Monday, August 14, 2006

Was it worth it?

 
 
With the fighting apparently over in Lebanon, at least for the time being, it is time to ask whether the Middle East is better off today than it was a month ago. Of course, it will take months if not years for the dust to settle and for a full answer to be available but, as usual, I will give my two-cents' worth on how things look right now, which is not all that different from my view on 2nd August.
First of all, is a serious conflict more likely to occur now than it was on 11th July? Assuming that the ceasefire holds until the international force is deployed, the answer would probably be 'no'. The fact that Hezbollah were in direct contact with the Israeli army on the border between the two countries was an accident waiting to happen. And it did. Whatever else the war may have achieved or failed to achieve, this state of affairs will no longer exist under the new arrangement. The fact that Lebanon has paid such a high price for Hezbollah's actions could also ensure that it will become politically more costly in future for Hezbollah to use its rocket capabalities against Israel.
Hezbollah has certainly achieved a great psychological victory. Many Arabs are now under the impression that Israel can be defeated. If Hezbollah, with the equivalent of two infantry brigades, could hold the Israelis for a month then Israel is weak and would be unable to defeat a proper army. This fallacy is not one that Arab leaders are likely to fall for. So I think that a war with Syria (the only obvious candidate) remains as unlikely as it was on 11th July. Iran is also unlikely to attack Israel directly in the short term for the simple reason that Israel is a nuclear state and could view an Iranian attack as one that threatens its existence.
Nevertheless, while war is probably somewhat less likely now than it was then, I don't see that the prospects for real peace have improved much either. Hezbollah will continue to exist and, through it, Iran and Syria will be able to veto any possibily of a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Unfortunately, peace between Israel and Syria does not appear to be on the horizon either. Peace between Israel and Iran is probably impossible as long as the Mullahs are in power.
Israel's plans for disengagement from the West Bank may have been damaged, although probably more so as a result of the Gaza experience than as a result of Lebanon. Still, I believe that it might occur anyway, simply because the alternative is more costly. I would not exclude either that a modus vivendi might be found with Hamas, although this is not particularly likely.
So, I would say that we now have a Middle East that is slightly less explosive than it was a month ago but not by much. As I've pointed out in my 2nd August post, the only strategic breakthrough I can imagine would be peace between Israel and Syria but the tragedy is that the political will is not there for this to happen.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting analysis Caxaru. Here's my 2 cents worth:

1) Olmert's government screwed up. Too long an air war, too indecisive an invasion and changing objective in the middle of a war is very inept.
2) The kidnapped soldiers have not been returned. This is going to make Israelis sleep less easily at night.
3) Failing to annihilate Hizbullah allowed it claim victory which is attracting militants from all over the muslim world who will aggravate matters: http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp?fileid=20060815.G07&irec=6
4) Allowing Hizbullah to claim victory is going to encourage Syria and Iran:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3291338,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_iran

I'm extremely pessimistic about the situation. My belief is that the situation in the Middle-East will deteriorate rapidly over the next six months - and we haven't even factored in the Iranian nuclear threat.

The only good that I can see has come out of this war is that it might have taught the Western Powers that Israel cannot be used/imperilled to fight proxy wars on their behalf. If they want to do the job, they'll have to it properly.

7:03 PM  
Blogger Pietru Caxaru said...

Hi Wild Knight,

Thanks for the interesting links!

I must say I'm not so pessimistic myself.

I'm sure that Olmert would do lots of things differently if he could start over but the end result is not bad.

I'm not sure that permanently eradicating Hezbollah was ever a serious possibility, as they could easily have replaced their men and equipment after the conflict. My view is that the only way to eradicate them would be through Syria, either by making peace with it or by making it pay the price for Hezbollah activity directly.

As for Assad's rhetoric, it should be taken with a pinch of salt. If Syria really thought that it is militarily in a position to recapture the Golan Heights then it would already have done so.

10:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

frontpage hit counter