MUST READ: IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISRAEL-HEZBOLLAH WAR

Implications of the Israel-Hezbollah War
by Gary C. Gambill

The July-August 2006 conflagration between Israel and the Lebanese Shiite Islamist Hezbollah movement defies the common presumption that the Arab-Israeli conflict is inherently zero sum - that Israel's loss is always a commensurate gain for its adversaries, and vice versa. As UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown remarked during the fourth week of fighting, this was an "odd war" in which "both sides think they're winning."[1]

In fact, both sides achieved significant gains that may ultimately outweigh their losses and shift the dynamics of the conflict into a stable equilibrium. Israel made concrete strategic and diplomatic gains in its decades-long quest to pacify its northern border, while failing spectacularly to achieve rather fanciful declared objectives and tarnishing its image of military invincibility (a disastrous combination in Israeli politics, but hardly a crushing national setback). Hezbollah won a resounding political victory at home, at the expense of constrained freedom of action to fight Israelis abroad, a state-sanctioned indulgence that most Lebanese Shiites would just as soon the group give up (while remaining armed).

The war was less favorable to non-participants. The Israeli onslaught appears to have eroded public confidence in Lebanon's ruling March 14 coalition by demonstrating that its most attractive perceived virtue (American backing) was largely a mirage and exposing the political paralysis and corruption of the state. The Bush administration gained some strategic leverage over Iran, but its unswerving support for the Israeli campaign fueled a spike in anti-American sentiments in Lebanon and the region, while Arab governments that tacitly followed its lead suffered a major public relations setback. While Iran and Syria loudly rejoiced at seeing their Lebanese ally take to the battlefield against Israel, the political payoffs accrue mainly to Hezbollah alone and will militate against future outside efforts to incite anti-Israeli violence from Lebanese soil.

...

Implications

While Israel achieved significant strategic and diplomatic goals, the war against Hezbollah was a political disaster for Olmert, who suffered the most rapid plummet of public approval ratings for an Israeli prime minister in decades. While there is a strong public consensus in Israel that the military campaign was a failure, this is partly because of popular misconceptions (inflated by Olmert's bellicose rhetoric early in the campaign) about what was realistically possible to achieve. Israel might have dealt Hezbollah a more serious blow had a different military strategy been followed, but there was never a viable prospect of preventing its regeneration once the dust settled.

Although Hezbollah suffered strategic and diplomatic setbacks, the war dramatically boosted its domestic and regional popular appeal, while eroding the strength of its adversaries. This gives Nasrallah considerably more political leverage than he had before the war, effectively shelving any prospect of pressuring Hezbollah to disarm in advance (and therefore in lieu, many Shiites would say) of far-reaching political and economic reforms. Siniora ordered a Lebanese military deployment of unprecedented strength south of the Litani River, but only after reaching an agreement with Nasrallah whereby Hezbollah keeps its weapons out of public view and the army pretends it doesn't see them.[24] Much like the governing coalition's 2005 electoral pact with Hezbollah, this "don't look, don't tell" arrangement was billed as a compromise, but largely preserved the status quo ante. At any rate, the largely Shiite composition of the army effectively precludes any effort by Siniora to depart from this arrangement.[25] Although Siniora may be susceptible to pressure from the West to allow UN peacekeepers to gradually increase pressure on Hezbollah, the movement's military performance in the recent war has dampened European (particularly French) enthusiasm for robust intervention in south Lebanon far more than anyone cares to publicly admit.

Since there is no way for Israel to disrupt re-supply of Hezbollah short of bombing all trucking traffic from Syria into Lebanon,[26] the arms embargo imposed by Resolution 1701 cannot be enforced without the earnest cooperation of either the Lebanese or Syrian governments. The sudden proliferation of calls for negotiations with Assad among American pundits is a pretty good indicator of how dimly prospects for the former are viewed in Washington.

Nevetheless, the outcome of the war may prove to be a stable equilibrium. Though he has essentially defused internal pressure to disarm, Nasrallah appears to recognize that violent provocation of Israel will be far too risky for the foreseeable future. For the time being, Hezbollah is likely to concentrate on rebuilding residential structures destroyed in the war (with generous assistance from the Iranians) and warding off international efforts to secure its disarmament. Barring any major provocations, Israel will have little incentive (other than public clamoring) to re-ignite full-scale war (and little American encouragement to do so).

The implications of the war for outsiders cut several ways. Washington gained some strategic leverage over Iran (and, perhaps, some insights into the difficulties of combating a religious sect that celebrates martyrdom), but its refusal to call for an unconditional ceasefire during the fighting enflamed anti-American sentiments throughout the Arab world, weakened the Lebanese political coalition it was hoping to strengthen, and embarrassed Arab governments that followed its lead by criticizing Hezbollah early in the campaign. The war also set in motion congressional pressure on the administration to take punitive actions against the Lebanese government so long as Hezbollah is represented in the cabinet. All in all, the ability of the White House to decisively impact Lebanon's political trajectory has declined.

For Iran, the returns are mixed. The expanded UNIFIL deployment and Lebanon's new political map will discourage Iranian efforts to incite anti-Israeli violence from Lebanese soil (a significant, if not decisive, strategic setback) as Tehran comes under greater international pressure to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program. Although Iran derived some diplomatic leverage from the crisis (underscored by the French foreign minister's visit to Tehran during the fighting), the conventional wisdom that Iran has emerged stronger "by showing the world that it is capable of wreaking havoc through its support of the Hezbollah militants" must be qualified.[27] The resolve of the United States and Western European governments to derail Iran's nuclear program has not been substantially weakened by the crisis (widely seen as taste of the kind of troublemaking that will be in store for the region once Iran achieves a nuclear deterrent), as was evident from the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1696 on July 31. However, the presence of European troops in close proximity to Hezbollah guerrillas may discourage support for American military action against Iran down the road.

Burgeoning anti-Israeli hostility in the Arab world obviously has its benefits for Iran, although the devastation of Lebanon during the war might temper its ability to translate pervasive anti-Israeli hostility among Palestinians into organized acts of violence. The recent outpouring of popular support for Hezbollah across the region may discourage some Arab governments from overtly supporting American policy on Iran, but it has hardly mitigated their desire to see the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The pacification of south Lebanon is a significant strategic setback for Assad, and his blunder of having provided Hezbollah with substantial quantities of imported Russian anti-tank missiles (apparently with serial numbers intact) and other weapons will likely complicate, if not preclude, future Syrian arms purchases from Moscow.[28] However, he derived considerable political capital from the war - both because Hezbollah is very popular among Syria's youth and because its increased stature in Lebanon may blunt the March 14 coalition's hostility to Syria. It has also given him a new diplomatic lease on life, as a host of dignitaries in the American and Israeli foreign policy establishments have come out in favor of negotiations with Syria.


Pertinent Links:

1) Implications of the Israel-Hezbollah War