MIDDLE EAST: Some neoconservatives see the Hizbullah-Israel conflict as an opportunity to destabilise Tehran and Damascus, writes Michael Jansen
Israel's declared tactical objective of its offensive in Lebanon is to cripple or destroy Hizbullah's military arm and secure the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south to prevent attacks on northern Israel.
In Gaza, Israel seeks to destroy Hamas's military wing. The US supports Israel in these campaigns, however costly in lives and infrastructure.
But worried western and Middle East analysts believe hawks in Israel and the US are signalling a wider strategic objective by pointing fingers at Tehran and Damascus and claiming that they encouraged Hizbullah and Hamas to carry out attacks on Israeli troops and take captives. These commentators say Israel plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent Tehran from developing atomic weapons and to destabilise the Syrian regime.
US neoconservatives close to the Bush administration who have long promoted an attack on Iran see the Hizbullah-Israel conflict, in particular, as an opportunity to strike. Therefore, the Israeli military and the neocons, who are reasserting themselves following the Iraq debacle, seek to remove Hizbullah's militiamen from the border to prevent them from firing rockets and missiles and battling Israeli troops in retaliation for Israeli or US air strikes on Iran.
The neocon view seems to dovetail with Iran's recent security doctrine, which holds that Tehran should rely on the threat of missiles fired by Hizbullah into northern Israel to deter attacks by Israel and the US.
The ultimate Israeli and US goal would be the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran for a secular, pro-western government and the ousting of the secular Syrian regime, both antagonists of Israel and the US.
Writing in the Weekly Standard and Financial Times on July 16th, neoconservative columnist William Kristol lays out the proposed scenario: "No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hizbullah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria . . . No Shi'ite Iranian revolution" to challenge the US in Iraq and which is compelling Saudi Arabia to export its Sunni brand of militancy to counter Iranian-fostered Shia militancy.
"The right response [ to militant Islam] is renewed strength - in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran . . . we might consider . . . a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"
Prof William O Beeman of Brown University responded to the Kristol article on July 19th on the New American Media website. He argues that although they have ties to Tehran and Damascus, Hizbullah and Hamas are not "puppets" of either Iran or Syria and have their own agendas.
He says Iran is seeking engagement with the US and Europe rather than confrontation and is using the nuclear wrangle as a means to secure fruitful dialogue on outstanding issues.
He proposes talking to Tehran and using its influence with its allies to mediate disputes.
Israeli or US or combined attacks on Iran and increased pressure on Syria are likely to backfire. The citizens of these countries can be expected to rally around their governments, particularly since the devastation of Lebanon has revived popular outrage against Israel and the US.
In an opinion article carried by Beirut's Daily Star yesterday, Tehran-based Iason Athanasiadis reports that a foreign policy adviser to former president Muhammad Khatami told him that the "big regional winners" in this conflict "will be Syria and Iran" because after massive bombing, Israel has still not gained the upper hand and international support is being eroded by Israel's use of what UN secretary general Kofi Annan calls "excessive force".