Israel's dilemma

Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Despite talk of disarming Hezbollah and rescuing hostages, the current Israeli campaign in Lebanon is about one thing: reestablishing the Israeli military deterrent in the new Middle East. In this context, the new Middle East is not some neo-conservative fantasy land of shining democracy, but rather one in which the geopolitical power of Iran is on the ascendancy. Both historic checks on Iranian ambition, Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, have been plunged into chaos by the criminal mismanagement of the Bush administration. With the United States military stuck in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians are seizing what to them must seem like a golden opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon. This capacity will not only cement Tehran's regional supremacy over Baghdad and Kabul, but also over Riyadh. Furthermore, it will build a shield of deterrence against Israeli aggression behind which Iran, with Russian weapons and expertise, can more freely build an army to rival that of Israel.

Such an army under the control of the Iran's ruling Ayatollahs would most certainly pose a threat to the existence of Israel and it is precisely for this reason, and this reason alone, that the Israelis feel compelled to hit Lebanon so hard. Ultimately, Israel needs the explosions of its bombs in Beirut to echo in the streets of Tehran.

This is not to say that the Iranians did not understand what Israel's reaction would be when their proxies in Lebanon abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12th. Indeed, Iran has proved to be an extremely astute actor in the international arena. From their contacts with former Bush administration ally Ahmad Chalabi, to their fortification of Hezbollah under the nose of Israel and the international community, Iran has shown time and again how well they play the game of international maneuvering. Indeed, Iran took a gamble by authorizing the attack on Israel by Hezbollah the day European leaders began talking of sanctions against Iran regarding its nuclear program. From where we stand today, it would seem that gamble is paying off.

Iran figured that by attacking Israel one of three outcomes was possible. Either the Israelis would fail to respond militarily. This would have been interpreted in the Middle East as a sign of weakness and would have strengthened the position of Iran in the region. Or the Israelis would attack Lebanon which would produce one of two outcomes. Either Israel would be successful in their campaign, i.e. they would quickly subdue Hezbollah, and do so without inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties. Or they would fail, militarily, or politically, or both. The consequence of such a failure on the part of Israel would also be to strengthen Iran's hand in the region.

Unfortunately, it would seems Israel has played largely into Iran's hands, perhaps even more so than the Iranians had ever hoped for. Israel's foolish decision to rely on air power early in the campaign, a decision which provoked a high number of civilian deaths, quickly lead to international condemnation of Israel and a loss of public sympathy for their cause. The United States, weakened politically by the fiasco in Iraq, could only buy Israel so much time at the Security Council, before bending to international pressure supportive of an unconditional cessation of hostilities. Secondly, Israel underestimated Hezbollah as an enemy militarily and now, four weeks into the war, Hezbollah continues to escalate the daily number of rocket attacks on Israel. And though Israel's ability to dominate Hezbollah was never in question, it would now appear that Israel's invinciblity is. This, alone, constitutes a military defeat for Israel.

So this is the rock, appearing weak in the Muslim world, and the hard spot, appearing nefarious in the Muslim world and beyond, between which Israel now finds itself stuck. Ultimately, Israel is in this position because of the failure to construct a viable and peaceful Palestinian state. Once this key issue is resolved, moderates in places like Lebanon will gain the upper hand and states like Iran will find it more difficult to exploit their smaller neighbors in wanton wars by proxy.

Israeli-Lebanese War

Today, after 22 days of war, Hezbollah fired at record breaking 230 rockets into Israel. This comes despite Ehud Olmert's assertion during an interview the same day that:

... Hezbollah has been disarmed by the military operation of Israel to a large degree. That can't be measured only by the number of missiles that they still shoot. The infrastructure of Hezbollah has been entirely destroyed.

For Olmert to make such a brazen statement is a sign of the intense political pressure he feels both internally to win, and internationally to finish up. Unfortunately, Israel has yet to achieve either of their stated strategic goals in the fight against Hezbollah (liberation of the two hostage soldiers and the cessation of rocket fire into Israel). Furthermore today's events at the UN illustrate the widening gap between the Israeli position and that of the Security Council.

Today in New York, the United States buckled to the French, by agreeing to a Security Council resolution calling for a "cessation of hostilities" before beginning discussion on a second resolution detailing an eventual cease-fire and the deployment of a multi-national peacekeeping force. This come after days of wrangling and a French refusal to attend any meeting at the UN to discuss the composition of a possible international force. As the British Prime Minister comes under increasing pressure at home to distance and distinguish himself on the world stage from US President Bush, Tony Blair gave tacit criticism of American policy in the Middle East. Expected to lead whatever force does take shape, this is all the French needed to seize the upper hand away from the Americans, whose position and credibility in the region were already severely weakened by the growing violence in Iraq.

Meanwhile, as the tortoise of diplomacy lumbers forward, the death toll continues to climb. In Lebanon there have been at least 548 confirmed deaths (though the actual number may be closer to 750), of which 477 were civilians. In Israel 55 people have been killed, 19 of whom were civilians.

Why a blog?

I am a news junkie and I want to write about what I read.

Lately, things have reached a tipping point. There are wars in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. There are wars brewing in Africa, particularity in Somalia, (unfortunately, this is not a surprise) and unrest in central Asia (neither is this). So called "fledgling democracies" in East Timor and Nepal are having a difficult time gaining traction. Although none of this news is new, per se, the simultaneity of these events is anomalous.

And so, over the edge I go.