U.S. faces new challenges as Mideast realigns itself

Over the past week, the world has been stunned by the rising ferocity of the war between Israel and Hezbollah. But equally surprising, to many, has been the way the conflict has illuminated the sweeping changes that are reshaping the entire Middle East.

Behind Hezbollah's rockets lurks the specter of a newly unleashed Iran, its patron and supplier. Israel — which hoped to reap some peace after its withdrawal from Gaza — has been emboldened to lash out against its enemies more aggressively than it has in two decades. Iraq remains in turmoil, and the Arab states seem paralyzed. Everywhere, the struts that upheld the region's tenuous stability are wavering, and fierce new winds are blowing.

Whatever the outcome of the current proxy war — fought on the soil of the suffering Lebanese — this broader struggle for dominance will continue to play itself out. So the question arises: What is America's role in this volatile new world? Arab democracy may be a distant dream, but there is still much to be gained or lost in the region, from access to crucial oil fields, to fighting terrorism, to the security of Israel.

"My sense is that we are seeing the Middle East entering a new era, one in which external powers count for less, and local actors — be they states or militias or individuals — count for more," said Richard N. Haass, who headed the State Department's policy planning operation during President Bush's first term and is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

That shift is an important one, Haass said, and could make relations in the region more complex and unstable for a long time.

Outside influences

For most of the past century, outsiders shaped the politics of the region. Britain and France literally redrew the Middle East borders after World War I. Starting in 1967, the United States also became the chief guarantor of Israel's security, and the lead player in efforts to broker a lasting peace — a process that came close to success in 2000, but has been in ruins ever since. Overall, stability was the chief goal, and U.S. presidents were sometimes criticized for coddling Arab autocrats.

All that changed after Sept. 11, when the Bush administration embraced a bold new plan to transform the Middle East by promoting democracy. But by removing Saddam Hussein, who had kept neighboring Iran in check throughout his reign, the new U.S. effort freed Iran to take on a vastly more powerful role.

That transformation is the key to the current conflict in Lebanon. For Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states, the specter of a Shiite crescent running from Iran through Iraq to the militant Shiites of Hezbollah in Lebanon is terrifying. It is not just a matter of age-old tensions between Sunni and Shiite Islam. The status, and safety, of the Sunni Arab leadership is at stake.

"The Saudis are truly worried about the Iranians," said Rachel Bronson, an expert on Middle East politics at the council. "They think [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is a nut who represents a return to messianic Khomeinism. They don't know what he wants, and they're worried about the nuclear program."

That is why Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt and Jordan, performed a stunning turnabout last week by publicly condemning Hezbollah's attack on Israel. But the new Arab stance may not be worth much. For one thing, the Arab leaders are vulnerable to public sentiment, which is largely supportive of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel.

And the willingness of pro-Western Arab autocrats to ignore or play down their peoples' fury at Israel hardly supports the broader U.S. project of promoting democracy in the Middle East.

"I think this is a gambit on the part of those regimes to conclusively put an end to democracy promotion in the Middle East," said Marc Lynch, a scholar of Arab politics at Williams College. "They are saying to the Americans: 'Look how useful we are.' "

New clout for Tehran

Iran, meanwhile, seems to move from strength to strength. It had already won wide support across sectarian lines for its clandestine military help to Hamas, and for its quick $50 million pledge of support to the Palestinian Authority earlier this year after the United States and Europe declared a financial boycott.

"The joke in Tehran is that Ahmadinejad is even more popular in Cairo than he is there," said Vali Nasr, an Iranian-born professor of national affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "The Arab governments all know this will make them more vulnerable."

Iran's power is also newly apparent in Iraq, where the government is led by Shiites with close ties to Iran's religious hierarchy. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki forcefully denounced Israel's bombing campaign in Lebanon. One of Iraq's most powerful leaders, the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has gone further, hinting that he might actively support his Shiite brethren in Hezbollah.

Iran's influence has economic ramifications, too. "If Iran emerges as a more powerful state, it will make other states in the region, and external powers like Russia and China, more willing to cooperate with Iran on energy despite U.S. objections," said Flynt Leverett, a former director of Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council and a former CIA analyst.

Syria is the middleman in the latest conflict. It provides the land bridge between Iran and southern Lebanon. It also provides a safe haven for Hamas and other Palestinian radicals who are battling Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel holds Syria responsible for the present crisis, but it is unlikely to carry the fight to Damascus. "Israel has said again and again that it does not want to act against Syria," said the Shalem Center's Oren.

Nor is Syria likely to do anything to directly provoke Israel. While the Iranian leadership's hatred of the Jewish state is open and wrapped in religious fervor, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's feelings are more nuanced. His hostility toward his neighbor may be heartfelt, but his operating style is cautious, opportunistic and secretive. Above all, he does not want to take the kind of punishing hit that Israel is now inflicting upon Lebanon.

"They [the Syrians] are sitting on the sidelines and supplying Hezbollah with arms. They have always been like that, the Syrians are cautious. They don't want to fight," said Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria at Tel Aviv University.

A time for overtures?

By dangling the right incentives — the economic partnerships that Syria might gain if it could be removed from the list of state sponsors of terror, for example — the U.S. and its Arab allies might persuade Syria to end its decades of supporting terror and reconsider its close ties with Iran, Leverett said.

Iran, too, would like to see America come calling, some analysts say. "Part of this whole war in Lebanon is about the Iranians trying to get the U.S. to relieve the pressure on them," said Steven A. Cook, an expert on Arab politics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

It is also possible that such deals are fantasies, or just too costly. Syria's Assad, for instance, is furious about the U.N. investigation into the killing of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, last year.

Investigators from the United Nations have made clear that Assad's government appears to be implicated in the killing, and he would like to see the possibility of a trial scrapped. He would also like security guarantees, as no doubt would Iran. Even all that might not be enough.

"They might not believe us even if we did give them security guarantees," said F. Gregory Gause, director of the Middle East studies program at the University of Vermont. "They think the Bush administration wants to overthrow them."

That may be the truth. If it turns out that Iran actually ordered Hezbollah to carry out the raid that sparked the current conflict on July 13, as opposed to merely supplying the weapons, some kind of reckoning is almost certain, Gause said.

Background information on Syria and its ruler were reported by the Chicago Tribune.