Tag: Hezbollah

  • Perspective on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

    The first casualty of war is the truth. For this reason it is important to provide some clarity regarding the latest Middle East conflict. The short version is Iran’s August 22nd deadline for a uranium enrichment response is expected to disappoint the US and Israel. As a result, the conflict we now see is to cut off what Israel perceives are the two arms of Iran (i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah).

    While the book American Hiroshima elaborates in detail why this is happening, it is important to revisit what has happened since July 12th. In addition, I must note that war is rarely started by a single event. The seeds for war are often the product of many events that precede the actual use of military aircraft, tanks and ships. The BBC has an excelent timeline of events leading up to this conflict.

    A key fact in determining what is going on is to look at is the number of civilians killed and held in prison by each side. Israel’s position that a single soldier being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers being held by Hezbollah is an act of war cannot be taken seriously when Israel is simultaneously holding thousands of captured Palestinians. The mainstream media conveniently fails to mention this point. The cross-border dimension of the kidnapping may also be distorted by the mainstream media as from what I can tell Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (the Israeli soldiers) were captured near Ayta al-Sha’b which is actually in Lebanon. When we remember that the first casualty of war is the truth and this war is about something far more than soldiers being kidnapped, then we should not be surprised by the distortions of the truth to create war propaganda. History is also helpful and in 1998 Amnesty International wrote “By Israel’s own admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as bargaining chips; they are not detained for their own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention.”

    Another source of sanity during war is the United Nations. Regardless of what individuals may think about the UN, this organization has an impressive track record of correctly identifying who has started a war and when a war is violating international law. The US is unfortunately on the wrong side of this litmus test with respect to invading Iraq and Israel is on the wrong side with respect to invading Lebanon (see the comments by UN official Jan Egeland in the article Israel Breaks Humanitarian Law).

    In brief, what has happened is Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise on July 12, 2006. This was not an act of war but a plan to capture Israeli soldiers to swap them for three Lebanese held by Israel. Israel used the event to launch Operation Just Reward, which was interestingly renamed Operation Change of Direction. My sense is the Israeli and US leadership renamed the operation when they concluded the July 12 events provided the cover story to go after Hamas, Hezbollah and produce an incident to justify war with Iran. The bombing attacks then starting on July 13 and hundreds of civilians have been killed. July 13 is the formal beginning point for the start of the war. Israel also invaded Lebanon soon after the air attack began although Israel reports the invasion started on July 23 (which is more likely the date the US and British Special Forces became actively involved in joint operations with Israeli Special Forces). In any event, Israel desired an event to use as an excuse to attack both Hamas and Hezbollah and so far the American people are still fooled by the mass media.

    Stepping back, why is this happening? The reason is the leadership in Israel and the United States see Hamas and Hezbollah as the two arms of Iran (which is without question the case for Hezbollah). Before launching an attack on Iran’s population of 68+ million people, a clean up operation of Hamas and Hezbollah is is seen as necessary to minimize “near enemy” attacks. At a minimum Israel and the US neo-cons seek to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine, degrade Hezbollah, and accelerate the timetable for war with Iran. On July 16 a senior US official reported in the Washington Post that “eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little.” This means the first objective of the invasion has essentially been accomplished. You may be wondering about Syria and yes Syria is a factor. However, Iran is the bigger concern for Israel. Iran has the potential to join Israel as a nuclear power in the Middle East and statements from Iran’s defense minister indicate they are already a nuclear military power or at a minimum very close to being one.

    Hezbollah responded to the invasion with artillery rocket bombardments in Israel. For the record, Hezbollah had previously launched rockets and in the past Israel quickly responded with attacks from aircraft launched guided missiles. Iran is widely believed to be Hezbollah’s rocket supplier. The international community previously deemed this response by Israel as appropriate. It may be helpful to remember that Israel, even without the United States, is a military powerhouse and even a combined Hamas-Hezbollah force is a gnat without the means to threaten Israel’s national security. So now we see the Israeli Air Force and Israeli Sea Corps forces pounding away at Lebanon. Iran’s President is on record that if the invasion crosses Syria’s border, Iran will conclude that they are next and immediately join the fight. The US is pretending to have Condoleeza Rice work for a peace agreement after her initial statement rejecting an immediate ceasefire did not play well internationally. No matter what she says, the fact is the United States is sending the bombs that are being used to kill civilians in Lebanon. A few days ago I thought how hypocritical President Bush is as I read the front page story about a Canadian family in Lebanon that was killed by an Israel air strike. To drive the point home, it is hypocritical to supply the bombs for free and simultaneously position yourself as a neutral peacemaker.

    What is next? The case made in American Hiroshima strongly suggests that you will see incidents to justify an attack on Iran. Since Iran has declared Syria as a trigger point, the Israeli and US leadership may decide to focus on incidents to justify attacking Syria. President Bush will need to complete face-to-face meetings with key leaders in the region so that Saudi Arabia and other Arab leaders do not interrupt the oil flow. Behind the scenes, the security efforts for all US nuclear power facilities are being increased. Unfortunately, unlike Iraq, Iran has been known to possess a weapons of mass destruction capability for over a decade. The mainstream media is conveniently forgetting to mention this so that many Americans will continue to be asleep as the violence in the Middle East escalates.

    What should caring and loving people in Israel, the US, and the Arab world do? To start, the current “solutions” of more killing will only guarantee that an American and global Hiroshima will someday happen. Violence produces more violence and only love can break the cycle of destruction. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, and the US fail to see this reality and the fact that nuclear weapons will do more to empower the weak than protect the strong. Israel should therefore immediately deal with its neighbors in a humane and respectful manner. Hamas and Hezbollah should immediately stop attacking Israel as this only leads to more suffering for everyone. Military action should stop and full prisoner exchanges should begin. A two-state solution is possible and fundamentalists committed to violence can be policed by the forces for peace when acts of kindness are initiated and reinforced. Israel can exist in peace, but the path that US and Israeli leaders have taken is leading to the horrific events.

    Upon reviewing the history of violence, you can better understand why Jewish citizens and many more people around the world have protested against the war Israel started on July 13. So what do we in the US specifically do now? To start, we have a special responsibility because the US government is in charge of any expansion of the current violence. In February 2005, the Israeli Cabinet agreed not to attack Iran without a “green light” from the US. This means we can pressure our government not to expand the war to Syria or Iran with letters, phone calls, and direct action. The US Congress has officially supported Israel’s illegal invasion with SR 534 on July 19th and HR 921 on July 20th.

    We could use an angel of reason and perhaps one will appear. We have confronted dark times like 1962 in the past and managed to step back from the abyss. May peace return to the Middle East but let’s not rely only on prayers and participate in direct action. Please send the Internet address for this information to your friends and family. When contemplating what you will do to stop the killing, please remember that silence is permission.

     

    Dave Dionisi is responsible for National Awareness for Freedom From War. He is a long-time supporter and an advocate for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Dave is the author of American Hiroshima, a book about how to prevent the next 9/11 attack in the United States.

  • The Empire Leaves Beirut to Burn

    In the year 551, the magnificent, wealthy city of Berytus — headquarters of the imperial East Mediterranean Roman fleet — was struck by a massive earthquake. Then, the sea withdrew several miles and the survivors, ancestors of the present-day Lebanese, walked out on the sands to loot the long-sunken merchant ships revealed in front of them.

    That was when a tidal wall higher than a tsunami returned to kill them all. So savagely was the old Beirut damaged that the Emperor Justinian sent gold from Constantinople as compensation to every family left alive.

    Some cities seem forever doomed. When the Crusaders arrived at Beirut on their way to Jerusalem in the 11th century, they slaughtered everyone in the city. In World War I, Ottoman Beirut suffered a terrible famine; the Turkish army had commandeered all the grain, and the Allied powers blockaded the coast. I still have some ancient postcards I bought here 30 years ago of sticklike children standing in an orphanage, naked and abandoned.

    An American woman living in Beirut in 1916 described how she “passed women and children lying by the roadside with closed eyes and ghastly, pale faces. It was a common thing to find people searching the garbage heaps for orange peel, old bones or other refuse, and eating them greedily when found. Everywhere women could be seen seeking eatable weeds among the grass along the roads … ”

    How does this happen to Beirut? For 30 years, I’ve watched this place die and rise from the grave and die again, its apartment blocks pitted with so many bullets they looked like Irish lace.

    I lived here through 15 years of civil war that took 150,000 lives, and two Israeli invasions and years of Israeli bombardments that cost the lives of a further 20,000 of its people. I have seen them armless, legless, headless, knifed, bombed and splashed across the walls of houses. Yet they are a fine, educated, moral people whose generosity amazes every foreigner, whose gentleness puts any Westerner to shame, and whose suffering we almost always ignore.

    They look like us, the people of Beirut. They have light-colored skin and speak beautiful English and French. They travel the world. Their women are gorgeous and their food exquisite. But what are we saying of their fate today as the Israelis — in some of their cruelest attacks on this city and the surrounding countryside — tear them from their homes, bomb them on river bridges, cut them off from food and water and electricity? We say they started this latest war, and we compare their appalling casualties — 240 in all of Lebanon at the start of last week — with Israel’s 24 dead, as if the figures are the same.

    And then, most disgraceful of all, we leave the Lebanese to their fate like a diseased people and spend our time evacuating our precious foreigners while tut-tutting about Israel’s “disproportionate” response to the capture of its soldiers by Hezbollah.

    I walked through the deserted city center of Beirut last week and it reminded more than ever of a film lot, a place of dreams too beautiful to last, a phoenix from the ashes of civil war whose plumage was so brightly colored that it blinded its own people. This part of the city — once a Dresden of ruins — was rebuilt by Rafiq Hariri, the prime minister who was murdered a mile away last year.

    The wreckage of that bomb blast, an awful precursor to the present war in which his inheritance is being vandalized by the Israelis, still stands beside the Mediterranean, waiting for the last U.N. investigator to look for clues.

    At the empty Etoile restaurant — where Hariri once dined with Jacques Chirac — I sat on the pavement and watched the parliamentary guard still patrolling the facade of the French-built emporium that houses what is left of Lebanon’s democracy. So many of these streets were built by Parisians under the French mandate, and they have been exquisitely restored, their mock Arabian doorways bejeweled with marble Roman columns dug from the ancient Via Maxima a few meters away.

    Hariri loved this place and, taking Chirac for a beer one day, he caught sight of me sitting at a table. “Ah, Robert, come over here,” he roared and turned to Chirac like a cat that was about to eat a canary. “I want to introduce you, Jacques, to the reporter who said I couldn’t rebuild Beirut!”

    Now it is being unbuilt. The Martyr Rafiq Hariri International Airport has been attacked several times by the Israelis, its glistening halls and shopping malls vibrating to the missiles that thunder into the runways and fuel depots. Hariri’s wonderful transnational highway viaduct has been broken by Israeli bombers. Most of his motorway bridges have been destroyed. The Roman-style lighthouse has been smashed by a missile from an Apache helicopter. This small jewel of a restaurant in the center of Beirut has been spared. So far.

    It is the slums of Haret Hreik and Ghobeiri and Shiyah that have been leveled and “rubble-ized” and pounded to dust, sending a quarter of a million Shiite Muslims to seek sanctuary in schools and abandoned parks across the city. Here, indeed, was the headquarters of Hezbollah, another of those “centers of world terror” that the West keeps discovering in Muslim lands. Here lived Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Party of God’s leader, a ruthless, caustic, calculating man; and Sayad Mohamed Fadlallah, among the wisest and most eloquent of clerics; and many of Hezbollah’s top military planners — including, no doubt, the men who planned over many months the capture of the two Israeli soldiers 10 days ago.

    But did the tens of thousands of poor who live here deserve this act of mass punishment? For a country that boasts of its pinpoint accuracy — a doubtful notion in any case, but that’s not the issue — what does this act of destruction tell us about Israel? Or about ourselves?

    In a modern building in an undamaged part of Beirut, I come, quite by chance, across a well-known and prominent Hezbollah figure, open-neck white shirt, dark suit, clean shoes. “We will go on if we have to for days or weeks or months or … ” And he counts these awful statistics off on the fingers of his left hand. “Believe me, we have bigger surprises still to come for the Israelis — much bigger, you will see. Then we will get our prisoners and it will take just a few small concessions.”

    I walk outside, feeling as if I have been beaten over the head. Over the wall opposite there is purple bougainvillea and white jasmine and a swamp of gardenias. The Lebanese love flowers, and Beirut is draped in trees and bushes that smell like paradise.

    As for the huddled masses from the bombed-out southern slums of Haret Hreik, I found hundreds yesterday, sitting under trees and lying on the parched grass beside an ancient fountain donated by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul-Hamid. How empires fall.

    Across the Mediterranean, two helicopters from the USS Iwo Jima could be seen, heading through the mist and smoke toward the U.S. embassy bunker complex at Awkar to evacuate more citizens of the American Empire. There was not a word from that same empire to help the people lying in the park, to offer them food or medical aid.

    Across them all has spread a dark gray smoke that works its way through the entire city, the fires of oil terminals and burning buildings turning into a cocktail of sulphurous air that moves below our doors and through our windows. I smell it when I wake. Half the people of Beirut are coughing in this filth, breathing their own destruction as they contemplate their dead.

    The anger that any human soul should feel at such suffering and loss was expressed so well by Lebanon’s greatest poet, the mystic Khalil Gibran, when he wrote of the half million Lebanese who died in the 1916 famine, most of them residents of Beirut:

    My people died of hunger, and he who

    Did not perish from starvation was

    Butchered with the sword;

    They perished from hunger

    In a land rich with milk and honey.

    They died because the vipers and

    Sons of vipers spat out poison into

    The space where the Holy Cedars and

    The roses and the jasmine breathe

    Their fragrance.

    And the sword continues to cut its way through Beirut. When part of an aircraft came streaking out of the sky over the eastern suburbs at the weekend, I raced to the scene to find a partly decapitated driver in his car and three Lebanese soldiers from the army’s logistics unit. These are the tough, brave non-combat soldiers of Kfar Chim who have been mending power and water lines these past six days to keep Beirut alive.

    I knew one of them. “Hello, Robert. Be quick because I think the Israelis will bomb again, but we’ll show you everything we can.” And they took me through the fires to show me what they could of the wreckage, standing around to protect me.

    A few hours later, the Israelis did come back, as the men of the small logistics unit were going to bed, and they bombed the barracks and killed 10 soldiers, including those three kind men who looked after me amid the fires of Kfar Chim.

    And why? Be sure — the Israelis know what they are hitting. That’s why they killed nine soldiers near Tripoli when they bombed the military radio antennas. But a logistics unit? Men whose sole job was to mend electricity lines? Then it dawns on me. Beirut is to die. It is to be starved of electricity now that the power station in Jiyeh is on fire. No one is to be allowed to keep Beirut alive. So those men had to be liquidated.

    Beirutis are tough people and are not easily moved. But at the end of last week, many of them were overcome by a photograph in their daily papers of a small girl, discarded like a broken flower in a field near Ter Harfa, her feet curled up, her hand resting on her torn blue pajamas, her eyes — beneath long, soft hair — closed, turned away from the camera. She had been another “terrorist” target of Israel and several people, myself among them, saw a frightening similarity between this picture and the photograph of a Polish girl lying dead in a field beside her weeping sister in 1939.

    I go home and flick through my files, old pictures of the Israeli invasion of 1982. There are more photographs of dead children, of broken bridges. Yes, how easily we forget these earlier slaughters. Up to 1,700 Palestinians were butchered at Sabra and Chatila by Israel’s proxy Christian militia allies in 1982 while Israeli troops, as they later testified to Israel’s own court of inquiry, watched the killings. I stopped counting the corpses when I reached 100. Many of the women had been raped before being knifed or shot.

    Yet when I was fleeing the bombing of Ghobeiri with my driver, Abed, a week before last, we swept right past the entrance of the camp, the very spot where I saw the first murdered Palestinians. And we did not think of them. We did not remember them. They were dead in Beirut and we were trying to stay alive in Beirut, as I have been trying to stay alive here for 30 years.

    I am back on the seacoast when my mobile phone rings. It is an Israeli woman calling me from the United States, the author of a fine novel about the Palestinians. “Robert, please take care,” she says. “I am so, so sorry about what is being done to the Lebanese. It is unforgivable. I pray for the Lebanese people, and the Palestinians, and the Israelis.” I thank her for her thoughtfulness and the graceful, generous way she condemned this slaughter.

    Then, on my balcony — a glance to check the location of the Israeli gunboat far out in the sea-smog — I find older clippings. This is from an English paper in 1840, when Beirut was a great Ottoman city. “Beyrouth” was the dateline. “Anarchy is now the order of the day, our properties and personal safety are endangered, no satisfaction can be obtained, and crimes are committed with impunity. Several Europeans have quitted their houses and suspended their affairs, in order to find protection in more peaceable countries.”

    On my dining-room wall, I remember, there is a hand-painted lithograph of French troops arriving in Beirut in 1842 to protect the Christian Maronites from the Druze. They are camping in the Jardin des Pins, which will later become the site of the French embassy where, only a few hours ago, I saw French men and women registering for their evacuation. Outside the window, I hear again the whisper of Israeli jets, hidden behind the smoke that drifts 20 miles out to sea.

    Fairouz, the most popular Lebanese singer, was to perform at this year’s Baalbek festival, cancelled like all Lebanon’s festivals. One of her most popular songs is dedicated to her native city:

    To Beirut — peace to Beirut with all my heart

    And kisses — to the sea and clouds,

    To the rock of a city that looks like an old sailor’s face.

    From the soul of her people she makes wine,

    From their sweat, she makes bread and jasmine.

    So how did it come to taste of smoke and fire

     

    Robert Fisk, who writes for The Independent of Britain, has lived in Beirut 30 years.

    Originally printed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  • Lurching Toward Regional War in the Middle East

    Israeli moves toward all out war in Gaza and Lebanon seem linked to wider dangers of a regional war with severe global consequences. By interpreting these wider dangers it is not meant to minimize the human suffering and regressive political effects of current carnage in these two long tormented war zones. Looking at this bigger picture is crucial for its own sake, but also helps us understand the immediate crises more fully than if as officially presented by Israel, and unfortunately echoed by many governments around the world.

    Whatever else, this outbreak of major two-front violence is not about Israel’s right to defend it against an enemy that is seriously threatening its territorial integrity or political independence, the only grounds for justifiable war. To treat border incidents, involving a few casualties from rockets and the abduction of a single Israeli soldier by a Gazan militia and two by Hezbollah in south Lebanon, as if it were an occasion of war is a gross distortion of well-accepted international law and state practice. To justify legally a claim of self-defense requires a full-scale armed attack across Israeli borders. If every violent border incident or terrorist provocation were to be so regarded as an act of war, the world would be aflame. If India had responded to the recent Mumbai train explosions that killed some 200 Indian civilians as a Pakistani act of war, the result would have been a devastating regional war, quite possibly fought with nuclear weapons. There are many other flashpoints around the world that might justify police methods in reaction to provocations, and in extreme instances, specific military responses across borders. If such occasions were viewed as acts of war the consistent result would be catastrophe. Recent Hamas/Hezbollah provocations, even if interpreted through a self-serving Israeli lens, were not of a scale or threat that warranted large-scale military actions that are directed at a wide array of targets unrelated to the specific incidents and causing severe damage to civilians and the entire civilian infrastructure of society (water, electricity, roads, bridges).

    The exaggerated Israeli response, together with circumstantial evidence, suggests that Israel used the Hamas/Hezbollah incidents as pretexts to pursue a much wider and long-planned security agenda directed at Palestine and Lebanon and, beyond this, as an opportunity for a political restructuring of the entire region in partnership with the United States. In this regard, as George W. Bush’s comments at the St. Petersburg G-8 summit emphasized, the real responsibility for the anti-Israeli incidents should be associated with Syria and Iran given their support of Hamas and Hezbollah. It does require a deep reading of international relations to recall that both right wing Israeli opinion and the neoconservative worldview that has dominated American foreign policy during the Bush presidency advances a vision of world order based upon a comprehensive political restructuring of the Middle East, starting with “regime change” in Iraq.

    What Israel is undertaking is a change of tactics with respect to the pursuit of this regional vision. The initial plan seems to have been based on a decisive military and political victory in Iraq followed by an essentially diplomatic campaign to exert major pressure on other problematic governments in the region, relying on The Greater Middle East Project of “democratization” to do the heavy lifting without further military action. Instead, what has occurred has been failure and frustration in Iraq, which has turned into an American quagmire, but more seriously, a consistent set of electoral outcomes throughout the region that have discredited a political approach to the regional vision embraced by Washington and Tel Aviv with the goal of achieving compliant Arab governments that are passive with respect to Palestinian aspirations and accepting of American hegemony. These geopolitical disappointments began to be revealed in the Iraqi sequence of elections, which even under conditions of the American occupation and a hostile resistance, produced clear victories for Islamic political forces and stinging repudiations of the sort of compliant secularists that Washington backed. Similar outcomes, with less dramatic results, were evident in elections held in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which together with the election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as President of Iran, apparently sent a clear message that the more democratic the political process, the more likely it was to produce an anti-American, anti-Israeli leadership. The Hamas victory in the January elections in the Palestinian Territories culminated this disillusionment with the democratic path to security, as envisioned by Israel and the United States, for the region.

    But rather than abandon geopolitical ambitions, it appears from recent developments that Israel is testing the waters for all out regional war, either with covert encouragement from the US Government, or at the very least, a green light from Washington to ignite a bonfire. Of course, there are other factors at work. The Israeli leadership, especially its military commanders, never accepted being pushed out of southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, and the politicians appear to hold the Palestinian people responsible for the election of a “terrorist” leadership and, thus, deserving of punishment. Furthermore, the anti-Syrian Lebanese response to the assassination of Hariri on February 14, 2005 was hoped to result in a more robust Lebanese political leadership that would effectively disarm Hezbollah and, thereby, enhance Israeli security. When this did not happen, but rather Hezbollah acquired more potent weaponry, as well as a place in the Lebanese cabinet, it was obvious that the soft Israeli option had failed. Even such a prominent mainstream supporter of Israel as Shlomo Aveneri observes that the real objective of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon is to install a Quisling government in Beirut, which was after all the main objective of the 1982 Sharon-led invasion of the country.

    In relation to the Palestinian conflict, Israel has set for itself a unilateralist course ever since the collapse of the Camp David process in 2000. The Sharon approach, based on Gaza disengagement, the illegal security wall, and the annexation of substantial Palestinian territories to incorporate the main Israeli settlements was always based on moving toward a “solution” without the agreement of the Palestinian leadership. But to move in such a direction in a politically palatable manner required the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner. First, Arafat was humiliated by direct military attacks on his headquarters and confined as to virtual house arrest; then Abbas was marginalized as too weak to carry weight; and now Hamas has been repudiated as unfit to govern the Palestinians or represent their interests. Against this background, Sharon/Olmert unilateralism appears to be the only option, a worrisome conclusion as it is sure to keep the conflict at boiling point for the indefinite future.

    A further factor is the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Here again Israel and the United States are at the forefront of an insistence that Iran not pursue its legal right to possess a complete nuclear fuel cycle under its sovereign control, although subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that enriched uranium and plutonium are not diverted for military purposes. Whether this unfolding crisis, abetted by the inflammatory language of Ahmedinejad, is part of a deliberate strategy of regional tension devised by Washington and Tel Aviv cannot be determined at this point. What is clear is the selective enforcement of the nonproliferation regime. Several parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Germany, Japan) have complete nuclear fuel cycles under national control; India is being assisted in developing its nuclear technology despite its nuclear weapons program and refusal to become a party to the treaty; Israel itself disallows a nuclear weapons option to other states in the region while maintaining and developing its own arsenal of these weapons; and, of course, the United States throws its nuclear weight around, including developing new categories of nuclear weapons (“bunker-busters” and “mini-nukes”) that are apparently being integrated into battle plans for possible future use.

    This adds up to a confusing picture, but with clear threats of a regional war spiraling out of the present situation, given the Israeli/American vision of security, and the degree to which the control of this region is vital for the energy future of the world as well as decisive in the struggle to withstand the challenge of political Islam.

    There are some factors that are working against such a dismal future: the political/military failure in Iraq, the devastating economic effects of engaging Iran in a war, the rising oil prices, and the opposition of European and Arab countries. But can we be reassured at this point? I think not. Israel tends to view its security ambitions in unconditional terms that are oblivious to wider detrimental consequences. The United States leadership remains wedded to its grand strategy of regional restructuring, and is not encountering political opposition at home or even media criticism as a result of either its support of the Israeli offensives in Gaza and Lebanon or of its efforts to widen the arc of conflict by pulling Syria and Iran into the fray. I fear that what we are witnessing is an extremely risky set of moves to shift the joint Israeli/American regional game plan in an overtly military direction. It always had a military centerpiece associated with the Iraq War, but the basic strategy was based on an easy show of force against a weakened Iraq followed by falling political dominoes elsewhere in the Middle East. Neither the UN, world public opinion, nor regional opposition seem likely to halt this slide toward regional war. We can only hope that prudence somehow remains a restraining force, at least in Washington.

    In concluding, it is obvious that there are wider implications for other countries in the region, especially those faced with ethnic conflict and transnational armed struggle. As tempting as it might be to follow Israel’s lead, the prudent course, especially in light of these dangers of regional war, is to be extremely cautious about undertaking cross-border military operations. The Israeli policies have already backfired to a significant extent, strengthening the political stature of Hezbollah with Lebanon and causing Lebanese public opinion to unite around criticism of Israel’s behavior.

     

    Richard Falk is the Board Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and professor emeritus of Princeton University.