TIME: Any Chance for Peacemaking? What the Players Want

[DeepModem Mom]

Any Chance for Peacemaking? What the Players Want
Much has changed in the Mideast since the U.S. choreographed an end to the 1996 Israel-Lebanon flare-up. A look at the competing agendas at work now
By TONY KARON
Posted Friday, Jul. 14, 2006

The flare-up in violence across Israel's border with Lebanon is a graphic reminder that none of the Middle East's individual conflicts can be isolated from the region's other flashpoints, making episodes like this one much more difficult to manage, let alone resolve. And at a moment where much of the region's traditional architecture of power — from Iraq through Lebanon to the Palestinian territories — has been demolished or critically weakened but not necessarily replaced, the challenge of containing a crisis in the region is even more daunting.

A decade ago, for example, the U.S. together with France was able to act as an honest broker between Israel, Syria and Lebanon to put an end to a similar flare-up. But back then, Syria was in control of Lebanon and participating in U.S.-brokered peace talks with Israel over the fate of the Golan Heights; Iraq was still ruled by Saddam Hussein's tyranny which also functioned to limit Iran's regional ambitions; and the Oslo peace process offered Israel and the Palestinians the prospect of peace. Today dialogue amongst the various parties is rare, even as the prospects for U.S. success on key issues such as stabilizing Iraq, fighting al-Qaeda and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may hinge in no small part on its ability to stop the Israel-Hizballah crisis from spinning out of control. But having dispensed with the traditional U.S. role of shuttling between warring parties, the Bush administration finds its ability to keep a lid on their clashes quite limited....

(NOTE: The article describes the agendas of Hizballah, Syria, Iran and Israel.)

If, as history suggests is likely, the Israelis can't achieve their objectives militarily, Washington is in a tough position. The escalation threatens not only long-term U.S. goals in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, but also Washington's ability to secure a consensus over Iran and Iraq. But to the extent that this administration has distinguished itself from predecessors by its reluctance both to impose restraints on Israel and to deal with actors it deems beyond the pale, such as Hamas, Hizballah, Syria and Iran, its ability to quickly contain the crisis may be limited.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1214896,00.html?cnn=yes