Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The only saving grace of this moronic pissing contest in the Middle East for me is that at least they had the decency to wait until the World Cup ended. The rest of this nasty business is an exercise in stupidity. Israel has now declared that they will no longer be satisfied by the return of their soldiers. Their goal now is to destroy Hezbollah, they say. Well, good luck with that. Seeing how successful Israel was in destroying Hezbollah during the 22 years it spent occupying Lebanon, I won’t exactly hold my breath.

History and common sense have never been barriers to rash action in the Middle East. This time is proving to be no different. In response to the taking of 2 of its soldiers, Israel felt compelled, like it did in Gaza, to exact revenge on the people of Lebanon. The logic appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will cry uncle if Israel bombs enough bridges, destroys every inch of Beirut’s International Airport, blows up a random civilian or a dozen. The hope appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will buckle after seeing the suffering of the Lebanese people - a feat that 22 years of Israeli attacks on Lebanon failed to achieve. So in that vain hope Israel is methodically sending Lebanon back in time one 500-pound bomb at a time. Apparently, Hezbollah did not get the memo. They have responded by declaring "Open War" against Israel and have blown up an Israeli warship using a poor man’s Tomahawk missile.

Almost exactly a decade after the last massive Israeli-Hezbollah spat, the same game plan is playing out. On April 11, 1996, CNN reported the following:

Israeli aircraft launched an intense military assault against the militant Islamic group Hezbollah Thursday, striking targets in Beirut as well as in eastern and southern Lebanon.

It is the first time since 1982 that Israel forces have attacked Beirut.

At least one civilian was killed and at least five were wounded in Thursday’s raid as Israeli helicopter gunships blasted Hezbollah areas in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The Beirut raids came hours after Israeli aircraft pounded Hezbollah headquarters near the Lebanese cities of Tyre and Baalbek.

Israel officials said all aircraft have returned safely.

The attacks follow weeks of growing tensions between both sides. On Tuesday, about 30 Israelis were injured when Hezbollah rocketed villages in northern Israel.

The situation had deteriorated significantly by April 14, 1996:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — Artillery and rocket attacks continued to pound both sides of the Lebanon border Sunday as Israel and Hezbollah militants bombarded targets in south Lebanon and north Israel.

In the United States, the White House called on Hezbollah to cease its "provocative" actions, but the militants vowed to turn northern Israel into "fiery hell" and launched more rockets.

One Hezbollah rocket hit an empty lot at the United Nations peacekeeping force headquarters in Naquora, Lebanon. The Katyusha rocket, believed to have fallen short of its target, caused no casualties.

Israeli forces, attacking areas in Beirut and surrounding suburbs for the fourth day, knocked out a power station, and at least three Lebanese civilians were killed in the air raids on south Lebanon. Some 400,000 people in the area have been forced to flee.

Hezbollah’s rockets, falling at a rate of one every 20 minutes on Sunday, also struck a school, but no casualties were reported.

Hezbollah also announced an expansion of its bombing efforts. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said that squads of suicide bombers from a "brigade of martyrdom-lovers" will attack Israeli targets to retaliate against the bombings.

That particular spat came to an end after the United States stepped in to mediate a cease-fire. Years later, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and subsequently swapped prisoners with Hezbollah.

Some in Israel and the United States viewed the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a humiliating defeat and as an act of betrayal. It is a defeat that Ehud Olmert has now set about to rectify, much to the glee of the neo-conservatives in the United States.

During the escalation of 1996, there were grown ups at the White House who delicately talked Israel and Hezbollah (through proxies) off the ledge. There were moderating forces who were able to put the brakes on an all out conflagration. No such forces exist in Washington today. Instead of trying to cool the rhetoric the Bush Administration has been adding fuel to the fire with pronouncements emanating from the White House and from the anti-diplomat John Bolton at the UN Security Council. President Bush blamed Syria for instigating Hezbollah:

And having said that, Israel has a right to defend herself. Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life. It’s a necessary part of the 21st century.

Secondly, we — whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We’re concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We’ve been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Syria needs to be held to account. Syria is housing the militant wing of Hamas. Hezbollah has got an active presence in Syria. The truth of the matter is, if we really want there to be — the situation to settle down, the soldiers need to be returned, and President Assad needs to show some leadership toward peace.

Mr. Bush’s UN Ambassador took it a step further today at the Security Council and blamed both Iran and Syria:

Syria and Iran must be held accountable for their role in international terrorism, he said.  Syria supported Hamas, while Iran supported Hizbollah.  No reckoning with Hizbollah would be adequate, without reckoning with its sponsor, Iran.  He again called on Syria to arrest a Hamas leader and recognized terrorist that resided on its territory.  He welcomed the decision to send a United Nations team to the region.  His country was engaged as well, with senior officials in the region.  He called on all parties in the region to accept their responsibility for security in the region. 

Israel claims both Iran and Syria are behind the Hezbollah kidnapping. With Washington reinforcing that view, a real possibility exists that Israel will take this opportunity to strike targets in Iran. Israel has repeatedly threatened preemptive strikes on Iran to prevent it becoming a nuclear power. With this latest spat with Hezbollah and Israel’s insistence that Tehran instigated it, Israel can now be seen as defending itself if it chooses to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Already Israel has struck the international airport in Beirut ostensively to prevent the shipment of arms from Iran and to prevent Hezbollah from flying the abducted Israeli soldiers to Iran. The next logical level of escalation is a strike on Iran.

A strike on Iran may sound awfully good on paper to conservative pundits in Washington and in the charged atmosphere in Tel Aviv. However, in the Middle East, actions seldom result in proportionate reaction. In a culture of escalation the likelihood of a major regional conflict looms large. With some in the Bush Administration and neo-conservative circles in Washington salivating at the prospect of an attack on Iran, common sense is in short supply. The United States is likely to sit this one out until it is too late.

Bush may yet get his war on Iran. But as in the case of Iraq, he has probably not thought through the consequences of a feel good attack on the mullahs in Tehran.

Americans should look forward to another nice war brought to us through the lenses of CNN. It would all be great fun except for the inconvenient truth that every thrilling blast that we see on television usually results in the end of many unfinished lives.

On June 28, 2006 the Israel Defense Forces reentered the Gaza Strip ostensibly to win the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit. Corporal Shalit had been kidnapped by Palestinian militants 3 days earlier. The Israeli operation has been codenamed "Operation Summer Rain".

Since the attacks began Israel has destroyed roads, bridges, water plants, and electrical power stations. Israel has arrested Palestinian parliament members and targeted the Prime Minister after declaring their intention to assassinate him. The attack on Gaza has left the 1.4 million inhabitants in the densely populated Strip without electric power, running water, and with very little food. The United Nations has warned that the already dire conditions of the Palestinian people are now on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. Amidst the suffering, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ordered more intensified attacks on the Palestinians:

The strikes appeared to be a direct response to the instructions of the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who told subordinates at a cabinet meeting on Sunday that he intended to make the lives of Gazans ever more miserable until the captured soldier, 19-year-old Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was released. But Israel also yielded somewhat to outside pressure on Sunday by allowing a limited supply of fuel and food into Gaza.

Mr. Olmert, whose air force has already bombed Gaza’s bridges, crippled its only power plant, shelled the Palestinian prime minister’s office here and subjected all 1.4 million Gaza residents to night after night of sleep-depriving sonic booms, said he had ordered the military and government "to do everything in order to bring Gilad back home."

The message from Israel is clear: surrender the soldier or all Palestinians will suffer. Asked on CNN’s Late Edition if the Israeli assault was harming the Palestinian people, Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said that if the Palestinians hand over the soldier the attacks will stop. So the Palestinians should stop complaining and hand over the soldier:

ROBERTS: Vice Premier Peres, the question is, is this operation harming the Palestinian people as much or more than it’s harming the Hamas government?

PERES: Well, they can get rid of it in one moment. If they would release the soldier, the operation will be over in a moment’s time. It is up to them. But they cannot keep the soldier as a hostage and then complain.

By the way, when it comes to electricity, we checked beforehand. If the hospitals have generators to supply the necessary electricity to the people who are in hospital, we wouldn’t bomb otherwise. But if they want to change the situation, it’s in their hands. They don’t have to complain.

So, once again, the Palestinian people will have to endure more suffering at the hands of the Israelis until the latest "point of no return" is crossed and magically the status quo is again restored. The politicians will argue, people will be killed on both sides, blood will be on everyone’s hands, extremists on both sides will continue to drive the agenda, and through it all Palestinians who have been refugees on their own land since the Nakba will continue to bare the brunt of the insanity.

Nakba is the Arabic word for "catastrophe". The Palestinians refer to the exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War from their homes in what is now the State of Israel as the Nakba. But as with all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the cause of the Nakba is hotly disputed. It is so disputed that the fact that I, in this post, am calling it the Nakba will likely garner some criticism. The Israelis and Palestinians it appears operate from two sets of facts. The irony is that with two sets of fact they both want to occupy one piece of land.

Regardless of whether the Palestinians left willingly or were forced out, the result has been the creation of a refugee nation of Palestinians who have lived in miserable conditions ever since. Since 1948 the people of Palestine have been used as pawns between the Arabs on one side and the Israelis on the other. The Arabs have always used the Palestinians as a tool to achieve their own domestic agendas. The Arabs have always given the Palestinians just enough to survive, but never more. The Israelis on the other hand are suffering the results of an incomplete exodus of the Palestinians. Israel has a refugee problem within its self-declared borders. It has a population that it does not want and cannot seem to get rid off. Add to that the fact that every now and then the Palestinians rise up against the Israelis violently in self-determination and you have the makings of a perpetual Nakba.

Instead of Peace we are treated to a "Peace Process". The "Peace Process" is a euphemism for a level of violence with acceptable losses of civilian lives on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. This Nakba has its own check and balance and always reaches a macabre equilibrium. Whenever a possibility is raised for meaningful progress in the "Peace Process", extremists on either one side or the other will cause just enough damage to scuttle the progress. The "Peace Process" unfortunately is designed with a built-in veto by any insignificant extremist that chooses to scuttle progress. Thus, equilibrium is always reached and the Palestinian people’s status as a refugee nation is guaranteed.

In the latest incident, just when there was news that Hamas might accept Israel’s right to exist, the inevitable match was lit to burn the prospect to the ground. As with all assaults on the Palestinian people this assault will soon end. There will be horse trading between Israeli and Palestinian politicians and both sides will step back from the brink. Ultimately Israel will likely get its soldier back and Hamas militants will likely get the release of some Palestinian prisoners in exchange (though, likely not right away to avoid an appearance of quid pro quo). Everything will be back to "normal". The Palestinian people will be left to pick the dead amidst the rubble and try to move on.

The Nakba will continue.

The United States has threatened a nuclear strike on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government of Iran has responded to this threat by publicly humiliating the United States. Iran has declared that it has officially joined the Nuclear Club. Though Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, its announcement that it is now capable of enriching uranium puts the United States, and the international community, on notice that Iran is rapidly becoming the newest nuclear power in the world.

In his latest column in The Washington Post, David Ignatius compares the current impasse with the Cuban Missile Crisis. He writes about the choices President Bush is presented with:

[Professor Graham] Allison argues that Bush’s dilemma is similar to the one that confronted Kennedy in 1962. His advisers are telling him that he may face a stark choice — either to acquiesce in the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a dangerous adversary, or risk war to stop that nuclear fait accompli . Hard-liners warned JFK that alternative courses of action would only delay the inevitable day of reckoning, and Bush is probably hearing similar advice now.

He argues that an attack on Iran will undermine America’s pre-eminent position in the world. He cites Zbigniew Brzezinski to drive home the point:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran. "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America’s present role in the world," he told me this week. "Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it’s still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we’ll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

While I agree with Mr. Ignatius and Mr. Brzezinski that an attack on Iran will further undermine America’s relevance in the world, I disagree with the suggestion that we are not already there. I think it is a direct consequence of the war in Iraq that Iran and to a similar extent North Korea are able to throw dirt in America’s face with impunity. By threatening war we have rendered impotent our ability to wage war. Our adversaries know this and know that the vast diplomatic playing field between war and peace belongs to them.

While Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis realized that the goal of war is to achieve your will and not war itself, the Bush administration considers war as an end by itself. Kennedy deftly employed the tools of war, gunboat diplomacy, and the art of political communication in combination to achieve the primary goal - to avoid a nuclear Cuba. His genius, as Mr. Ignatius points out, was to realize that the other side does not necessarily want war. Kennedy cultivated this notion and pounced on it in one brilliant act in high stakes diplomacy: he received two contradictory messages from the Soviet Union, one belligerent one conciliatory, he chose to ignore the belligerent and act on the conciliatory. That single act shifted the dynamics of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The detente that followed can be traced back directly to this triumph of uncommon common sense alone.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, has played the diplomatic game with the subtlety of a jackhammer. It may work well in movies, where you draw a line in the sand and your opponent quickly crumbles and grovels at your feet, but in the real world a show of force is underpinned by multiple of acts of mutual compromise. The Administration however, due to its misadventure in Iraq, has lost the ability to make a credible show of force. When the United States says that we will strike you militarily if condition A is not met, the opposing party knows that this is not a starting point of diplomacy but an inflexible ultimatum. The choices for the adversary now are either capitulate or wage war. From anyone else’s perspective except perhaps that of the United States, the sounder choice is to prepare for war. It is better to fight a war under these circumstances with the final political outcome in doubt than to capitulate with its assured outcome of defeat. This is not to say that the United States cannot win militarily against Iran, it certainly can. But war is not about military victories. War is a political act and its final outcome must be measured with a political yardstick. By that yardstick, a prospect of an American victory in Iran is remote.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has in recent days struck both a conciliatory and a belligerent tone in his public remarks. This is not a sign of an unstable personality, as many in the Administration appear to believe. It is, on the contrary, a sign that Iran is practiced in the art of diplomacy. The Bush Administration should now be at a moment of decision. Past experience suggests that the Administration perhaps does not realize this and may already have made the decision to go to war. That is a shame. This crisis offers the United States the opportunity to truly remake the Middle East - but perhaps not in the way they had originally envisioned. Iran is destined to be, with an assist from the United States in Iraq, a major power in the Middle East. The United States has an opportunity here to get ahead of this development and broker a new status quo in the Middle East that can usher in an era of regional and global stability. This development is in our National Interest, far more so than a full-scale war in the Middle East.

It is now time to move the conversation to the achievement of this new order in the Middle East.