Right Wing Nut House

On the surface, it looks like an important breakthrough in the diplomatic dance going on to stop the war between the Israelis and Hizbullah. The terrorists have apparently agreed to disarm and allow an international force into southern Lebanon:

Hezbollah politicians, while expressing reservations, have joined their critics in the government in agreeing to a peace package that includes strengthening an international force in south Lebanon and disarming the guerrillas, the government said.

The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces.

Ah yes! Those all important “reservations.”

Hezbollah signed on to the joint proposal “in principle” on the understanding that more discussions will be held between it and other political factions after the U.N. Security Council decides on the composition and mandate of an international force on the border, according to Hezbollah and government officials. The radical Shiite Muslim movement would maintain its heavily armed militia in the south during the talks.

[snip]

After a prisoner exchange, “we will discuss between us Lebanese how to proceed toward a reinforced international presence along the border,” Hamadeh said. He acknowledged that disarming Hezbollah would have to be part of the discussion, saying: “We would discuss that as part of the system of national defense, but between us Lebanese.”

The proposal also demands a Security Council commitment to place the disputed Shebaa Farms area under U.N. supervision until Syria, Israel and Lebanon can work out a settlement on whose territory it should be. Ghaleb Abu-Zeinab of Hezbollah’s political bureau said this was key because the tiny pocket of orchards — where the Israeli and Lebanese borders meet the occupied Golan Heights — is the militia’s only territorial dispute with Israel.

With that issue settled, he suggested, Hezbollah could consider some form of disarmament and cooperation with the Lebanese army and international peacekeepers.

To sum up, Hizbullah will “discuss” the issue of disarming if:

1. Israel agrees to an immediate cease fire.

2. Israel agrees to a prisoner exchange involving terrorists who have murdered Israeli citizens including cold blooded killer Samir Qantar.

3, The UN internationalizes the Shebaa Farms and then hands the disputed territory to Lebanon.

4. The Lebanese government discusses “reinforcing the international presence” (UNIFIL) in the south while allowing Hizbullah back into positions they have abandoned during the war.

5. Pigs can fly.

Watch now as diplomats the world over praise Hizbullah’s “flexibility” when in reality, the terrorists want to return to a status quo ante-bellum; everything exactly as it was before the war with the bonus of the disputed Shebaa Farms falling into Hizbullah’s hands like a ripe plum. They will still have their guns going into “negotiations” with the Lebanese government to disarm - presumably the same negotiations that have been going on for more than a year. The big difference being that Nasty Nasrallah and his thugs will have garnered enormous prestige as a result of their standing toe to toe with Israel on the battlefield and besting them at the conference table.

Also, recall that Hizbullah has yet to abide by UN Resolution 1559 which called for their forces to pull back from the southern border as well as disarming. Why in God’s name should anyone with half a brain trust these brutes to abide by any agreement put into place following their latest aggression against Israel?

I disagree with Ed Morrissey’s take on this:

First, Hassan Nasrallah has retreated to the shelter of his patrons, first in Damascus and then rumored to be hiding in the Iranian embassy. Second, his admission of setbacks to his troops indicate that he was already in some serious trouble with his fellow terrorists. This new offer makes it appear that a leadership change has occurred in Hezbollah — and Nasrallah may wind up fleeing Lebanon altogether.

I don’t think that Nasrallah’s popularity depends very much on any gains or losses by the military wing of Hizbullah. The fact that they have stood up in open combat with the Israelis is, pathetically speaking, enough to make him a hero on the Arab street and raise his prestige even further amongst the Lebanese Shia population. And the Lebanese government, caught between an ascendant Hizbullah and the punishing attacks by the Israelis, have pretty much been forced to give Nasrallah a veto over any peace proposals anyway.

As Ed rightly points out, it is unlikely that the Israelis will accept the cease fire proposal anyway which means that Nasrallah has lost nothing domestically and gained enormously on the international stage as he will now be touted as something of a statesman. And in the end, unless something unforeseen occurs, Hizbullah will still have its guns, still be the most organized and effective fighting force in Lebanon, and still hold the upper hand over the government in any peace negotiations with Israel or the international community.

Well, it’s a start anyway.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have bowed to international pressure and called for a mutual cease fire between Israel and Hizbullah. I’m sure if both men had their druthers, they would have continued commiserating on the sidelines with the suffering of Lebanese civilians all the while urging the Israelis to move faster in their campaign to systematically take the terrorists apart. But the time has arrived where the law of diminishing returns for this strategy has been reached and at least the appearance of peace overtures be given.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced agreement today to seek a United Nations resolution next week that would send a multinational force to southern Lebanon and end hostilities between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Blair at the White House, Bush said he is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice back to the Middle East from a conference in Malaysia to try to obtain agreement from the governments of Lebanon and Israel on the U.S.-British plan.

Blair, appearing with Bush at the news conference, said a meeting at the United Nations is being moved forward to Monday to work on the “international stabilization force” for southern Lebanon.

Bush and Blair said their plan, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with a 2004 U.N. Security Council resolution, will ensure a durable peace, rather than a temporary cease-fire.

And the way the two men have carefully crafted their appeal, they are still giving Israel some time to further the destruction of Hizbullah - although it is apparent that there is also a clock at work now that will tick down to a point where Israel must stop.

Bush said the United States and Britain seek a new Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with threats to international peace and provides for the use of military force under U.N. auspices. He said the resolution would set out “a clear framework for cessation of hostilities on an urgent basis” and would mandate the multinational force.

He declined to specify which countries should be included in the multinational force or who should lead it, saying these issues would be addressed at the meeting Monday. Bush also would not say whether Hezbollah’s agreement to accept the force should be a “precondition” for deploying it. But he noted that “Hezbollah is not a state,” and he said the key is to get the governments of Lebanon and Israel to agree to the force, which he said would “serve as a complement” to the Lebanese army and would “help the Lebanese army succeed.”

Bush said the approach he and Blair agreed upon would make possible “the end of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, the return of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the terrorists, the suspension of Israel’s operations in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.”

All of this will take time to organize - especially the multinational force. My own estimate, based on Israel’s timetable for destroying Hizbullah, is 3-4 weeks. I can’t believe the President would have agreed to this move unless it allowed Israel the freedom to carry out their military plans to their completion.

And then there will be the insoluble problem of what countries will send troops that will make up the MNF. Unless Hizbullah agrees to give up its guns peaceably, the MNF will be engaged in combat and suffer casualties. There are only a handful of nations that would be willing to send its troops into harms way under an international command structure where the rules of engagement are bound to be extraordinarily restrictive.

No numbers were mentioned at the press conference for the MNF but if Hizbullah has at least 20,000 fighters, one would think that any UN force would have to at least be double that number in order to carry out the additional mandates planned under the cease fire proposal:

Bush said the top priorities of the U.S.-British plan for Lebanon are “providing immediate humanitarian relief, achieving an end to the violence, ensuring the return of displaced persons and assisting with reconstruction.” He added, “Our goal is to achieve a lasting peace, which requires that a free, democratic and independent Lebanese government be empowered to exercise full authority over its territory. We want a Lebanon free of militias and foreign interference, and a Lebanon that governs its own destiny” as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

“We agree that a multinational force must be dispatched to Lebanon quickly to augment a Lebanese army as it moves to the south of that country,” Bush said. He said the multinational force would “help speed delivery of humanitarian relief, facilitate the return of displaced persons, and support the Lebanese government as it asserts full sovereignty over its territory and guards its borders.”

That’s a heavy load for a group that will be expected to “augment” the Lebanese army. In reality, it will be the MNF that will do most of the heavy lifting in any combat situation with Hizbullah. The Lebanese army could not be counted on to fight the terrorists given their questionable loyalties as well as fitness for combat.

The real question is will Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora be able to get Hizbullah to accept any deal that involves their disarmament. Conventional wisdom says no, that Siniora is not in charge anyway. If that is the case, there is little any international force can do to make them give up their guns and the MNF would be operating in a combat zone.

Then there is the question if there would be any international force at all if Hizbullah refuses to disarm. If that happens, Israel would have little choice but to occupy their buffer zone in Lebanon and endure years of guerrilla attacks at the hands of Hizbullah terrorists. There just isn’t the international will to take on Hizbullah except in the United States and perhaps Great Britain. And it is doubtful that either of those two countries would contribute the numbers of men to an MNF that would make the force viable.

The key here is that Hizbullah would have to agree to give up there guns before there is a cease fire. I expect the UN to water down that part of the proposal since Hizbullah will not agree in advance to such a deal. This means that the US will probably be placed in a position of having to pressure Israel to accept a cease fire without that very important goal being reached. Will Olmert go along? He will probably have little choice.

The MNF won’t be there forever. And once they leave, a fully armed Hizbullah will be free to move back into the positions they had to abandon. So in the end, everyone will ask, “What was it we were fighting about?”

There is a growing realization that the Israeli-Islamist War now well into its second week will not alter the basic realities in the Middle East that led to the conflict in the first place.

After the guns fall silent in Gaza and Lebanon, Hamas will still be leading the Palestinian Authority and far from being chastised, may in fact become more radicalized. President Abbas, trying desperately to broker a cease fire, is finding that his authority does not extend throughout the territories as several armed groups seem hell bent on continuing the fight with Israel:

The Egyptian-initiated plan consists of freeing abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and the cessation of IDF assassinations in the Gaza Strip. The release of Palestinian prisoners would be part of the deal, but come at a later stage.

It is not clear, however, whether the Hamas political leader in Damascus, Khaled Meshal, would agree to such a deal.

Representatives of several military factions in Gaza denied Saturday reports of a unilateral cease-fire. Palestinian sources stated that they are only willing to accept a joint truce that would include an end to Qassam fire in return for a halt in IDF actions in Gaza.

While continued resistance will result in a further weakening of Hamas in its ability to inflict damage on the Jewish state, the fact is that any respite Israel achieves in its war with the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas will be relatively brief. The Palestinian people have shown no desire to kick Hamas out of power and given time, the terrorists will have the opportunity to regroup and rearm until they once again, pose a grave threat to the security of the Israeli people.

But the Israelis never expected to do anything to Hamas except degrade their ability to harm civilians. Did they expect anything different when going to war against Hizbullah?

Clearly, the Israelis realized that by not only attacking Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut where much of Hizbullah’s infrastructure is located but also by destroying much of the tiny nation’s infrastructure that they would be scrambling Lebanese politics in hopes of getting a political solution to the problem of disarming the terrorists. Under United Nations Resolution 1559, Hizbullah was to be disarmed and the Lebanese government was to reestablish sovereignty over all of Lebanon, including the south where Hizbullah had established a state within a state.

The Israelis believed that by making the war extremely painful for other Lebanese factions - Christian, Druze, Sunnis - that the Lebanese government and their majority of anti-Syrian reform minded politicians would finally take the bull by the horns and take the initiative in disarming the terrorists while sending the Lebanese army to occupy positions in the south formerly held by Hizbullah.

But while little is clear at this point (Lebanese politics being an obtuse study to say the least) the chances of the Lebanese government attempting to disarm Hizbullah after the war appear to be somewhere between slim and none. As I pointed out yesterday, the war has placed Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah in a clearly ascendant position in government - so much so that the terrorists have maneuvered successfully to co-opt the government on everything save negotiating prisoner exchanges. The reason for this is simple; the Lebanese government is just too weak to stand against a determined armed group whose power and popularity grows daily. In fact, Prime Minister Siniora has said that if Israel invades southern Lebanon, he will send the army to fight side by side with Hizbullah, thus further legitimizing Hizbullah “resistance.”

If the Lebanese government will be unable or unwilling to disarm Hizbullah, will the Israelis be able to do it for them? Not hardly. While the IDF will be able to weaken their striking power by substantially reducing the number of rockets and missiles in Hizbullah’s possession as well as making it much more difficult for the terrorists to hit civilian targets by creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon that would put most of the remaining missiles out of range, the major problem for both Israel and the Lebanese government will remain; who is going to disarm Hizbullah?

For in the end, when the shooting stops and the negotiators are sitting around the table, the fact of the matter is that Hizbullah will still have several thousand armed men whose allegiance to the Lebanese government will be an open question. And believing that Nasrallah can be convinced to give up his guns is a chimera. He will fight before he disarms. His power and the political juice of Hizbullah comes not in their ideas as a political party but out of the barrel of a gun. Without arms, Hizbullah is just a minority party representing a minority faction in Lebanese politics. Those who have watched Hassan Nasrallah since the end of Syrian occupation last year realize that this is something he (and his patrons in Iran and Syria) will never settle for.

Would the United Nations force Hizbullah to give up its arms? Forget for a moment that the UN would have no desire to get into a shooting war with anybody. The sad fact is that the United Nations doesn’t have the capability to force anyone to do anything.

What if an international force was constituted to occupy southern Lebanon as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon? Could they force Hizbullah to give up their arms? On the surface, this may be a promising solution. It may, in fact, be one of the calculi used by Israel as it denudes Lebanon of its infrastructure, making them an international basket case and forcing Europe and the United States to do what the Lebanese government is incapable of doing with regards to Hizbullah’s weapons.

But it is highly unlikely that the French, the Germans, or any NATO country would shed blood in the Middle East for this or any other reason. There doesn’t seem to be the international will to fight a continuous guerrilla war with Hizbullah in order to disarm them.

So the question of who will disarm Hizbullah doesn’t have an answer. Israel can only weaken, not destroy them. And the Israelis will not repeat their occupation of southern Lebanon that cost them so dearly in the 1980’s and 19990’s. The Lebanese government can only deal with Nasrallah in a political sense not as an enemy to be destroyed. That road leads to civil war, something no sane Lebanese wants. The UN is helpless. The international community paralyzed. And the United States does not have the political will at home to fight a never ending war against Hizbullah while we are already struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan with insurgencies.

So Hizbullah will keep its guns. Some deal will be brokered that will please none of the parties. And a few years from now after both Hamas and Hizbullah have had a chance to rest, refit, and rearm, we will probably go through this entire exercise again.

I guess that’s why they call it a “cycle of violence.”

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

When Hizballah launched their unprovoked attack on the Jewish State 9 days ago from southern Lebanon, they very well may have destroyed any hope for democracy to take root in the tiny country for the foreseeable future. Responding as they felt they must, Israel may also be contributing to the hopelessness that Lebanese democrats must be feeling at this point as those who struggled over the last year at great risk to their personal safety are watching as their efforts literally go up in fire and smoke.

Fragile as Lebanon’s budding democracy was, it nevertheless was making progress over the last few months in sorting out the tangle of issues which stood in the way of genuine democratic reform. All they needed was time and perhaps some international pressure on Iran and Syria to compel Hizballah to comply with United Nations Resolution 1559 which among other things called for the disarming of all armed groups and the establishment of “sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon.”

This was easier said than done. Syria’s meddling in the Presidential election of 2004 in Lebanon led to the passage of a constitutional amendment extending President Emile Lahoud’s term of office until 2007. This and the assassination of the beloved ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on Valentines Day 2004 and the widespread belief that Syria was responsible galvanized the nation as the Lebanese people rose up almost en masse to throw off the yoke of their Syrian occupiers. As inspiring an event the “Cedar Revolution” was to the eyes of the world, the country’s leaders knew full well that that the hard part was yet to come. Kicking the Syrian secret police out of Beirut was one thing; cobbling together a coalition that could govern their fractious society was quite another.

But the effort would be made nonetheless. Led by men like Said Hariri, son of the slain leader, the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt, current Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, and ex-President Amin Gemayel, a kind of council of wise men was constituted by Parliament. Calling itself The National Dialogue, these Lebanese patriots were joined by some who may not have had Lebanon’s national interests at the forefront of their concerns. Hizballah’s “Spiritual Leader” Hassan Nasrallah led this group along with the Amal (Shia) Speaker of the House Nabi Beri and the larger than life personality of ex-President and Maronite Michel Auon. The Hizballah-Amal alliance was causing problems thanks to their dual loyalties, seeing Syria as a patron and paymaster. And Aoun stood aloof from the March 14th Forces (the Future Movement) that coalesced in the aftermath of the Hariri assassination and carried off a stunning victory at the polls last summer due to his personal ambition to replace President Lahoud.

This diverse, quarrelsome group nearly collapsed into chaos several times over the intervening months as one faction or another felt slighted or thought that their concerns were being given short shrift. In the end however, they managed to find consensus on several pressing issues including normalizing relations with Syria (contingent on the United Nations completing its investigation into the Hariri assassination) and disarming the Palestinian militias outside of the refugee camps.

These were not insignificant achievements given the circumstances of Syrian influence and the personal ambitions and agendas of some of the participants. There was even agreement that President Emile Lahoud should be replaced. But the Future Movement, fearing General Aoun’s rank sectarianism, refused to back him. And in one of the more cynical political moves in his career, Aoun then made a deal with Hizballah stipulating that Hizballah disarmament be discussed “within the framework of a national dialogue” and contingent on the liberation of the Shebaa Farms (claimed by Israel, Lebanon, and Syria) and the release of Hizballah prisoners from Israeli jails. This basically left the sticky issue of Hizballah disarmament up in the air for the foreseeable future. No possible agreement on Shebaa could be made with Syria until relations were normalized. And the problem with freeing Hizballah terrorists from Israeli jails wasn’t even addressed.

But despite the problems, the National Dialogue was proving that it had the ability to discuss the thorniest issues in Lebanese society. Could they ever have come to an agreement about Hizballah’s arms? Could they have reformed the electoral laws to make Lebanese politics more representative, more democratic? Could they have dealt with the issue regarding the thousands of Syrian collaborators during the occupation?

It appears now, we’ll never know. And the Israelis, enduring constant rocket attacks from Hizballah positions in southern Lebanon on civilians as well as the final straw of an attack on their armed forces, may have finally calculated that the Lebanese government was incapable of coming to an agreement with Nasrallah and decided to act in their own security interests and the devil take Lebanese democracy.

For make no mistake. The Israelis know exactly what they’re doing when they bomb Lebanon’s power grid, roads, bridges, water mains, gas works, and other infrastructure in the country. They are making Lebanon an international basket case, forcing the world to help them deal with Hizballah’s threat to the Jewish state. If published reports are true, the Israelis expect to establish a “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon occupied by an international force in order to keep Hizballah from re-occupying positions the IDF has driven the terrorists and their infernal rockets from.

How Lebanon’s internal political situation shakes out in the aftermath of the fighting does not apparently concern the Israelis as much as degrading Hizballahs ability to kill their citizens. While this may sound simplistic, it also makes perfect sense for a state confronted as Israel is with threats to its very existence. Security first must be their ultimate goal when the knife’s edge is held at their throats by people sworn to wipe them off the planet.

But this does Lebanon no good. Israel’s attacks have scrambled the political landscape beyond recognition as it is now unknown how Hizballah will be seen by most of the Lebanese. Will they be seen as heroic fighters against the even more hated enemy Israel? Or will enough Lebanese be angry at Nasrallah for starting the conflict that is now destroying their fragile economy and setting back the democratic process indefinitely?

One thing is clear. Hizballah will still have their guns after the dust settles. Nasrallah cannot make any peace that disarms his fighters and maintain his political position. And the international community will probably not do anything to enforce Resolution 1559 in its entirety since no one wants to get in a shooting war with Hizballah. So Israel will have its buffer. The international community will pat itself on the back for making “peace.”

And Lebanon will still be in agony.

In an emotionally charged speech to the Lebanese people last Saturday, Prime Minister Siniora begged the international community for help during this most trying of times for his country. He ended the speech tearfully saying Loubnan sa yabka, Loubnan sa yabka! (Lebanon is here to stay!)

One can only hope that the Prime Minister is talking about Lebanese democracy as well.

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.

(HT: STACLU)

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.

“A bad peace is even worse than war.”
(Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

The offensive against Hizballah is continuing with no sign from the Israelis that they plan to let up on the pressure they are applying to the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who continue to fire rockets willy nilly into northern Israel. In this, Prime Minister Olmert is apparently dead set; Hizballah will cease to be a threat to the citizens of Israel. He will break a lot of china in Lebanon in order to ensure that goal.

But time is not on his side. Air strikes in southern Beirut are killing dozens of civilians - women and children - while the IAF desperately tries to destroy as many of the 15,000 rockets stockpiled by the terrorists in houses and apartment buildings as they can before the death toll stirs the world community to action. The cowardly tactics of Hizballah, who use civilians as human shields to protect their arsenal of Iranian and Syrian bought missiles is once again being given a free pass by the world’s press. Hence, while Israel may be delivering massive blows to Hizballah, the “guerrillas” (as most are calling them) are winning the propaganda battle.

This is Olmerts big gamble. That he can dramatically weaken Hizballah militarily without strengthening them politically inside Lebanon. That he can do this quickly enough to forestall Syrian and Iranian assistance from amounting to much, thus humiliating them in the Arab world. And that by scrambling the politics of Lebanon, he can alter the security situation in the north by forcing the Lebanese government to finally establish sovereignty over their own border by moving army units to take up positions abandoned by the terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that each one of those elements could get wildly out of control. Hizballah could become the dominant political force in Lebanon. Syria and Iran would thus be strengthened enormously. And Lebanon could dissolve back into a state of civil war if Hizballah refuses to give up their sanctuaries bordering Israel.

Olmert has made it clear that the war will change the situation on his northern border permanently:

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.

Olmert, in his first public comments on the situation since Wednesday, opened Sunday’s cabinet meeting saying this is a difficult morning for Israel, and by characterizing the situation as “a wicked war by Hizbullah against the people of Israel.”

“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.”

How might the Israelis accomplish this ambitious goal?

The very first targets for the IAF in Lebanon were major bridges both north and south of Beirut. The destruction of these bridges will prevent the large scale movement of Hizballah fighters into some of the bigger cities including, it is hoped, Beirut itself. It also prevents Syria and Iran from resupplying the terrorists.

Does this presage a massive ground assault by the IDF? Not necessarily. But if Olmert and the cabinet choose that option, they have certainly set the table for it. Lebanon is locked up as tight as a drum. And not only is Hizballah prevented from taking refuge behind civilians in many population centers but their ability to concentrate forces has also been degraded significantly.

Ultimately, Israel would like to kill as many Hizballah fighters as possible. That would seem to be the only way to significantly degrade their capabilities as rockets and missiles can be replaced relatively quickly.

With Hizballah weakened, the Lebanese government, with the help of the international community, could move their forces into the border region with Israel and thus make the lives of Israelis much more secure. In a speech to the nation yesterday, Prime Minister Siniora tearfully asked the international community - specifically the UN - to help them in moving their forces south. Even with the cover of UN peacekeepers, it is unlikely that Hizballah will take such a challenge to their independent status lying down:

According to Nadim Shehadi of the London-based Chatham House think tank, the Lebanese government lead by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora “has not accepted” the abduction of Israeli soldiers as legitimate. On the other hand, Hezbollah and the Amal faction are fully supportive of the move the sparked the conflict with Israel.

[snip]

In December, 2005, the Shi’ite ministers left the cabinet over the role to be played by the International Criminal Court in the case of murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The conflict between the parties, so far successfully avoided, seems inevitable right now, Shehadi said Saturday. Lebanon would be hard pressed to function normally under such circumstances, according to the analyst.

Would conflict between Hizballah and the Lebanese army mean that the civil war that tore the country apart for 15 years be automatically reignited? No one knows the answer to that question, least of all Olmert whose gamble in this respect is his biggest. Unlike the last civil war go around, Hizballah are presently the only ones with the guns outside of the Army. Clearly, with better trained and armed men, Hizballah could run the table in Lebanon, especially if in the face of sectarian conflict, the army disintegrated as it did 30 years ago.

Such a prospect - a terrorist state with close ties to Iran and Syria on Israel’s borders - would negate any positive outcomes from the war Israel is waging against Hamas in Gaza. In short, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel and the west.

Finally, there must be a clock ticking somewhere in Olmert’s head regarding how much time he has to accomplish these ambitious goals. How patient can Washington afford to be? How long before Syria and/or Iran would feel compelled to intervene (if ever)? The Prime Minister has already warned the Israeli people to be prepared for a “difficult time that won’t end quickly.” How long? How quickly? Surely Olmert hears the clock ticking not only on his window of opportunity militarily but also with the Israeli people. Right now, they are united in their support for his actions. But how long before the carping, the criticism, and the backsliding occur? These questions must occupy Olmert’s thoughts as decisions are made about escalating the conflict in order to go after his Hizballah tormentors.

The only sure thing about this war is that it will eventually end. At that point, the Israelis will have to take a hard look at what they’ve gained and lost on the battlefield and at the conference table. Whether the use of force will improve their security situation in the short term is not in doubt. Whether it will have salutary effects in the long term is what Olmert’s gamble is all about.

I’ve taken The Weekly Standard’s Editor Bill Kristol to task before on this site. His rah-rah attitude toward foreign military adventures can be wearing, especially when the United States is preoccupied in Iraq. It’s not that Kristol doesn’t think these things through, it’s just that he appears to be quite cavalier in his attitude toward expending American power. He seems to believe it is a bottomless well.

Kristol has written an editorial at The Weekly Standard that essentially says the United States should jump into the fray in the Middle East and help Israel.

The first part of his editorial actually makes good sense:

What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West–but is India part of the West? Better to say that what’s under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.

An Islamist-Israeli conflict may or may not be more dangerous than the old Arab-Israeli conflict. Secular Arab nationalism was, after all, also capable of posing an existential threat to Israel. And the Islamist threat to liberal democracy may or may not turn out to be as dangerous as the threats posed in the last century by secular forms of irrationalism (fascism) and illiberalism (communism). But it is a new and different threat. One needs to keep this in mind when trying to draw useful lessons from our successes, and failures, in dealing with the threats of the 20th century.

Here, however, is one lesson that does seem to hold: States matter. Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran–which then became, as it has been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Indeed, Kristol has it pegged exactly. Israel is fighting for its existence not against pan-Arabism but rather against an extremist ideology that feels emboldened not out any strategic or political calculations but out of a divine sense of mission. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more dangerous.

If Kristol was only going to write about the nature of this challenge to Israeli national security, he would have been better off. It is when he tries to wed US interests entirely to the interests of the Jewish state that he loses me:

For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength–in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

International “tests” of the kind that Kristol claims Iran and Syria are giving to the United States have very little meaning. Do either of those nations believe that they can stand up to the US militarily? Of course not. And they need not test our resolve. They only need to look next door in Iraq. We have 140,000 American boys and girls proving our resolve to “stand” with the Iraqis every day and several thousand more youngsters in Afghanistan doing the same thing.

Not bombing Iran is not the same as weakness. And answering Kristol’s question about Iranian nukes is a fruitless exercise at this point. Whether or not the Iranians will give up their nuclear program peacefully is not a question that has to be resolved at this time. More importantly, Kristol’s advocacy of taking out Iranian nuclear sites right now points up the fallacy of the entire thrust of his editorial.

No Bill, this is definitely not “our” war.

This is Israel’s war. Great powers do not allow small powers to dictate when and where they expend their military might and the lives of their young men. If we must confront the Iranians, it will be at a time of our own choosing and for reasons having to do with our own national interest, not the interest of a small ally.

I wish Israel well in their efforts to protect themselves from aggression by Iran and Syria as well as their proxies. And I applaud the response of the United States government to this point. We have correctly said that this is a security matter for the Israelis and we are rightly asking them to limit civilian casualties. We have commiserated with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora while urging him to act against the terrorists who attack Israel with impunity from within his borders. The fact that much of the Lebanese government also wants to rein in Hizballah may mean that if Israel can finish the job of dismantling the terrorists fairly quickly, they may end up doing the Lebanese government a huge favor, acting where there was no political will to act on the part of Siniora’s ministers.

But dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Why now? Is it because there’s a shooting war going on between Israel and its blood enemies and Kristol thinks no one will notice if we go a-bombing in Iran?

There is no strategic advantage to bombing now compared to a year or two years from now. It’s not like the facilities are going to get up and walk away. They will still be there unless we can convince the Iranians that they will never build a nuclear weapon as long as the United States has anything to say about it. And since I actually agree with Kristol that the likelihood of that happening are about as close to zero as you can get, it very well may be that some day, Iran’s turn will come. But why it should happen now except as an adjunct to what Israel is doing?

Glen Greenwald:

It should go without saying that one can believe that Israel is within its rights to defend itself against Hezbollah without also believing that the U.S. should become involved in this extraordinarily flammable conflict. But these neoconservatives don’t recognize that distinction. As they are now expressly arguing, Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies, and this war being waged by Israel ought to become America’s war — and the sooner the better.

I believe it is obvious to most Americans, who have turned completely on the war in Iraq, that it is sheer lunacy to expand that failed war effort to now include American war on even more countries — including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran — let alone to do so as part of, and in the middle of, an Arab-Israeli war. But if there is one lesson that we ought to have learned over the past several years, it is that there is no militaristic proposal too crazed or extremist to be undertaken by this administration. And anyone who thinks that these neoconservatives now lack real influence within the Bush administration is sorely mistaken.

First, Greenwald may want to inform his readers about all those “militaristic proposals” that are “too crazed or extremist” that have been “undertaken” by the Administration. Of course there are none. Greenwald, Mr. Hyperbole, is a serial exaggerator and unless I’ve missed a war or two in the past 6 years, he can safely be dismissed in this instance as a partisan hack.

However, the rest of his point has validity. Neo-conservatives badly miscalculated in Iraq and our boys have been paying for it for three years. And now that the end of a massive US presence in Iraq is actually in sight, we should take a step back and examine what the neocons have wrought with their policies (policies that I originally supported but believe were carried out in some instances with monstrous incompetence). Iraq will be a wary partner for the foreseeable future but useless as an ally as their military might will be directed for years against both al-Qaeda in Iraq and a diminishing Sunni insurgency at home. This means they will have zero impact on our strategic plans except as a base for operations against Iran. And it’s no means certain that the Iraqis would allow us to use those bases for an attack anyway. As a military player in the Middle East, the Iraqis are a decade away.

If the neoconservatives had a track record of success, I might be more inclined to listen to Kristol, John Podhoretz, and Michael Ledeen who have all come out in the last 2 days advocating American military action in support of Israel. As it is, we should look at policy alternatives that take into account our interests first. Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of itself as they have proven time and time again. If they want or need any help, I’m sure they won’t be shy about asking for it.

You’ll get no argument from me that Israel’s punitive campaign against their Hizballah tormentors is long overdue and should continue until the terrorists are severely crippled in their ability to harm Israeli citizens.

But “Operation Just Reward” is also imperiling almost a year’s worth of hard, slogging work done by a few heroic individuals in Lebanon who have braved assassination threats (and attempts), risked their political hides, and at great personal cost, carefully tried to maneuver through the minefields of Lebanese politics in order to give this tragic country a real shot at something all of us here in America devoutly wish; a secular, free market democracy in the Middle East.

While our attention here has been rightly focused on the struggles for democracy and security in Iraq, Lebanon has been going through a wrenching process of self examination and national dialogue that at times has threatened to shatter the fragile coalition of disparate groups who came together in the wake of the assassination of the former Prime Minister, the beloved Rafiq Hariri. Much more comfortable fighting each other than planning an electoral coup, these groups representing all religions, clans, regions, and interests were able to drive millions into the streets to protest Syria’s stranglehold on their country. Their unity led to the premature withdrawal of Syrian forces and a surprising electoral victory for their coalition, the March 14 Forces, a year ago.

Things have not gone very smoothly since then. Wrestling with a bloody past, trying to get beyond a civil war that lasted nearly a quarter of a century, the factions have squabbled over ministry appointments, failed to unite in an effort to oust the Syrian stooge President Emile Lahoud, nearly dissolved over a new electoral law that would do away with much of the artificial sectarian divisions in politics, and most importantly, failed to confront Hizballah and their allies in government over a multitude of sins.

Israel’s raid into Lebanon to retrieve their captured soldiers and their call for the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who operate within their borders are making Prime Minster Fouad Siniora’s life extremely difficult. A Sunni Muslim and long time friend of the Hariri family, Siniora has guided his quarrelsome government with competence but, many critics allege, without much imagination. This may be an unfair criticism because most of the stickiest problems facing Lebanon can be traced to the divided loyalties of some of its most powerful factions.

Syria’s departure left a power vacuum that Hizballah was only too ready to step in and fill. It’s simplistic to refer to them as a terrorist group given the fact that they have become a symbol of resistance to the Israelis as well as a huge provider of government services in southern Lebanon. Their spiritual leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is one of the most popular political figures in the country, although that popularity is being sorely tested thanks to his unilateral decision to commit aggression against the Israelis. Their influence on the majority Shia population extends far beyond their rather meager representation in Parliament. And, when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, they’re one of the only ones with guns in the country. It is widely thought that they are Syria’s representatives in government which doesn’t seem to hurt them politically as much as it should.

There is also divided loyalty found in in the army as several officers have been implicated in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. President Lahoud, himself an ex-general, may even have been involved in Hariri’s killing. In this atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, the Lebanese government is almost totally helpless.

Walid Jumblatt, the canny, old Druze warlord and head of Lebanon’s Progressive Socialist Party, pointed to Hizballah’s divided loyalties as part of Lebanon’s larger dilemma:

“They don’t make independent decisions,” he said. “Lebanon is being squeezed on one side from the Israelis and on the other side by the Iranians and the Syrians through proxy. Unfortunately, now Lebanon is a battleground.”

The other part of Lebanon’s dilemma is that the government’s writ simply doesn’t run in the southern part of their own country. Asking the Lebanese government to prevent Hizballah from carrying out attacks simply isn’t feasible. The army is not powerful enough to take them on. Nor is the political will there to force them to disarm. Hence, Nasrallah has skillfully played his role as both independent operator and aligning Hizballah with the March 14 Forces by participating in the political process. And he was strengthened last February when another independent player, former Prime Minister Michel Auon, formed an alliance with Hizballah outside the national dialogue that is proceeding at a snail’s pace to reform and reshape the government. The larger than life Auon has been critical of the March 14 Forces for trying to force Hizballah to disarm. Auon also has his eyes on the Presidency and having a force like Hizballah on his side certainly doesn’t hurt his cause.

But the ultimate question has to be who controls Hizballah? Much has been made of Iranian and Syrian support for the group but some analysts see Nasrallah’s aggression against Israel as triggered by domestic politics more than foreign instruction. Nasrallah had been delaying any serious talks with the government about disarming his militia for almost a year, dangling the prospect of folding Hizballah into the armed forces in some way. He has also maneuvered in Parliament by having the legislature declare Hizballah “The Resistance” rather than identify them a a militia. But pressure had been building for Lebanon to comply with UN Resolution 1559 that calls for the disarming of all militias and the extension of control by the Lebanese government over all of Lebanon. If Nasrallah was feeling the heat, he may have initiated action against Israel to solidify Hizballah’s position.

Instead, if in fact Nasrallah took the soldiers - an operation planned for months - thinking Israel, tied down as they were in Gaza, wouldn’t seriously retaliate, he has gravely miscalculated. The Israelis are visiting ruin upon the terrorists and could weaken Nasrallah’s army to the point where the Lebanese army could move in and occupy positions in the south:

After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself.

Other government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, calling it a first move in possibly sending the Lebanese army to the border, a U.N.-endorsed proposal that Hezbollah has rejected. The officials described the meeting as stormy and contentious but said both sides — Hezbollah and its government critics — were especially wary of public divisions at a time of crisis.

“It is becoming very clear that the state alone must bear responsibility for the country’s foreign policy,” said Samir Franjieh, a parliament member who is close to the Hariri bloc. “But our problem now is that Israel is taking things so far that if there is no help from the international community, the situation could get out of hand.”

One wouldn’t expect Nasrallah to concede without a fight unless he literally had no choice. And that’s why the government, angry at the Israelis as they are, may not be too broken up at the prospect of a vastly weakened Hizballah. In effect, the Jewish state may be helping to solve their problems for them. While it won’t bring the two nations any closer, substituting the Lebanese army on the Israeli border for Hizballah will go a long way to ease tensions between them.

At the moment, no one knows whether this latest crisis will lead to a stronger central government in Lebanon or whether the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian forces will become ascendant and set back the cause of Lebanese democracy for years. Either way, Israel’s intervention in order to punish its Hizballah tormentors couldn’t have come at a worse time.

Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers! Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00AM Central time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio. Click the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar to access the stream.

We’ll be talking about the situation in the Middle East all morning and taking your calls. Join the discussion at 1-888-407-1776.

***************************************************************

The news out of the Middle East today is grim and getting more grim by the hour. Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are nerving themselves for a confrontation that could turn into a general war if things were to get out of control.

First, visit my friends Kit and Heidi at Euphoric Reality. They will have regular updates throughout the day and night. Their sources appear solid and their analysis is sharp. Also, they will be on WAR Radio tonight from 10:00 PM - 12:00AM Central with their thoughts and reactions to the days events.

And these events seem to this observer to be slowly spiraling out of control. This is not the sudden spasm of war as we experienced in 1967 and 1973. This is like a slow motion explosion, almost a steady, determined march toward the battlements by Israel and its enemies as the IDF put more and more pressure on Hamas and the Palestinians to relent and release their captured soldier. It was perhaps inevitable that Hizballah, believing the Israelis tied down in Gaza, felt it an opportune moment to pull the tail of the lion thinking that they would be relatively safe from retaliation. This morning, the terrorist group launched dozens of rockets and mortar shells into the disputed Shebaa Farms region in southern Lebanon killing several IDF soldiers. They then kidnapped two surviving IDF men which precipitated the massive raid by Israel involving planes, helicopters, gunboats, and tanks. So far, the Israelis are making Hizballah wish they had stayed in bed.

Meanwhile, the United States is pointing the finger right where it belongs; Syria and Iran. If not aware of Hizballah’s attack prior to its launch, there is little doubt that the terrorists felt they would have the support of their two major backers in case things got sticky. Given what the IDF is doing to Hizballah pretensions of being a viable military outfit, things couldn’t get much stickier for them than they are right now.

Israel is calling up reserves and sources have revealed that unless the kidnapped soldiers are returned, Israel will escalate even further:

The IAF on Wednesday began to issue call up orders in preparation for retaliatory air strikes against Hizbullah targets in Lebanon, Channel 2 reported. The air force will target power stations and Hizbullah outposts inside Lebanon.

The army was also calling up reservists. Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning’s Hizbullah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border.

A very high ranking military officer said that if the soldiers were not returned in good condition, Israel would turn Lebanon back 20 years by striking its vital infrastructure.

Clearly, the Israelis have had just about enough of Hizballah and their constant provocations and are giving the Lebanese government pretty much of an ultimatum; rein in the terrorists or suffer the consequences.

It appears that Israel may have reached a point that, surrounded as they are by peoples that wish to wipe them off the map, they feel that confronting their tormentors now rather than later is strategically advantageous to them. Hence, the IDF raid into Lebanon to retrieve the two captured soldiers (and pay a visit to Hizballah) is not only a challenge to Syria (who view themselves as Lebanon’s “protector”) but also Iran who may be eager to flex their regional muscles on behalf of their Syrian allies.

And Iran’s most powerful proxy in the region is Hizballah. It may be too much to believe that the Iranians urged Hizballah to take action in order to relieve pressure on Hamas - another Iranian proxy - in Gaza but it’s a possibility that can’t be dismissed. More likely, Hizballah’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah initiated the military action as a result of a combination of internal Lebanese politics and a belief that he could bargain for the thousands of Lebanese prisoners (many of them Hizballah terrorists) languishing in Israeli prisons.

Nasrallah has been under increasing pressure from the March 14 coalition to get on board the democracy bandwagon and disarm his militia. He has played games with the Lebanese government for months, dangling the possibility that he would fold his militia into the Lebanese armed forces all the while insisting that Hizballah be called “The Resistance” for their confronting Israel over Shebaa Farms, a small village claimed by Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. It could be that Nasrallah saw the opportunity for a quick “victory” over Israel by taking the soldiers and then exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners. If so, he has miscalculated monumentally. The Lebanese government has disowned his actions, the Israelis are shelling Hizballah positions unmercifully as I write this, and after all is said and done, the Lebanese people could blame Hizballah for the misery their actions inflict on the country.

And the Israelis aren’t letting the Lebanese government off the hook that easily. They are blaming them for the attacks. And why not? The attacks were initiated from Lebanese soil. The downside to this is that the Lebanese government may feel compelled to defend Hizballah even though they really don’t want to. This kind of thing could set back efforts to achieve Lebanese stability and democracy many months.

Iran, of course, has its own agenda. If Syria feels some kind of military demonstration is in order (and as Lebanon’s protector, Assad may feel he absolutely must do something or lose credibility in that regard), Israel may feel compelled to respond to any attack or demonstration with a strike of their own. Escalation would be virtually automatic after that happens.

This doesn’t help Baby Assad in Syria. Relatively speaking, Iran is a long way away and it is doubtful that Syria’s larger but vastly inferior armed forces could stand up to Israel long enough for Iranian intervention to make a difference. But the Iranians may have other plans which could include missile strikes on Israel’s cities.

God help us if the Iranians are stupid enough to initiate a missile exchange. Could the IDF be absolutely sure that those missiles contained conventional warheads? Would they wait to find out or would Israel go with a “launch on warning” policy where they just assume that any missile launched from Iran contains WMD?

Unthinkable.

None of the players want war (save possibly Iran). But the longer Israel remains in Lebanon, the shorter the fuse of war will burn. Let’s hope that Israel can get their captured soldiers back very soon. The alternative would be devastating to everyone involved.

UPDATE

First, Allah has a massive round-up at Hot Air, a dizzying array of links and commentary including a link to a Debka article that confirms some of my speculation - which worries me a little given their reputation for exaggeration and publishing outright rumor. For what its worth, they say that the attack by Hizballah was indeed meant to take the heat off Hamas and was approved by Iran. They also say that Syria is beating the war drums and that the Iranians also are on high alert.

Yikes.

Also, Kit and Heidi are reporting that Israel will declare war tonight.

Judging from the information contained in their updates, this looks like the real thing folks. If, as ER is reporting, Israel goes after Hizballah hammer and tongs, do not expect Syria and Iran to stand idly by while their number one proxy in the region is ripped to shreds. Right now, the only question is how severe their response will be. Will they take the risk and confront Israel directly? Or will they stop short of that and settle for demonstrations?

Time will tell.

BULLWINKLE: Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

ROCKY: Again?

BULLWINKLE: Nothin’ up my sleeve. (riiiiiiiip!) Presto!

LION: ROAR!

ROCKY: Wrong hat.

BULLWINKLE: I take a size 7 1/2.

Bullwinkle tried that trick about 10 times but was never able to master it. He pulled everything but a rabbit out of that hat, proving if nothing else that he was bound and determined to make that rabbit appear despite being wrong so often in the past.

For some reason, Bullwinkle’s efforts in this regard reminded me of media coverage over the last 3 years of the Iraq Civil War.

What’s that you say? You mean to tell me that there hasn’t been an Iraq Civil War? You’d never know it by reading what the “experts” have been saying over the past several years, including our own State Department, the CIA, and all of those wise and prescient “analysts” so beloved by the media.

Here’s a random listing of articles from “experts” telling us that the Iraq Civil War was imminent or that it had already started.

“Iraq’s Civil War” Slate (5/2-03)

Beirut Redux The New Republic (5/15/03)

“CIA Officers Warn of Iraq Civil War, Contradicting Bush’s Optimism” Common Dreams, (1/22/04)

“Civil War in Iraq?” Anti-War.Com (7/22/04)

“Possibility of Iraq civil war looms large” China Daily (9/22/04)

“Iraq Edges Toward Civil War” United Press (12/28/04)

“Seymour Hersh: Iraq “Moving Towards Open Civil War” Democracy Now (5/11/05)

“Allawi: This is the Start of Civil War” Times Online (7/10/2005)

“Weekend of slaughter propels Iraq towards all-out civil war” Times Online (7/18-05)

“Undeclared Civil War in Iraq” CBS News (9/26/05)

Iraq Edges (What, again? ed.) Toward Civil War Al Jazeera (10/4/05)

Iraq: Game Over Tom Paine (12/22/05)

It would be hilarious if the subject matter weren’t so serious.

If there’s one thing that the press has yet to realize (and even bloggers who should know better) is that just about every word they’ve ever written can be retrieved with a click of a mouse button. So when we can easily see how many times they’ve cried “wolf!” in the past with regards to an Iraqi civil war, we can begin to examine events in that bloody, tragic country as they really are and not through the prism of bias and stupidity.

Iraq is in trouble. No one with half a brain denies that. The fact that Iraq has been in trouble since the statue of Saddam fell escaped many observers including most of the civilian Pollyannas in the Department of Defense and even some Rebeccas of Sunnybrook Farms in the White House. The forces at work spreading chaos, blood, and sectarian divisions have at times been underestimated and downplayed. This miscalculation has cost both Iraqi and American lives and contributed in no small way to the current state of affairs Iraq finds itself.

The war in Iraq is now not between America on one side and homegrown insurgents and their allies in al Qaeda on the other. The war is between Nihilism and Order. It is between hope and despair. It is between the past and the future. And most assuredly, it is between democracy and tyranny.

We might not particularly like the kind of democracy that Iraq is moving toward. It doesn’t look much like ours and it incorporates some elements of religion that most Americans would find unacceptable. Be that as it may, democracy is not an event, it is a process (HT: Reynolds). And the process, despite the bombings, the murders, the beheadings, the blowing up of mosques, and all the other furies of war that have been unleashed on that benighted country, is moving forward.

It may be moving two steps ahead and one back at a time. And in the end, time itself may work to destroy the fragile hopes and dreams of a people who have suffered through a conflict that features actors who have more at stake than what happens in one tiny corner of Mesopotamia. Make no mistake; both the United States and al Qaeda, as well as most of the other countries in the region, are fighting this war for goals that reach far beyond the sandy expanse of Iraq. This is a war for the future and what shape it will take. In that respect, every nation in the world is affected by what’s happening in Iraq.

It’s always easier to spread chaos than instill order in societies that wish to be free. For that reason, we’ll always be at a disadvantage against our enemies in Iraq. But maybe, just maybe, there is just enough hope in the future among just enough people in Iraq that in the end, it is they who will be able to will a new Iraq into existence. Consider:

* Every single politician of note from all sects and all regions of the country have called for an end to the violence.

* Every prominent religious leader (including the problematic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr) have appealed for calm.

* In the mixed neighborhoods where Shias and Sunnis live side by side, there has been cooperation in protecting each others lives and property. Many Sunni mosques are being guarded by Shias and vice versa.

* Both Sunnis and Shias have begun rebuilding the Shrine in Samarra. This began less than 12 hours after the bombing.

* The same Powerline reader who passed along the rebuilding news, points out that it appears the bombings have had the opposite effect; it has brought Shias and Sunnis together in a unity that was not there before the destruction of the Shrine.

In short, the forces at work to keep a civil war from happening are strong. Are they strong enough?

Only time and circumstance will reveal the answer to that question. But I’m sure of one thing; the people who have so confidently been predicting civil war in Iraq for 3 years haven’t been right yet. Why believe them now?