Skip to content Skip to footer

Dangerous Illusions

After a century in which tragedy has been heaped upon tragedy across the Middle East, it is distressing to see how many dangerous illusions still shape the behavior of so many of the region’s principal players.

After a century in which tragedy has been heaped upon tragedy across the Middle East, it is distressing to see how many dangerous illusions still shape the behavior of so many of the region’s principal players.

This truth was brought home by a recent report, “A Third Lebanon War”, issued by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The author of the report, former Ambassador to Egypt and Israel, Dan Kurtzer, after methodically assessing factors on all sides, advises U.S. policy makers to prepare for the possibility of war in the next 12 to 18 months between Israel and Hizbollah forces in Lebanon.

(Kurtzer wrote his piece well before rumors that an international tribunal may be indicting members of Hizbollah for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. And while this has generated a new set of concerns with the focus now on Lebanon’s internal stability instead of war with Israel, the CFR piece remains useful for its analysis and the dangers it examines.)

The developments that prompt Kurtzer’s assessment are twofold: Israel’s growing concerns with the quantity and quality of weapons alleged to have been amassed by Hizbollah in violation of U.N. Security Council Res. 1701, and the heightened war-like rhetoric on both sides.

Kurtzer sees it as unlikely that Hizbollah would launch hostilities, and suggests that the more likely scenarios are that Israel would either try to lure the Lebanese militia into a war or take it upon itself to attack Hizbollah positions in Lebanon in an effort to “degrade” the group’s military “capabilities”.

Kurtzer cautions that no good would come of this renewed conflict. Lebanon would again pay a bitter price. Israel, already experiencing some degree of international isolation, would see its standing further compromised, and such an adventure would most likely not result in dislodging or weakening Hizbollah. And the U.S. would witness severe setbacks to its three major policy objectives in the Middle East: “Slowing or stopping Iran’s nuclear program, withdrawing combat forces from Iraq, and helping Middle East peace talks succeed”.

While Kurtzer suggests measures the U.S. might take to discourage an Israeli attack or, after hostilities begin, to limit them, he acknowledges that the combination of partisan politics and the work of the Israel lobby would likely restrain the administration from taking too aggressive a stance to pressure Israel or more actively engage Iran and Syria, or to open a dialogue with Hizbollah – all with an eye toward easing regional tensions.

In the end, Kurtzer concludes that while the U.S. “should work to avert another war in Lebanon, its capacity to do so is limited.” He, therefore, concludes that the administration’s best options are to prepare for a worst-case scenario. Among these options are: “Upgrading U.S. intelligence collection and U.S. Israeli intelligence cooperation”; “Publicly restate U.S. support for Israel’s right to self-defense and concerns about Hizbollah’s rearmament”; “Increase diplomatic pressure on Syria”; and “Prepare for possible postwar diplomatic initiatives.”

After reading the CFR report, several questions came to mind, focusing on the dangerous illusions that appear to guide behavior of all involved in this bizarre “dance of death.”

If no good will come of a third Lebanon war, as Kurtzer rightly notes, then why are we, once again, at the brink of conflict? At what point do Israel’s military planners realize that one more war will bring them no closer to regional peace and acceptance than any of the past wars? If Hizbollah is truly concerned with the rights, safety, security and prosperity of its people, then why does it persist in this dangerous game of rearming and brinkmanship? If the U.S. has so much to lose, then why will it allow partisan politics and a lobby to limit its ability to protect its national interests by actively working to restrain one bully or opening a dialogue with another? Can Dan Kurtzer, whose thoughtful and disturbing analysis has so correctly identified the costs, futility and dangers of renewed conflict, really believe that the recommendations he proposes at the end will do anything but encourage the war planners to proceed on their fools’ errand? And can anyone really believe that, at the end of yet another devastating round of hostilities, the region will be anymore receptive to a productive “diplomatic initiative” than it has been after past conflicts or it is today?

That another war will create peace; that more arms that only provoke your dangerous better-armed and unrestrained neighbor will make you secure; that bad policy made under the duress of domestic politics will produce anything other than bad results – these are the dangerous illusions under which all have been laboring for decades, and apparently still are.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.