American President George W. Bush envisaged a new Middle East, and by all appearances he may be getting his wish. The political landscape of the Middle East is changing, but not in the manner the president anticipated. Instead of American democracy leading the way, the Bush administration is struggling to prevent the region from falling into the grips of an Iranian-led Islamist theocracy.
Thanks largely to Washington’s lack of coherent policy, such as its shortsightedness in Iraq and in allowing Israel to pursue its war on Lebanon as it tried to decapitate Hizbullah, Bush may have contributed to the problem rather than the solution. It was only when Israel contemplated a full-scale ground invasion of Lebanon – yet again – that the American president reached for the panic button, and asked the United Nations to seriously sue for a ceasefire.
The president, much like his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had resisted earlier appeals from Arab and European leaders to pressure Israel to stop hostilities. Bush hoped Israel would be able to destroy Hizbullah before a ceasefire was voted and approved by the UN Security Council. But as one Israeli general confided, not all wars are won in six days. This one took 34 days, and at the end, Israel still could not claim victory. But Hizbullah, Syria and Iran had no such qualms. They went out declaring victory to whoever would lend a sympathetic ear.
Hizbullah proved to be a far tougher foe than Israel initially imagined. War, by its very nature, is an uncertainty. This is heightened in an asymmetrical conflict, as was the case in this war.
Israel was forced to re-evaluate tactics along the way, going from fighting a war it initially believed could be won exclusively from the air, to committing boots on the ground, something it was reluctant to do with memories of 1982 still fresh.
Major changes for Israel
The war was so askew for the Israeli military that just four weeks into the offensive, its High Command felt the need to change a top military commander, a rare move in the middle of a war. Military affairs specialists saw the move as a blow to the Israeli army’s morale – and pride.
The other major change for Israel is that for the first time since its war of independence, war came to Israel proper. Since the start of the conflict July 12, more than 4,000 rockets fired by Hizbullah militants crashed into Israeli cities, towns and settlements, killing more than 150 people.
But as numbers go, the war took its biggest toll on Lebanon’s civilian population and its economic infrastructure: 1,020 killed, 3,568 injured and 915,762 displaced at the height of the conflict, according to official Lebanese sources. One hundred and forty one bridges destroyed, hundreds of kilometers of roads damaged, billions in potential revenue lost, including the promising tourist season, along with tens of thousands of foreigner visitors.
But was this conflict really between Israel and Hizbullah, or was there more to it? Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told senior officers during a visit to the Northern Command that Israel was not just fighting Hizbullah. Israel was fighting Iran and Syria.
Iran and its newfound ally, Syria, now play vital roles in Lebanon in the aftermath of the war. Many analysts saw in the conflict a precursor to what could be a far wider conflict – a major political tug-o-war between Syria/Iran and the West. Whether Washington likes it or not, Syria, feeling somewhat vindicated by Hizbullah’s “victory,” continues to hold one of the keys to ensuring peace – or lack of it – in the region.
As for Iran, it supplies Hizbullah with arms, training and money. As soon as the ceasefire went into effect, representatives from Hizbullah were out assessing the damage and offering financial compensation. In Beirut’s southern suburbs, Hizbullah quickly began to distribute cash. Residents whose homes were damaged or destroyed received $12,000.
Where did all this money come from? Iran. As a major oil producer Iran is not cash-strapped, especially given the current price of oil.
The French want to know the rules of engagement before they commit troops
Hizbullah’s rapid reaction in providing emergency assistance to tens of thousands of Lebanese villagers and residents of the southern suburbs has embarrassed the Lebanese government, which was unable to match Hizbullah’s speedy generosity.
Double standards
Needless to say, this was quite predictable. In its war against terror and its efforts to win the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East, this is one more area where Washington showed shortcomings in political preemption. If Washington could deliver high explosive artillery and mortar shells to the Israeli army, it should have been able to airlift food, medicine and other emergency supplies to Lebanon.
Hizbullah’s munificence – compliments of the Iranians – will score major points with the Shia community. For decades, the Beirut government has ignored much of the South, one of the poorest regions in Lebanon – and one of the most beautiful, except that it has the misfortune to border Israel.
As the fighting stopped and the haggling began to intensify over which countries were going to send troops to South Lebanon to beef-up UNIFIL, the ghosts of 58 French paratroopers and over 250 American servicemen, killed in a double terrorist bombing in 1983, lingered in the minds of European politicians. An early incarnation of Hizbullah was widely believed to have been responsible for that attack. No country wants to see a repeat performance, but by the end of the month, the French and Italians, veterans of the 1980s peacekeeping operation, were leading the way and landing at Tyre and Beirut. Qatar has pledged troops and the French are sure to follow in greater numbers. Lebanon is historically its darling and it has to be seen to do right by her.
Still, fears remain: “Above all, we need to avoid repeating what happened in 1983,” a French official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told this correspondent. “Until the rules of engagement are defined, we don’t want to place our troops in a situation where they can become targets. We need guarantees,” said the official.
The guarantees need to come from Syria and Iran at a time when relations between France and both countries are at their lowest ever.
The trouble is that everyone in this crisis wants to have the last word. Syria would probably like to see the investigation into the Hariri assassination dropped before it gives its last word on a multinational deployment. Iran wants the West to lay off its nuclear program. And Lebanon is once again caught in the middle.
