In order rationally to assess what might be driving events in Lebanon,
let's step back from the actions of Israel and Hezbollah and look at
the bigger picture.
Hezbollah has been and probably still is an
instrument of Iran (Syria's role is still unclear). Israel has been
and still is an instrument of the United States (NOT the other way
around). True enough, Israel's ability to defy pawn status is greater
than Hezbollahs, or the PLO's, or Hamas' for that matter, whose master
is the Islamic Fundamentalist Movement (IFM) that also runs Al Qaeda.
The IFM and Iran have been at odds in the past, but perhaps not any
longer: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" can operate in many and
complex ways.
My point is simply that focusing on what may or may not be the
intentions of pawns on the grand chessboard of the Middle East,
without focusing on the movers of the pawns, consitutes what C Wright
Mills called "crackpot reasoning" Those who stand to gain from what
happens in Lebanon are the United States, Iran, and the Islamic
Fundamentalist Movement. If Hezbollah is destroyed, which seems
inevitable, Iran and the IFM draw closer. Syria will probably join the
coalition. The ability of Iran to negotiate for a stronger role in the
IFM will have been enhanced. Sympathy for Iran and the IFM will be
enhanced throughout Europe and Asia.
The United States will achieve something it's wanted for a long time.
Gaining a commitment from the Christian Lebanese to accept a U.S.
military presence in Lebanon. In addition, the growth of pan-Arabic
nationalism will once again have been seriously disrupted. The Neo-con
world of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations will have been
reinforced, strengthening the Neo-con position on the global stage.
Only in a world of perpetual conflict do they remain a powerful force.
Israel loses. Whatever happens in Lebanon in the short run, Israel
faces enemies no longer localized in a fashion that allows attacking
their bases to diminish their attacks. Israelis have long been aware
of their long-term desperate situation. The important debate within
Israel for years has been, Which is more risky: Absorbing
Palestinians, who will certainly constitute a fifth column to some
degree? or alienating the CIA who have made it clear that such a
choice would be unacceptable? The decision in Israel, of course, was
the wrong one. But it had little to do with issues of morality,
religion, or even nationalism.