs are supporting it. President Ahmadinejad has made at least that much clear. They will take action against Israel if the IDF goes too far:

“We hope the Zionist regime does not make the mistake of attacking Syria, because extending the front would definitely make the Zionist regime face unimaginable losses,” foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

“Iran is standing by the Syrian people,” he said of the Islamic republic’s sole regional ally.

Civilians in Lebanon are suffering not only from being bombed thanks to their proximity to Hizballah targets but also because the Israelis insist on “putting pressure” on the struggling government to rein in the terrorists by bombing Lebanese infrastructure and even the army. This is an extraordinarily risky strategy. Putting pressure on an already weak and fragile government may cause it to collapse if taken to an extreme. But the Israelis have evidently decided that they must change the situation on their northern border completely:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

It should be interesting to watch how Olmert changes how he “relates” to Syria who also sits on his northern border and who also supports Hizballah. Bashir Assad, reportedly already in trouble with some of his military and political elites for being kicked out of Lebanon, could find himself being measured for concrete galoshes if his fellow gangsters feel that they have absorbed a couple too many well aimed blows by the IDF. This is what is apparently staying Olmerts hand – for the present. The prospect of who would follow in his footsteps if Assad should fall has policy makers in both Israel and America lying awake at night. The prospect of someone smarter, tougher, more experienced, and bolder makes that nightmare scenario too horrible to contemplate for some.

The call by Arab countries for Hizballah to stop its “adventurism” was certainly a welcome addition to the dialogue. Now if we can only get them to be as united on helping Iraq with their difficulties, they may gain a measure of respect from the west. And how about helping the United States in their confrontation with the mullahs in Iran? Just think if a united Middle East could confront the bully boys in Tehran over their aspirations to dominate the region not to mention their nuclear program, the Iranians would be in a much weaker position. This could affect the negotiations over their drive for atomic weapons, although I’m doubting it. But when push comes to shove with the Ayatollahs, it would help immensely if the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians could be as united as they are now against Hizballah.

The way out of the present morass is clear; move Hizballah so far away from the border that their rockets would be useless. The Israelis have now set more reasonable conditions to stop their offensive:

Israel would agree to a cease-fire in its six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah if the Lebanese guerrillas withdraw from the border area with Israel and release two captured Israeli soldiers, a senior official said Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had conveyed Israel’s position to Italy’s prime minister, who is trying to broker a cease-fire deal.

Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities.

Some kind of UN force on the border would give Prime Minister Siniora of Lebanon the cover he needs to move the Lebanese army into areas once occupied by Hizballah. It is doubtful the terrorists would give up those positions without a fight – unless they were blocked from doing so by UN troops. All depends on how badly Hizballah wants to start another Lebanese civil war. The people – all sects and factions – would be dead set against it. But the prospect of Hizballah fighting the Lebanese army for control of the south could cause the disintegration of the armed forces leaving Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizballah leader, in the drivers seat. This would be a catastrophe, of course, and would probably lead to another Israeli intervention in Lebanon. I’ll be Olmert loses sleep over that scenario.

In the meantime, the Jewish state keeps up the attack. Another couple of days and Nasrallah will have to either ask openly for Iranian/Syrian support or give in and accept a reduced role in the south as well as the probable disarming of his supporters. At the very least, he will lose his missiles. And Israel will be sure not to give him too much to crow about.

The Israelis are breaking a lot of eggs right now. We can only hope whatever emerges is appetizing enough for all parties to stop the violence.