Relatively prosperous and stable Arab countries have blamed Hezbollah for the current crisis in Lebanon and have restrained their criticism of Israel’s daily bombardment (Intel Report, Intel Report, and Intel Report). The reaction of this Arab contingent?led by Saudi Arabia , Egypt and Jordan ?stems from a fear of Iran’s increasing and pernicious influence in the Middle East. Israel and the United States share their concern and view the unprovoked Hezbollah attack as an opportunity to weaken the axis of Iran , Syria , Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorist groups .
The reluctance of Arab state leaders to condemn Israel is a telling break from precedent. At an emergency session of the Arab League, one delegate described the Hezbollah attack as “unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible,” and the Saudi Foreign Minister stated, “These acts will pull the whole region back?we cannot simply accept them” (source). In the last month, Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq have stepped up activity to serve Tehran’s interests and harm those of her enemies: Israel and the US. The result has been regional instability that has alarmed the moderate Arab state contingent. Moreover, Iran’s brash display of interference has compounded the fear among Sunni states of a radical “Shiite crescent” (source), stretching from Tehran to Beirut. With the ‘Arab Street’ supporting Hezbollah, the controversial position of Arab leaders demonstrates the legitimacy they ascribe to the Iranian threat.
The subdued response from both the Arab world and the international community to Israel’s initial bombardment of Lebanon provides a limited window to strike hard at Hezbollah. In addition to facilitating the safe release of two IDF hostages , Israel seeks to eliminate the rocket threat on its northern border, to disrupt Syrian-Iranian funding of Palestinian terrorist groups, and to enable the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah pursuant to UN Resolution 1559. The military campaign is targeting the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Palestinian terrorism axis that consistently counters US policy in the region. The result of Israel’s campaign is far from certain; however, success would depressurize Israeli-Palestinian relations and enable the Lebanese government to centralize power. Furthermore, it would rob Iran of its most capable proxy and serve notice to similar groups that the Iran-Syria security umbrella is paper thin.
Hezbollah and Iran have been unsuccessful in their attempt to frame the crisis as an attack on the Islamic world. Their leverage has been constrained by the opposing position of multiple Arab state leaders. Iran?for all its rhetorical bluster?will proceed on a course that best serves its national interest: in this case, playing the role of peace-maker. To this end, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki suggested that a cease-fire and prisoner exchange would be “acceptable and fair” (source). If Iran facilitates an end to the crisis, they would be in a strong position heading into nuclear negotiations with the UN Security Council and likely save the organizational integrity of Hezbollah.
