| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| What the Israeli-Hezbollah War Means for Iran |
| 2006-08-06 |
| By Ian Bremmer Now that market experts interested in oil prices are persuaded that Israel's war on Hezbollah will not spill into Syria or Iran, their attention has shifted 900 miles to the east and three weeks into the future. Tehran has promised to respond by Aug. 22 to a Western-sponsored incentive package intended to halt development of its nuclear program. We can expect the regime to offer either a conditional pledge to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment or a new burst of belligerence. Either way, most analysts believe, Aug. 22 will be a red-letter day for energy prices. But the bloodshed in Lebanon and Iran's nuclear program are hardly unrelated. Israel's conflict with Hezbollah has, in fact, raised the stakes at the nuclear bargaining table, contributing to the diplomatic momentum that on July 31 produced a Security Council resolution -- the first legally binding mandate to suspend enrichment that Tehran has faced. The war in Lebanon has helped the Iranian nuclear issue become the center of gravity in a wider battle for dominance in the region. On the eve of her recent visit to the region, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserted that the conflict in Lebanon should be understood as part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." But what kind of Middle East will emerge from this war? One in which Iran, Syria and their militant proxies hold greater regional leverage? Or one in which the United States, Israel and moderate Arab governments coordinate a more effective political response to the metastasis of regional radicalism? Which group now holds the winning hand? |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #1 A bit confused re cause-effect Ian? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-08-06 20:44 |