Has Israel been trapped by Hezbollah?
This time Israel needs to be careful about armed conflicts with Hamas in Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both the US and Israel consider them "terrorist organisations" but representatives of these two very organisations were elected by the people. Hamas is leading the Palestinian Authority, while the Lebanon government depends on Hezbollah MPs for its survival. Lebanon's political architecture is based on representations on religion-grouping. That means politics is not separated from religion. Hezbollah has been a significant factor in the political system.
By attacking and killing hundreds of civilians in the Gaza and in Lebanon Israel does not advance its goal, which is the release of its soldiers abducted by Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel does not seem to realise that it is fighting a war which it may not win. For an organisation such as Hezbollah, it does not need to win but just to stay in place.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Israel's goal, with the support of the Bush administration, is to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah, while denying them opportunities to rally broader Arab support. But they do not seem to realise that underlying this conflict is a struggle for regional balance of power between the US and Israel on the one hand and Iran and Russia on the other.
There are certain complexities in the situation and some of them deserve mention:
First, the timing of the Hezbollah attack coincided with the meeting of G-8. The G-8 leaders were distracted from their main agenda because of the conflict. More importantly Iran's program of nuclear proliferation, which would have been on top of the agenda, was totally sidelined. It was a diplomatic coup for Iran.
Second, the traditional pro-US Arab countries failed to do anything about the conflict in which hundreds of Arabs were killed, including women and children, and their role has been completely marginalised. This has resulted in the growing popularity of Hamas and Hezbollah that could stand up before Israel and the US.
Third, the conflict may radicalise politics in the Middle East because the leaders of the 21 Arab countries seem to have mutedly voiced concern about the Middle East conflict. Where is the Arab League? What is its influence on the US in stopping the conflict? It is reported that the US does not want a cease-fire because Israel said "don't intervene."
The US Secretary of State was scheduled to come to the region to seek a resolution but her visit was deliberately delayed because of Israel's wish. Israel thinks that is too early to contemplate a ceasefire and derided the role of the UN forces. Israel's goal is to destroy Hezbollah. The question is: Can they do it?
Fourth, Iraq condemned the Israeli armed aggression and it may not be music to the ears of the US. The US considers Iraq as an ally, but the condemnation by the Shiite Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki demonstrates that Iraq has been under the influence of Iran. This is what the Bush administration wanted when it invaded Iraq in 2003 as "liberators" of the Iraqi people. Within three years, Iran's influence on the Shiite Iraqi government seems to be unshakeable. It appears that the foreign policy of the Bush administration in the Middle East is on the verge of ruin.
Fifth, Israel thought it could walk over Hezbollah militarily but the sophisticated and long-range weapons used by Hezbollah in Israel's territory surprised both Israeli and US intelligence agencies. They seem to have no clue about the acquisition of these weapons by Hezbollah. Both Israel and the US allege that these weapons were acquired by Hezbollah from Syria and Iran.
Sixth and finally, Russia has been a supplier of weapons to Syria and nuclear reactors to Iran, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration. Russia, under President Putin, has used oil and gas diplomacy at its best for national interests. Five years ago Russia was a weak country, but now Russia, with the wealth of soaring prices of gas, and being a major supplier of gas to the European Union, can afford to have views independent from the US and has asserted itself in the G-8 meeting. Cooperation with the US has become an exception on a range of issues.
Israel and the US do not appear to see the different underpinnings of the current conflict in the Middle East from the past. What we see today in the Middle East is not a traditional armed conflict but an intention to redraw the balance of power in the region. From Beirut to Tehran, there is a "Shiite Arc" of influence and the Sunni Arab countries are feeling the pinch of it. War is raging from Beirut to Kabul and the perception is that the war is against the Muslims.
Iran has been regional power for sometime but it has now asserted itself. No amount of threat or cajoling from the West can persuade Iran to respond before August 22 to the European incentive to halt its nuclear enrichment program. Some say that the West is in for a big surprise after August 22.
Furthermore, Russia's relations with the US are now characterised by a growing number of disagreements, and at the summit of G-8 it was palpably clear that Russia does not see events in the Middle East, or elsewhere, through the same prism as the US does. Russia wants to play its role in the Middle East and cannot be sidelined.
Against this background, the US and the European Union need a new strategy to deal with the pending issues in the Middle East. Military solution to political disputes is most inappropriate, and the sooner the parties sit at the table for dialogue the smoother will be the path toward stability and peace. The 16th century astrologer, Nostradamus, predicted that the third World War might begin from the Middle East. I hope he was wrong.