Taking a 'grand strategic' view

What do I mean by 'grand strategic?' Check it out.

Israel's expanding offensive in Gaza and new incursion into Lebanon, both intended to recover captured Israeli soldiers will likely not recover those soldiers, will leave many residents of both the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon with the impression they are in a new, life-and-death struggle vs. Israel (upping militantcy among an already over-stimulated segment of young men). It will also discredit moderates who have worked to bargain with Israel and strengthen the view among the "Arab street" (a term I HATE to use by the way) that Iran is not only justified...but heroic in its efforts to develop a nuclear capability. Donald Sensing expands on this notion on his blog as well:

All of which means that Israel was forced to react to circumstances rather than create them. Yet the real initiative is political, not military, and Hamas and Hezbollah (unjustly) hold the high ground there. I doubt that Israel’s military actions will reverse that.

Who else likely wins from both this incursion and the continuing turmoil in Iraq? Probably Syria since #1, they could justify their previous occupation of Lebanon by playing themselves up as the protector from Israel and #2, Syrians don't want to risk putting themselves in the shoes of Iraq (dangerous chaos) or Lebanon (less capable of defending themselves against Israeli incursions) by upsetting the current status quo. Assad isn't a particularly impressive leader, but the alternatives start to look far less 'liberating.' For the 'silent majority' - those who aren't aggressive Islamists, devout democratic reformers, or big fans of the current regime, the best of a bad set of options begins to look like the current regime.

All in all, I'm doubtful that Israel will achieve its desired short term outcome and, in the long term, I think their actions will only make the region less stable while strengthening the hand(s) of their most bitter opponents.

Here? A (very) contrarian view:

Beyond Lebanon's responsibility, of course, Syria and Iran are also sine qua non causes of the invasion of Israel. The former, despite its much ballyhooed withdrawal from Lebanon last year still, exercises considerable influence and enables Iran, as we pointed out last week, to reinforce its Hezbollah client. A strong legal case can now be made that Iran and Syria have become legitimate targets of Israeli self-defense.

So war it is -- a war of self-defense against unlawful Lebanese aggression in which the Israeli government has the obligation to its citizens to inflict maximum damage to the infrastructure of those who have attacked them. But this responsibility is not Israel's alone. If the international community wishes to vindicate those most sacrosanct principles of national sovereignty and the right to self-defense, it must assist Israel. It must condemn the attack and demand both the safe return of the IDF soldiers and the bringing to justice of all Lebanese officials who have been complicit in this act of war. It must demand the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure, which it has already (toothlessly) called for.