Diplomacy 101

Andy McCarthy reads about factional divisions within Hezbollah, reflecting in part differences in priorities between Syria and Iran, as well as tensions between Hezbollah's desire for autonomy and its Iranian sponsors' desire for tighter control, and then offers this pearl of wisdom:

I'm not sure this apparent dispute among our enemies about priorities makes a great deal of difference to us. Their entire agenda, after all, is nothing but trouble. But it's interesting to see dissension in the ranks.

Sigh. I'm once again astounded by the contemporary world's ability to make me nostalgic for Richard Nixon when people on the right understood that disputes between enemies most definitely made a difference.

Comments

How was it that the West lost its ability to think clearly and rationally? Saying something like that (at least if in a position of authority) is so stupid it's close to treason.

Posted by Norway | October 15, 2007 4:50 PM

Matt, you're too young to be nostalgic for Ronald Reagan.

But other than that, your point's well taken. Nixon was evil, but at least he wasn't a total incompetent to boot.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 15, 2007 5:09 PM

Hizballah recently stated that they wouldn't go to war with Israel if Syria or Iran are attacked.

Now the problem with this statement - and Hizballah knows it - is that Israel intends to attack Syria only as part of a plan to attack Hizballah.

So the statement doesn't really mean anything.

Now, on Iran, Hizballah may actually mean it - IF Israel doesn't participate particularly. In other words, if Israel doesn't attack Iran on its own, and leaves the fighting to the US - which obviously Israel will prefer - or only responds if Iran launches missiles at Israel, then it is possible that Hizballah will not initiate an attack on Israel.

Hizballah is primarily a Lebanese nationalist resistance group. It is not just a "terrorist proxy" for Iran, as some allege. Nasrallah does not take orders from Iran. He may have to negotiate for support from Iran by agreeing to do certain things, but he's not Iran's puppet.

However, really, the same issue arises - if Israel attacks Iran, or Iran retaliates against Israel for a US attack, what are the odds that Israel will not attack Hizballah at the same time? Israel seeks to remove Hizballah from Lebanon. Israel seeks to remove Syria from being a "threat". Israel seeks to remove Iran from being a "threat". Meaning in all cases, Israel seeks to remove these countries as impediments to its domination of the ME.

Hizballah knows full well that Israel is its enemy and Israel will eventually attack Hizballah again. And the most likely point will be when Israel is engaged in attacking Syria. Israel is already gearing up for war with Syria - the attack on the Syrian missile site is clear evidence of that.

Colonel Pat Lang suspects that Israel intends to push into Syria, cut left, and come in on Hizballah's flank in the Bekaa Valley - which is why Hizballah is supposedly reinforcing its capabilities there.

So the Hizballah statement is really not that significant.

Nor does it signify any really deep split between itself and either Syria or Iran. So there is unlikely to be any deep dispute there that can be used to either isolate Hizballah or disable Iran's or Syria's ability to influence matters in Lebanon.

The real problem is and will remain Israel's intransigence in dealing with the Palestinians, and it's intent to overthrow the ME regimes to further its goals in the ME.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 15, 2007 5:42 PM

Why are we being led by an army of the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert?

Posted by Reality Man | October 15, 2007 5:51 PM

Ready! Fire! Aim!

McCarthy doesn't really mean that, does he? He HAS to be joking...

Posted by Pooh | October 15, 2007 6:57 PM

"Matt, you're too young to be nostalgic for Ronald Reagan.".

True

Reagan thought the Sino-Soviet split was some kind of trick to fool America for decades after it happened. Sanity on this issue was an on and off kind of thing.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | October 15, 2007 7:20 PM

Hezbollah shouldn't even be our enemy.

Posted by mq | October 15, 2007 7:29 PM

"Their entire agenda, after all, is nothing but trouble . . ."

A lot of people would say that about the current Government of the United States.

Posted by MFB | October 16, 2007 4:35 AM

Nixon (insert appropriate liberal insult here), whatever his faults, was smart and never believed most of the garbage that went out of his mouth for public consumption. His deals and manuvers with both the Soviet Union and China were excortiated on the right, but no opposition received traction because Nixon was still loved by the popular masses on the right. These frustrated people liked him because of his authoritarianism and his viciousness toward his domestic enemies. There are personality types that want a strong "leader," and they want that leader to smite the "internal traitors" (us liberals in other word).

Posted by Rickster Sherpa | October 16, 2007 1:29 PM