July 14, 2006
The latest spasm of Middle-East violence caused many to comment that because Lebanon’s Hezbullah is being bankrolled by Iran and armed by Syria, there is a threat of the wider conflict if Israel turns to attacking those countries in order to completely rid itself of Hezbullah’s threat.
But why should Israel go on an all-out attack? I think the exact opposite is the case: just as Syria and Iran operates against Israel by proxies like Hamas and Hezbullah, so Iran and Syria are hit when their proxies are destroyed. In the current operation, Israel is clearly seeking to put Hezbullah out of commission, both by destroying its infrastructure and stores of munitions, and by forcing the Lebanese government to take charge of the country and put an end to Hezbullah’s militia. Once these objectives are accomplished, one tentacle of Iran, the one that is called “Hezbullah,” will be cut off for good. Which will sharply decrease Iran’s ability to operate at a distance just by pressing a “Hezbullah” button on its remote control.
And once Israel has the guts to give Hamas a similar treatment, another of Iran/Syria tentacles would fall off.
Piecemeal dismantling of the Iran treat may not sound glamorous, yet proceeding gradually is far better than doing nothing, and may in fact prove quite effective in providing local security and stability.