 |
 |
 |
|
|
Anthony Cordesman: Hezbollah must be disarmed or everyone loses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| By Associated Press July 22, 2006 |
|
| |
Israel may appear solidly in the driver's seat in its fight with Hezbollah -- pushing relentlessly to destroy as many of the guerrilla group's weapons as it can the next few weeks, with little international pressure for a quick ceasefire.
But in the long run, Mideast wars can be hard to "win" strategically, especially when they're waged against tough and savvy Islamic militant groups like the one in south Lebanon.
Not only can Israel lose soldiers, as it did Thursday in an ambush in the south. It also faces the risk that whenever the fighting ends, Hezbollah -- and its key backer Iran -- might be in a stronger, more influential political position than before.
That would be a bad outcome not just for Israel but also the United States, hurting everything from U.S.-led Palestinian peace efforts to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program to the still-rocky struggle to stabilize Iraq.
In many ways, the biggest risk is that this sudden, violent little war will tip the balance toward extremists, and away from moderates, all across the Middle East, including in Lebanon, where the government was dramatically weakened by the fighting.
Damage to the fledgling democratically elected government would be a loss for the United States as it struggles to build a secular vision in the region.
Hezbollah already has held its own sufficiently that it can "present a cease-fire as a great victory," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah "can emerge victorious if he can plausibly claim that he conceded nothing ... he can write off the damage to Lebanon as the price of war."
Of course, Israel does have a powerful short-term interest in destroying as many of Hezbollah's weapons as it can and pushing Hezbollah away from the Lebanese border. A cease-fire that resulted in Hezbollah farther from the border and short on weapons, or a strike that killed the charismatic and popular Nasrallah, could give Israel valuable breathing space.
But the reality is that -- as long as it has political support in Lebanon -- Hezbollah can always resupply through Iran and Syria. It has a group of committed fighters and supporters. And the greater the destruction to Lebanon, the more likely that the country's fledgling, Western-backed government will remain weak and unable to disarm Hezbollah.
All of that means Hezbollah's overall position in Lebanon -- its ability to use the country as a base against Israel in future -- could actually improve as anger at Israel and backing for the guerrillas grow.
Ironically, Hezbollah at first seemed to have miscalculated when it snatched two Israeli soldiers. It may have thought Israel would negotiate a prisoner swap as it had in the past. The Saudis and Egyptians initially issued sharp criticism of Hezbollah but are now turning the harsh words on Israel.
But instead, Israel hit back hard and as it did, Hezbollah appeared to be losing political ground: Many in the Mideast were deeply dismayed at the group's provocation and blamed it for the destruction Israel wreaked on Lebanon.
Yet as the fighting goes on, the mood is shifting perceptibly, at least among average Arabs, from anger at Hezbollah to more-familiar feelings of hostility toward Israel.
That is what Hezbollah counts on, and Nasrallah is highly skilled at using the region's media to beef up his political position. The turning point may have been the night that Nasrallah appeared on Arab TV to announce that Hezbollah had attacked an Israeli ship. The next night, Lebanon's Western-backed prime minister, appearing on the same TV sets, choked back tears as he pleaded with the United Nations to help -- a stark example of the divide, and clear choice, the Arab world faces.
Unless Western-leaning and pro-democracy supporters in Lebanon can somehow rejuvenate the street strength they showed last year in their push for democracy, their side -- the moderate side -- seems certain to lose influence.
In one troubling sign, airports all across the Mideast were packed this week with the cream of Lebanese society -- middle-class families, businessmen with laptops, young affluent students -- all headed to Canada, the United States, South America, Europe. If they leave for the duration, as they did during the country's civil war years, that could again leave their country mostly helpless against Hezbollah.
All of that is bad for both the United States and moderate Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt who America depends on to carry its agenda in the Mideast. Those countries, on the defensive as Hezbollah fights Israel, lose their ability to push for peace talks or mediate for moderation behind the scenes with other militant groups like Hamas.
None of that means Hezbollah or Iran "wins" either -- their ability to cause trouble does not necessarily leave either of them, longterm, any nearer their goals, notes Anthony Cordesman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"Unless the current fighting somehow really does lead to the disarming of Hezbollah, a flood of aid to Lebanon, and a new approach to the Israeli-Palestinian war ... the mid- to long-term outcome will be as bad for any apparent "victor" as for the "defeated," he says.
"The Israelis will lose, Hezbollah will lose and so will everyone else."
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
