Israeli Concessions Will Stabilize The Middle East, Unite The Arab World Against Iran, Reign In Syria And Cure Acne

Well, maybe not that last one.

But given Hezbollah's latest increase in power and influence, there is natural speculation on what--if anything--the US can due at this stage to reign in the terrorist group.

Nicholas Noe has a suggestion for Obama on how to place limits on Hezbollah: press for Israeli concessions:

Still, there is a way for Washington to stake out a reasonable, nonviolent alternative: by pushing for the immediate revival of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Eleven years ago, a peace agreement between the two countries that would have included the disarmament of Hezbollah fell apart, largely because the Israeli prime minister at the time, Ehud Barak, found it too politically difficult to hand over to Syria the last few hundred yards of shoreline around the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee bordering the Golan Heights.


Although a new deal on the Golan would not lead to the end of Hezbollah in the immediate term, it would contain the movement’s ability and desire to use violence, as Syria would need to commit to cutting off the supply routes by which Iranian (and Syrian) weapons are now smuggled into Lebanon. Militarily weakened, and without Syrian or much domestic political backing to continue in its mission to liberate Jerusalem, Hezbollah would find it extremely difficult to threaten Israel’s northern border.

I suppose there is a certain logic at work here. After all, Israeli concessions are a key to Middle East peace--a peace that will lead to a more stable Middle East in part by bringing together the Arab world to deal with Iran. By extension, further Israeli concessions will limit Hezbollah.

Then again, Wikileaks has provided documents showing that the Arab world already sees Iran as the threat that needs to be focused on. So what about Noe's argument about Syria cutting off weapons to Hezbollah as part of some Israel-Syria peace agreement.

Would Syria be more successful than Abbas in disarming Hamas?
Would Syria succeed where UNIFIL failed in fulfilling its mandate to prevent Hezbollah from rearming?
Would Iran sit back and allow its puppet in Lebanon to be weakened?
Come to think of it, why would Syria agree to such a thing to begin with?

Just asking.

I suppose we knew where Noe was going when he writes about

a botched Israeli invasion that killed and wounded thousands of Lebanese citizens and gave Hezbollah unprecedented popularity in the region.

--while ignoring the fact that the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers triggered the events that followed.

I mean seriously--here is an article about Lebanon and how to control Hezbollah. Hezbollah is mentioned 19 times, Syria 9 times and Iran--once: in the context of Syria cutting off Iran arms to Hezbollah.

Is Iran that irrelevant to dealing with Hezbollah?
Or is it just easier to think up how many more concessions Israel can make so that the West can justify sitting back and doing nothing?

Technorati Tag: Lebanon and Hezbollah and Iran and Syria.