• As Lebanon burns, Syria finds supporters again  - Rime Allaf
In Syria, the peculiar sight of a brand new trinity consisting of Nasrallah and Moqtada Sadr flanking Bashar Assad is being paraded.

• Could Tehran emerge as the ultimate winner?  - Iason Athanasiadis
It was no accident that Riyadh issued a statement condemning Hizballah's "miscalculated adventures".

• The risks of winning  - Akram Baker
Nasrallah has effectively driven a mighty nail into the coffin of the US misadventure in Iraq.

• Israel's response is proportional to Hizballah's challenge  - an interview withEfraim Halevy
We'll have at least another eight days of fighting, and therefore it is too early to call the outcome.

• A Lebanese initiative  - Chibli Mallat
The Lebanese government needs to act as the sole and exclusive legal agent in any solution on behalf of Lebanon.

As Lebanon burns, Syria finds supporters again
 Rime Allaf

By the time the atrocities of Israel's latest aggression on Lebanon have been digested, the victims counted and buried, and the astronomical physical damage estimated, the region will be adjusting to a new status quo probably not intended by Israel and its allies. Neither the elimination or disarmament of Hizballah nor the sidelining of Iran or Syria is likely to happen in this manner, and the latter even stands to gain much political ground. While reports of Syrian influence on Hizballah's decisions are certainly exaggerated, it is highly likely that Syrian advice regarding the capture of Israeli soldiers would have been encouragement, rather than dissuasion, and facilitation rather than impediment.

At its simplest level, the outcome of the violent Israeli attack is the demonstration, once and for all--as the Syrian regime has been claiming all along--that the international support for Lebanon's freedom and independence is nothing more than a defunct slogan from a mock Cedar Revolution, applying only to Syria in the context of dangerous plans for the region. By refusing to condemn Israel or to demand a halt to its aggression (implying the acceptance of a buffer zone in Lebanon after the country has been brought to its knees), accepting the de facto "collateral damage" that comes with it, the G8 has hammered the nail into the coffin of Lebanese sovereignty and simultaneously proven Syria right on many fronts, especially as the G8 countries continue to blame Damascus (and Tehran) for the savage destruction wrought by Israel. With this attitude, these powers have made the Syrian regime's position seem more credible and consistent, and its complaints about UNSC Resolution 1559 rational.

Notwithstanding the tiring official Syrian rhetoric and the self-congratulatory tone of reports of Syrian help on state television, which has been in "breaking news" mode since Israel attacked, it is difficult to dispute the conclusions drawn by the regime as it watches developments, probably with some glee. The first batch of escapees from Lebanon, many of them from the Gulf, automatically turned to Damascus, filling its hotels and crowding its airport, conveniently proving Syria's Arabist credentials, especially in times of need.

With less affluent refugees flocking across the borders, and with its main allies in Lebanon still managing to maintain their stride despite (or perhaps because of) the horrific pounding by Israel, Syrian officials are now enjoying the opportunity to look and act magnanimous--especially in comparison with other Arab regimes that have shocked many in the Arab world with their unprecedented condemnation of Hizballah. In such circumstances, the cold shoulder influential Arab countries are giving Syria bears little weight, even giving the Syrian regime an unexpected popularity on the street level.

Indeed, the more Israel pounds Lebanon and Palestine and the more its "right to defend itself" is asserted by its supporters, the more a new arrangement of pictures of anti-American figures appear in demonstrations around the Arab world: pictures of political clerics (such as Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, or the Iraqi Mahdi Army's Moqtada Sadr) are more common these days, but so are combinations with secular, nationalist leaders. In Cairo, photos of Nasrallah were brandished side-by-side with those of Gamal Abdel Nasser this week, while in Syria, the peculiar sight of a brand new trinity consisting of Nasrallah and Sadr flanking Bashar Assad is being paraded. The intended message is clear: these are the ones who are steadfastly defending national rights in the Arab world.

Clearly, there are some blemishes in this picture of selfless patriotism. Most importantly, Syria did not come rushing to the aid of Lebanon, regardless of defense treaties and "brotherly ties" so strong that diplomatic relations are deemed unnecessary by the Syrian regime. Syria's declarations of support have come from the safety of its own borders and actual assistance has been minimal. For all its perceived self-importance, the Syrian regime has done very little to aid Lebanon economically (and nothing at all militarily), and continues to focus its efforts on strengthening only its allies.

Just before Israel began its assault, Syrian activists calling for the sovereignty of Lebanon and for relations based on mutual respect were being dragged from their homes and thrown into jail where they remain, and the regime was demanding public apologies from the Lebanese who had dared do likewise. Support for Lebanon will remain limited to support for the Lebanese who acknowledge Syria's position as a leader in this relationship, not as an equal partner.

But whatever the flaws in this self-perception, Syria--with a great deal of Israeli and "international" help--has managed to reverse an isolation it did not like. Although Saudi Arabia and Egypt have decried Hizballah's actions and tried to avoid Syria, the latter has regained significance on the Lebanese front. President Bush's belief that perhaps Assad could end it all was, in itself, an admission of Syria's importance to the US and its allies in the region, and surely the cause of much satisfaction in Damascus, especially given American and Israeli reluctance to take the fight to Syria's own turf as 1559 comes on the agenda again.

Other matters such as the demarcation of borders, or assassination investigations, will be put on the back burner for the time being. So far, as Lebanon's systematic destruction continues, Syria's supporters are daring to speak out again; undoubtedly, the Syrian regime has been the biggest beneficiary of Israeli brutality and American incompetence.- Published 20/7/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Rime Allaf is an associate fellow at Chatham House in London.

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt calls it "an Iranian war". The Washington Post quoted an un-named Bush administration official saying "there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas." Russian President Vladimir Putin cryptically hinted that "it is our impression that... Israelis [are] pursuing wider goals."

So what is Israel's ongoing military campaign in Lebanon really about? Why does once-distant Tehran suddenly loom over the Levant battlefield? And who will come out of this affair with the most political capital?

Certainly not Lebanon. Its shattered infrastructure testifies to the cynical use of this small nation as a proxy battleground once again. Syria is similarly content to stay on the sidelines, too weak to engage as it did in the Soviet-sponsored, heady adventuring of the 1960s and 70s.

But exactly 50 years after the Suez War spelled the end of British and French imperial hegemony in the Middle East and marked the emergence of Israel's military power, this new conflict could mark a new chapter: the ascendancy of Iran.

That is definitely the feeling in Tehran. Iranian analysts see the Middle East as being at the twilight of American unilateralism and on the eve of a new multi-polarity that will see Moscow and Beijing added to the global actors jostling for influence here. The end result will be something closer to the Cold War stand-off between regional powers. It will also spell an end to the American and Israeli-led military destabilization that has characterized the region for the past 16 years. Iran and Syria will likely see their regional influence boosted in the process.

These are not the vibes in Tehran alone. Iran's Arab neighbors have been tracking the rise in influence of their Persian neighbor, unseen since the days of the Shah.

Speaking to me in Tehran, Middle East specialist Kayhan Barzegar offered a vignette from a recent Persian Gulf conference that perfectly illustrates the concern among Arab states over their waning influence. "Saudi participants discussed the Arab perspective on Iran," Barzegar said. "They described Iran and the US as two elephants. When they fight, or even when they make love, the grass underneath gets trampled."

If Iran is an elephant and the Arab world the turf on which it carries out many of its foreign policy calculations, it makes for a terrifying Middle East tomorrow. But Barzegar is confident of his prediction. He argues that Israel, Turkey and Iran are the great powers of today's Middle East. None of them are Arab. So with former political heavyweights Egypt and Syria remaining silent as Israeli jets pound Lebanon, Saudi Arabia criticizing Hizballah in a tone without precedent and Iraq and Palestine in flames, have we arrived at another twilight for the Arab world?

"The new Iran has emerged in the Middle East, and America and Europe are coming to terms with it," Barzegar concludes.

That is exactly what is keeping Arab leaders awake at night. It was no accident that Riyadh issued a statement condemning Hizballah's "miscalculated adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them" on the third day of the Israeli attack. Iranian national security chief Ali Larijani knew who the Saudis were referring to when he made a lightning visit to Riyadh the very next day for "consultations on bilateral relations and regional developments", as acute an indication of trouble as the region's stifled media can express.

The timing of Israel's latest adventure marks another anniversary: ten years since the ill-fated Grapes of Wrath campaign, another Israeli invasion of Lebanon that led to the strengthening of Hizballah and, four years later, the ultimate withdrawal of the Israeli army from southern Lebanon.

This time, the stakes are infinitely higher. With Iraq removed from the region's power equations and dangerously destabilized, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf are feeling distinctly weak as they confront a resurgent Shi'ite Islamic Republic. That goes a long way toward explaining their pregnant silence in the face of Israel's ongoing campaign.

"Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats [in order] to take down Hizballah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant," the same un-named US official told The Washington Post.

Washington will be worried lest this latest spin of the dice backfires as disastrously as Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, two foreign policy failures in the greater Middle East arena are possibly salvageable. A third could spell the end of Washington's brief stranglehold over the region and the muscling-in of new international actors.

At a time when Israel would be stretched in extending a conventional military campaign to Tehran's door-step, a strengthened Iran could emerge from the current chaos. The development of Tehran as a powerful anti-western regional pole would make it a prime candidate for further geopolitical investment by Moscow and Beijing, two powers that have watched America's adventures in the region from the sidelines for the past 16 years. Lebanon 2006 could be remembered as the return of a multi-polar Middle East.- Published 20/7/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Iason Athanasiadis is an Istanbul-based writer and photographer who lived in Iran from 2004 to 2007.

With the brazen attack on Israeli forces last week, and the outrageously disproportionate Israeli military response underway, Hassan Nasrallah has effectively driven a mighty nail into the coffin of the US misadventure in Iraq. As a byproduct, Hizballah may have also taken a first step toward Sunni-Shi'ite reconciliation.

It is important to understand that Hizballah is first and foremost a national Lebanese movement that is almost exclusively focused on the Land of the Cedars. The border attack and immediate aftermath--which left eight Israeli soldiers dead and two in the hands of Hizballah--was ostensibly carried out to secure the release of long-serving Lebanese prisoners being held illegally in Israeli jails, some for over 20 years. However it was much more than a meticulously planned military operation. Nasrallah, Hizballah's secretary general, understood that he had a golden opportunity, however slight, to shift the balance of power in the region. While the inherent risks of such a move are invariably high, one cannot say that the logic behind him rolling the dice doesn't have merit.

The circumstances that allowed Nasrallah to act arose from a number of factors. First and foremost is the Iraqi quagmire, where the US is hopelessly bogged down, desperately fighting off an ever more powerful Sunni insurgency. The US's nominal allies in Iraq, the majority Shi'ites, have been skillfully playing their hand by more or less refraining from an all-out war against the US-led coalition, leveraging their political and street clout to hold out for absolute supremacy in the country. By implicitly threatening to throw their significant weight behind the anti-American insurgency (even if it is in a different form) if their demands are not met, it is the Shi'ites, and by extension Iran, who are holding the balance of power between the two great rivers. At the same time, flush with petro-dollars and a nascent nuclear program, Tehran is increasingly confident that the US does not possess the military and political capability to inflict strategic damage on their country while tied up next door. President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad and the Supreme Council are acutely aware that they can cause serious havoc to US interests by proxy in Iraq if attacked. The US government is also obviously conscious of this fact.

The second variable in the equation is Syria. Battered and wounded in Lebanon following the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri, Syrian President Bashar Assad has been looking for ways to regain the initiative. Syrian military intelligence is suspected of destabilizing the country by orchestrating a series of lethal car bombings in Beirut since the abrupt withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon last year. Assad's only hope of regaining a solid foothold in Lebanon is through Hizballah and he needed to leverage any power he had.

Israel, despite its constant and empty cries of innocence, has also played a dangerous game in Lebanon since its hasty withdrawal from the country in 2000. By hanging on to an insignificant piece of land (the Sheba'a Farms), refusing to hand over maps showing where Israel laid land mines during the occupation, and constantly violating the sovereign airspace and territorial waters of Lebanon for the past six years, successive Israeli governments have actively poured poison into the already toxic mix that is Lebanese politics.

As is the case in Gaza, Israel may have removed its forces, but it never allowed either the Lebanese or Palestinian governments to fully exercise control over their land. Add on the brutalities of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, especially the daily bombardment of Gaza and the rising number of civilian casualties, and it is clear that Israel has almost been daring someone to hit back. With an abundance of blind support from Washington--where everything is viewed through the warped lens of the "war on terror"--Israel felt immune to the consequences of its actions. By isolating and starving the duly-elected, Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and people, and incessantly shelling Gaza, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz--non-military men leading a militaristic country--set out to prove that they also could be as tough as any general. When fighters from the Palestinian Resistance Committees succeeded in stinging the IDF in Gaza a few weeks ago with the capture of an Israeli corporal, Olmert categorically ruled out releasing Palestinian prisoners in an exchange, thereby climbing up a tree from which he couldn't come down.

By branding as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers every party, organization, or government that doesn't completely tow their line, Israel, the US, and to a lesser extent the EU have discredited moderates throughout the region and opened the way for more militant organizations. By completely marginalizing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for 18 months, Israel more than anyone helped Hamas in gaining an electoral victory. Since the traditionally moderate leadership couldn't gain anything tangible, like the release of prisoners or an easing of the draconian Israeli travel restrictions, the scene was set for any organization promising action.

In carrying out the attack a week ago, Nasrallah was taking advantage of all these circumstances. While operational links between Hizballah and Iran are not really clear, the political and spiritual affiliations are. It is difficult to believe that Iran, at some level, didn't give at least tacit approval to Hizballah prior to executing such a major attack. Again, the stakes are just too high.

The big question right now is how this gamble is going to play out. Israel seems to have no interest in any kind of diplomatic solution and has upped the ante. If Hizballah is able to withstand the Israeli onslaught for another two weeks, inflicting damage to Israeli soldiers and cities while Lebanese casualties mount by the hour and the US stands by idly, then it is possible we will witness growing unrest among the Shi'ite community in Iraq and among Sunni Egyptians and Jordanians, not to mention the newly emboldened Palestinians. This will raise the pressure on the US to rein in Israel, which, if the past is any measure, Israel will acquiesce to. Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners will be reunited with their families, and Hizballah will yet again be the heroes of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Nasrallah, Iran, and Syria will have been correct in their risk assessment, and the moderates throughout the Arab world will pay the price for Israel and the West's folly.

To avoid this scenario, Israel needs to immediately end its illegal and immoral bombing of Lebanon and Gaza, release prisoners to Abbas and the Lebanese government, and start a meaningful and substantial negotiating process with the Palestinians. Hizballah has shown it has the capability to inflict pain on Israel and the US should be extremely wary of turning the Shi'ites against them in Iraq. The only way to bring about a win-win situation is to shift the paradigm in the opposite direction. The world's leaders need to step forward now or bear the consequences.- Published 20/7/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Akram Baker is an entrepreneur and independent political analyst.