Global Insight Perspective

Significance

The killing of the UN peacekeepers will overshadow the Rome (Italy) emergency conference, where delegates are expected to discuss the deployment of an international stabilising force to southern Lebanon.

Implications

The leader of the armed Hizbollah group, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, yesterday said that his fighters would continue to fire rockets into Israel, and that Hizbollah would not accept the “humiliating conditions” for a ceasefire with Israel. The group has added that it will resist moves to deploy international peacekeepers to southern Lebanon.

Outlook

The United States and the United Kingdom are unlikely to back calls for an immediate ceasefire, despite the mounting civilian death toll. Instead, they will insist that a ceasefire must be tied to a durable regional security arrangement, including the disarmament of Hizbollah. Syria and Iran, the regional players who retain most leverage on the Hizbollah leadership, were not invited to the conference.

From Beirut to Rome

As the Rome participants gathered to flesh out the terms of a possible deal to end the violence, news emerged that four UN monitors — from China, Austria, Canada, and Finland — were killed when Israeli jets hit the post during a raid on the town of Khiyam (see Israel-Lebanon: 24 July 2006:Building Blocks of Diplomacy Take Shape amid Ongoing Middle East Violence). In an uncharacteristic move, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan left a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and demanded that Israel investigate what he described as the “apparently deliberate” targeting of unarmed UN peacekeepers. The deaths will sour discussions on a bolstered international stabilisation force numbering up to 20,000 troops in southern Lebanon, in place of the current UN contingent.

The experience of multinational troops in Lebanon is stained with bloodshed; in 1983, hundreds of U.S. and French peacekeepers were killed when a powerful truck bomb struck their barracks in Beirut. Although Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has telephoned Annan to express his “deep regrets” over the monitors’ deaths, calling yesterday’s air strike a “mistake”, the attacks underscore the dangers that await a possible multinational contingent. Hizbollah has said that it will resist the deployment of international troops to the south, as Sheikh Nasrallah maintains the threat of more attacks against Israeli cities.

Despite the severity of the crisis, the U.S. administration — backed by the British government — continues to resist calls for an unconditional ceasefire. It insists that Hizbollah must not be allowed to retain the weaponry and power to disturb the regional security balance at will. Although Arab and Muslim governments represented in Rome today are in favour of an immediate ceasefire, they are also largely tolerant of moves designed to cripple Hizbollah’s capabilities. The likes of Saudi Arabia — seen as an important intermediary in this crisis — have their own axes to grind against Hizbollah, given its status as a powerful Shi’a group aligned with Iran. The Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia have long been uncomfortable at the prospect of an emerging ”Shi’a axis” in the Middle East at the expense of traditional regional centres of political, economic and religious influence, principally Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Attempts to ”re-engineer” the Middle East in favour of regional heavyweights and U.S. allies were also underlined by the exclusion of Syria and Iran from the conference.

The Outcasts

The logic in not involving Syria, Iran and Hizbollah in global efforts towards securing an immediate and lasting peace settlement carries considerable risks. Both Syria and Iran are currently being blamed for exacerbating the current crisis, and (with the explicit backing of Arab states across the region) the U.S. administration has succeeded in marginalising the two from any potential short-term deal. Ahead of today's conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad sounded a characteristically strong warning against what he termed was a "violent storm" brewing across the region, and one that would "turn against the enemies of humanity". The country’s Foreign Ministry similarly warned that a resolution would not be achieved without the presence of Iran and Syria at the negotiating table. Iranian dissatisfaction at being sidelined is likely to prove a critical factor, given the influence that the country extends over Hizbollah. Iran will consider the latest international snub as an indictment against its claims to regional-power status, especially as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan were invited to the talks.

Outlook and Implications

The Lebanese crisis has certainly exposed lingering political divisions between the predominantly Sunni Arab monarchies and regimes, and the Shi’a-led Iranian and Syrian governments. The sectarian rivalries are perhaps an exaggeration of what is essentially a classic zero-sum game between the opposing camps over political influence in the region. Although the Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders have blamed Hizbollah for its "adventurism" in inviting the Israeli wrath, Syria and Iran have accused the Arab leaderships of weakness in the face of the international impasse over how to end the current fighting. As the divisions between the two camps become even more pronounced, a "new Middle East" may well witness a clash over ideological supremacy based on pro- or anti-Western sentiments. Governments of the region will be under pressure to define a precise role under the new and emerging political reality. Against this backdrop, the achievements of the Rome conference today are likely to be limited, as the aerial bombardment of Lebanon and missile strikes against Israeli cities continue unabated.

Raul Dary

24 Hartwell Ave.
Lexington, MA 02421, USA
Tel: 781.301.9314
Cel: 857.222.0556
Fax: 781.301.9416
raul.dary@globalinsight.com

www.globalinsight.com and www.wmrc.com