The Israeli offensive against Hamas forces will have only surprised those who wanted to be surprised. Despite “repeated calls to Ismail Haniyeh” by Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, the end of the ceasefire declared by the leaders of the Palestinian militia likely facilitated the decision by the Hebrew state.
Furthermore, Israel has also taken advantage of exceptional timing and a convergence of opportunities to launch this military campaign and try to convert it into several political gains. Firstly, a power vacuum in the American Administration, without whose approval no “lasting solution” can be validated in the region. Next, a European leadership transition, already illustrated by the lackluster enthusiasm of the new Czech presidency to engage in a conflict with very uncertain outcomes and duration. In the context of the upcoming Knesset elections, these operations have made it possible to reverse the forces seemingly unfavorable to the governing party “Kadima” by garnering the support of a majority of Israelis frustrated by rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and followers of Likud from former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The situation in Lebanon also benefits – for how long? – Israel: speeches by the Secretary-General of Hezbollah calling for Egyptians to rise up betray his current impotence: the formal prohibition by Lebanese President Michel Sleiman to use the country of the Cedars as a “backyard” is fueled by a gradual strengthening of the regular army which is preparing to receive Russian fighter jets and American tanks, promises of equipment that devalue the significant armaments of the Haret Hreik militia. Add to this the lack of enthusiasm expressed by many Shiite families, still painfully wounded by the suffering endured during the July 2006 war. To the point of diminishing the itch that probably tempts Hassan Nasrallah to open a second front in South Lebanon. As for the Syrian neighbor, the prospect of the International Tribunal on the assassination of Hariri represents a threatening Damocles sword above the regime of Bashar El Assad.
The well-established link of Hamas with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country whose ambitions – not only nuclear – are another cause of acute concern for many Gulf petromonarchies, has probably allowed for this “tacit convergence” between several Arab and Western states, which, mindful of public reactions, are reduced to vain proclamations advocating an immediate ceasefire and focusing their concerns on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. In this regard, and despite warnings from Ali Larijani, the president of the Iranian Majlis on “Hamas, a red line for Iran’s strategic security,” Tehran knows that a more direct involvement in this conflict would automatically trigger a U.S. intervention, a risk the mullahs’ regime has so far managed to avoid. This is despite reiterated requests from Israel for American support to launch an operation against Iranian nuclear facilities. Moreover, it is not forbidden to think that this might be an unspoken – and unspeakable – goal of the Israeli leaders.
Under these circumstances, the regional tour currently being undertaken by Nicolas Sarkozy at the peak of hostilities appears to be a mission impossible, admittedly commendable but unlikely to succeed without effective support at the UN. A visit that is also discreetly ridiculed by American sources in Beirut. It ultimately appears that a tangible political resolution to the situation cannot occur before January 20th, when the new President Barack Obama officially takes office.
