A different kind of crisis

While we weren't paying attention, a new war has broken out in the Middle East. This is more than a 'crisis', as it's presently being called in the media; it has all the makings of a wider regional conflict involving all the major players. Even better, if you like carnage, thanks to the glorious liberation of Iraq, the United States sits smack-dab in the middle.

The backstory is simple enough: the terrorist group Hezbollah - or more accurately Hisb'Allah, 'the party of god' - conducted a raid into northern Israel, killed several Israel Defence Force - IDF - soldiers, and abducted two to Lebanon. Hezbollah is a hybrid creature, perhaps best compared to the broader organization formed by Sinn Fein and the IRA; it has a political arm which forms a large bloc in the parliament of Lebanon. The linkages between the terrorist and political arms of Hezbollah are somewhat murky; they do, however, exist, even if it's a bit of a stretch to decide where control of the organization lies, or if there is indeed central control. Hezbollah has declared that it wants to exchange the hostages for prisoners held by Israel; Israel answered, entirely correctly in my view, that it does not negotiate with terrorists or at the barrel of a gun.

Israel's reaction, as is that country's well-known and expected response, was swift and severe; as the Times reports, the Israeli air force has bombed Beirut airport several times, a naval blockade of Lebanon has been instituted, and tanks are on the ground moving north. The argument made by the government in Jerusalem is simple: Hezbollah forms a part of the government of Lebanon, therefore, the attacks and abductions rise above the level of terrorism into a hostile act as defined by the UN charter. De jure, that's accurate; de facto, it's a bit of a stretch, simply because it's doubtful that the parliamentarians of Hezbollah control the terrorist wing of that organization, much less the government of Lebanon proper. What the Olmert government is more likely doing is increasing the pain felt by the Lebanese government to a level where it will in turn force Hezbollah to hand over the hostages; certainly, naval blockades and bombings of the capital can be expected to cause pain.

The problem with that approach is that the writ of the Beirut government does not de facto extend to those portions of the country held by Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Jerusalem expects the Beirut government to be rsponsible for what happens on its territory. So we're likely to see further escalation. Hezbollah indeed retaliated, slamming Katyushas - Soviet-made rockets - into northern Israel as far south as Haifa.

Where it gets really ugly is in the following scenario: PBS tonight reported an Israeli government statement that Hezbollah might move its hostages out of Lebanon into either Syria or Iran; the organization is allied with both Shi'ite-governed countries. In that case, Israel will extend operations into those countries. I would assume that the Damascus government at least is horrified by that prospect; as for Teheran, likely, they would welcome an Israeli attack; war has a wonderful way of getting people to think about things other than, say, a crappy economy. If it worked here, it will work there.

This wider war would provide both Syria and Iran with plenty of reasons to want to pressure the United States; and guess where they can do that at their discretion and pleasure? That's right, in Iraq, already a tinderbox and a place rich in opportunities for mischief overt or covert. Just think of it as another small price tag of empire that Bush forgot to mention on the aircraft carrier.

And who is in the driver's seat of this crisis? Not the combatant governments in Beirut and Jerusalem; not Damascus or Teheran; certainly not the professional diplomats at Foggy Bottom or Whitehall. No, the decision as to where this conflict ends, and how far it goes, rests with the leadership of Hezbollah.

Hallelujah.