Of course, engaging in a war that had the effect of reducing oil supplies and driving up the risk premium in oil prices has only made it easier for Iran to engage in reconstruction and humanitarian aid to Lebanon, through Hezbollah.

Where are the charity organizations from other countries in the region besides Iran?

When will bin Laden "show up" with money?

From today's Ha'aretz:

Hezbollah torpedoed a cabinet meeting earlier this week when it informed the government that it was not willing to discuss its disarmament.

Hezbollah's top official in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, told reporters in Tyre that the group welcomes the Lebanese army's additional deployment in the south.

"Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now," he said.

How does anybody -- Israel, Lebanon, anyone -- trust Hizbollah?

Michael Young in the "Sunday New York Times Magazine" suggested that if Hezbollah retains its weapons it won't be long before the other factions of Lebanon rearm. Thus there will be Christian, Sunni and Druze armed militias opposing Hezbollah. Do you agree with that?

Also in regard to the rebuilding of Lebanon do we know yet what is really involved? CNN's pictures made it fairly clear that in most regions, especially Beirut, Shiia areas were totally destroyed, but those of other groups were often untouched. Might this fact further the divide that already exists between the downtrodden Lebanese Shiia and the better off other groups?

Perhaps there is a lot of wishful thinking going on about Lebanon. Young's piece seemed to such that Lebanon is waking up from lots of wishing.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Meanwhile, interesting conflicting messages being sent out by Iran right now, tailored to the audience:

Al Jazeera: Iran defiant over nuclear standoff Ahmadinejad said Iran has lost confidence in the UN 16 August 2006 Iran's president said again on Tuesday that his country would not bow to Western pressure to give up its home-grown nuclear technology.

In a televised speech to a vast crowd in the northwest province of Ardebil, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, rejected a UN security council resolution that demands Tehran halt sensitive nuclear work, and called for a Middle East free from the presence of the United States and Israel.

He said: "If they think they can use a resolution as a stick against us, they should know that Iranian people do not bend to language of force."....

Tehran Times: Larijani: pressure will not resolve nuclear dispute Political Desk, August 17 TEHRAN -- Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani said on Tuesday that Western threats and pressure would not resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

"If they want to deprive the Iranian nation of its right, we will review our policy," he said after a meeting with visiting Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai....

BBC News, UK: Iran 'will discuss nuclear halt' 10 hours ago Iran is ready to discuss the suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as demanded by Western powers, the country's foreign minister has said....

Reuters: Iran says can discuss atomic work suspension in talks
11 hours ago
TEHRAN (Reuters) - The Iranian foreign minister said on Wednesday Iran was ready to discuss the issue of suspending uranium enrichment in talks with the West...

Jerusalem Post, Israel: China urges Iran to return to nuclear talks
16 hours ago
China's top envoy in charge of nonproliferation issues has urged Iran to accept an incentives package offered by China and five other countries in exchange for....

That's actually quite a good question, and I don't know the answer to it.

I suppose its possible. Certainly the game is Hezbollahs to lose. If it plays wrong, almost certainly the other ethnic groups will rearm to defend themselves.

Does Hezbollah have the resources or ability to conquer all of Lebanon and hold it? Nope. They don't even have enough to make the attempt.

So let's see how they play their political capital.

I'm not sure that damage was strictly confined to the Shiites. Certainly the casualties were not. Certain forms of infrastructure damage, roads, bridges, hospitals, televion stations, power generating stations, are universal to the country. That giant oil slick Israel created has no ethnicity.

Michael Young is closely connected with Reason magazine , a libertarian i.e. conservative publication. That's no reason to doubt his integrity and competence but does mean we should be aware he comes
to all issues with a particular world view
which has to be taken into account when
reading his material.

Cathy Young , I suppose no relative , is also closely connected with Reason and her
op eds in the Boston Globe are pretty far right. In particular she infuriated Eric Alterman last year by labelling him
a self hating Jew.

Don't mean to drag in guilt by association ,
just a comment that it's not unreasonable when reading an author to be aware of the people with whom he hangs out.

Two questions: How deep are Iran's pockets for something like this? and How much can the Iranian government give to Hezbollah before Iranians start thinking it might be spent better closer to home? I know Iran isn't exactly a democracy, but they do seem concerned about the popularity of the regime on the street.

I also think you've probably captured the Iranian position, though they may be quite mistaken as to their take on the American's being mostly bluff.

Indeed Valdron. That's the danger inherent in this situation that we all have to worry about - that neither side, nor both together, will manage a graceful climb down. I agree that there are influential forces within the administration who favor attack. I suspect they don't just favor attack, but view the military take-down of the Iranian regime as the very raison d'être of the last four plus years of gradual encirclement of Iran by US forces. The same people who are now pulling their hair out over the Israeli failure to crush Hizbollah will be doing the same, and worse, if the US settles for negotiations with Iran.

And of course there were many reports during the war that the Bush administration was encouraging the Israelis to go for the kill. Perhaps that gives some sense of where the Bush administration will be when the Iran situation comes to ahead, and it is Bush's turn at bat, so to speak.

What worries me is that if the Bush administration ever does pursue the sensible and less catastrophic course, a whole bunch of Democratic hawks will sense a political opportunity, leap up on their desks, and start attacking from the right decrying the craven "appeasement monkeys" in the White House.

Good question. Obviously, I suspect that they're deeper than the 50 million that the US has put on the table. Compared to the military aid provided to Israel that's something of a cold joke.

I'm very much afraid that US 'aid' will simply funnel back into the pockets of Halliburton or the Carlyle group, or some similar bit of corruption, perhaps a 'buy American' requirement tied to the aid (perhaps even very specific 'buy this stuff from these Americans' requirements).

Even if the American aid is tendered honestly, the US has no real presence or infrastructure in Iraq, and no particular connections to any social or political networks. So its quite likely that the money may not wind up being used very effectively.

American aid might best be deployed piggybacking along with whatever the French are doing. The French actually have history and connections in Lebanon, so they might be able to use aid money visibly and effectively. Of course, the United States might bet very little public credit from it.

Apart from that I can't think of any other party. Anyone else they hook up with is luck of the draw, basically.

You know, come to think of it, this might explain the paucity of American aid to Lebanon. It's very likely that they won't get all that much credit for the dollars they put in, so why put dollars in?

On the other hand, Hezbollah is intimately connected to communities and social services, so if Iran pushes its money through that, they'll probably get good credit and maximum bang for the buck.

That is may be true about Young but he is also a columnist and opinion editor for the Daily Star one of Beirut's English language papers. So whatever his ideological bent he has the advantage of knowing what is going on in Lebanon unlike most people here.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Who do these groups need to defend themselves from, Hez?

I do not see Hez attacking them, there is no reason.

Regs, Shaggy

deleted

that rating is totally uncalled for

If the vast majority of Lebanese identify with Hezbollah, then I don't see any reason why the U.S. should give them anything.

Yeppers, there's that good ole American spirit of compassion and generosity that saved New Orleans from the flood, rescued all those people trapped at the Convention center and rebuilt the city just like *that* (finger snap).

Of course, one might offer up 'humanitarian' considerations, but that cuts no ice.

And the notion that the US might try to save some face in the Arab world or restore its bruised image with redemptive aid is simply laughable.

The United States isn't even pretending to be nice to Arabs any more.

Furthermore, if Hezbollah has aims of becoming Lebanon's sovereign, perhaps that would benefit the American military/industrial complex.

After all, our military tactics are obviously meant to deal with foreign governments. If Hezbollah became the ruling party perhaps Israel and the U.S. would have a much easier time in dealing with them.

Well, actually, that has been discussed elsewhere. The theory is that Hezbollah found the 'sweet spot' in that it managed to become a viable political and military force, but did not assume the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of a state.

It seems like a fairly logical progression that Hezbollah might expand its influence to a dominant role in the Lebanese government, or even become the Lebanese government.

At which point, they would begin to assume the vulnerabilities of a state.

In practical terms, it doesn't really make a difference that I can see. Israel and the United States have amply demonstrated their contempt for Lebanese lives and civilian infrastructure. I can't imagine that whether Hezbollah is the government or remains in its current form, that Israel won't attack the population and the infrastructure. Not with the current tactical frameworks. (This might change, Israel on review may decide that there is no merit to punishing civilians.)

And I would assume that Hezbollahs warfighting tactics will try to build on or elaborate on their successes. They've found something that works, they'll keep on doing it.

What there might be is more opportunity for political pressure and diplomatic relations. The more Hezbollah is tied down to the concerns of a state, the less attractive reckless or radical behaviour is. The more appealing non-conflict modes become.

Of course, the United States refuses to have any diplomatic relations with countries it dislikes. So that opportunity doesn't arise, largely because of the refusal to exploit it.

c'est la vieux

I think it's possible that anger and resentment toward Hezbollah may build up over time as the Lebanese people come to realize how much unnecessary destruction and pain resulted from Hezbollah's Islamofacist agenda.

That would be an example of being sidetracked, because the only reason that Israeli weapons were used is that Israel was attacked by Hezbollah. But for that attack, no damage, no weapons.

To make matters worse, Hezbollah hides among civilians, thereby increasing innocent casualties.

Maybe the Lebanese people will come to that realization in time as well.

Afterall, reality demands it.

Human nature suggests that when you are looking for someone to blame, you blame the remote distant impersonal guy far off in the distance.

You don't blame the next door guy who is helping you rebuild your house, particularly if that next door guy has guns.

This is a universal thing. Look at how conservative Americans in red states like to blame the Federal Government for everything. Arguably the Federal government has done a lot more to improve their lives than local county governments. But they know the county sheriff, and they don't know the bureaucrat in Washington.

Many muslims blame the United States for the problems of their nations... with more than a little justification. But they don't blame the state governments themselves, which are the author of 90% of their real problems. For one thing, they could get shot doing that. But the other is that they know Achmed, the local constable, they know the bureaucrats and leaders, no matter how corrupt. They don't know anyone in Washington.

So, given that aspect of human nature, I doubt that the Lebanese will ever blame Hezbollah, but I'm pretty sure that they will blame America.

Whether its right or wrong, just or unjust, I won't get into.

It's just human nature.

Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking, but in my experience, over time reality has a way of overwhelming self-delusion.

Even if Lebanese public opinion doesn't evolve, I still believe we as Americans have a duty to continue to present the facts.

One of the reasons I am so outraged at the media outlets that have confused balance with objectivity in their coverage of the crisis is that they fail to adequately report on the manifest evil of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and its sponsor, Iran. If they did report the facts more accurately, perhaps the Lebanese, and others, would be better equipped to see through the propaganda they are fed.

The United States, even under the abominable GWB, still bears far less responsibility for the plight of the people of the Middle East than the indigenous governments.

I would like to see the peace process revived v/v the Palestinians. Few things would do more to vitiate the appeal of the Islamofacists (who, historically, have done almost nothing to further that cause) than the fruition of a two state solution.

Oh, right, they're humanitarian pacifists.

Please tell me you're joking.

fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

On point.

As I said, reality matters.