Soccer Dad

Good sense from the washington post

Earlier this week the Washington Post editorialized in "The War with Extremists"

SOMEWHAT remarkably, the world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg managed to grasp the most important point about the current Middle East crisis: It "results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace." In other words, the current warfare in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel stems not from Israel's occupation of Arab lands or its holding of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, but from a blatant bid by Iran and Syria and their allies in Hamas and Hezbollah to stop the creation of a democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the parallel consolidation of a democracy in Lebanon.

It follows that the only satisfactory outcome to the conflict would be a decisive defeat for those extremist forces. Should Hamas and Hezbollah fail militarily, Arab democrats and those who favor the creation of a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel would see the removal of their largest obstacle, while the pernicious influence of Iran and Syria in the region would be curtailed.

The sentiments are good, but not perfect. The first goal should be to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. It really doesn't matter if it encourages moderates or not. (I would argue that Fatah, too, is ripe for destruction, but I'm sure the Post wouldn't agree.) These groups have been tolerated for too long and will only cause more death and destruction.

The Post even rejected the easy solution on the minds of the UN, Europeans and even many in the State Department

The worst result would be that suggested yesterday by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki following consultations with his allies in Damascus: "a cease-fire followed by a prisoner swap." Such an outcome would legitimize the terrorist operations by Hamas and Hezbollah that began the conflict and further empower their rogue military organizations at the expense of the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority. It would restore Syrian influence in Lebanon and grant Tehran the ability to ignite a new Middle East conflagration at its convenience.

Unfortunately the conclusion isn't all that satisfying

The middle course between allowing Israel to take the fight to Hamas and Hezbollah and pressuring it to accept Tehran's terms is that suggested by Britain and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan: an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. It's worth noting that such a force already exists -- and has failed miserably in its nearly three decades of existence. Success would require Western troops and a very different mandate: in particular, authority to prevent launchings of missiles and raids against Israel from Lebanon, and to enforce Security Council Resolution 1559, which ordered the disarmament of Hezbollah. An international diplomatic initiative that allows Hezbollah to preserve and eventually restock its military wing would be worse than none at all.

Of course it's good that the Post rejects a UN force as the current one has only served the interests of the terrorists. But why should Israel be prevented from doing what it needs? Preventing missile launches is an inferior solution (if it is a solution at all) to destroying the missiles.

The conclusion that fears the re-arming of Hezbollah is welcome.

Today the Post, again, showed more sense than the NY Times in "Diplomatic Traps"

AS FIGHTING in the Middle East continues, the Bush administration is coming under pressure to launch some sort of diplomatic initiative. These calls sound reasonable; the loss of innocent life in Lebanon and Israel is tragic, the dangers of further escalation are real and U.S. shuttle diplomacy has been instrumental in halting previous conflicts. The problem is this: The usual options in the State Department's playbook would hand to the extremists who launched this war exactly the results they have hoped for.

The editorial rightly rejects sending Secretary Rice to Syria and beg baby Assad for his help in curtailing the violence. It also rejects the idea of another UN peacekeeping force. But it's too pessimistic about Israel's possibility of defeating Hezbollah.

The editorial concludes

The Bush administration does have one good diplomatic option, though not much has been heard about it this week. That is to insist on the passage by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium. The council's five permanent members and Germany promised to take such action last week after Tehran refused to respond to a package of incentives. The unprovoked attack across an international border by Iran's client Hezbollah succeeded in turning the world's attention from the nuclear crisis to the Middle East -- just as Iran must have hoped. The best response is to shift the focus back -- and make clear that the United States and its allies will not be intimidated through war-by-proxy.

There is a lot to recommend this. But diplomacy without a credible threat of force will do just as much to restrain Iran as it did Hezbollah or Hamas or Fatah. There's a need to show that the West is willing to confront Iran - with force if necessary - and has the resolve to continue the confrontation until Iran is rendered impotent. Diplomacy alone cannot accomplish that.

Technorati tags: Israel, Iran, Washington Post.