Analysis | Lebanon: Who won?

He's a lonely proponent of that view, however. Israel killed hundreds of Hezbollah fighters and destroyed many of its rocket stockpiles and other equipment. Still, the outcome was murky, and when there is no clearcut outcome perceptions have a way of becoming reality. The widespread perception now is that by showing it could stand up to Israel, despite significant losses, the terrorist organization Hezbollah is the winner.

Iran, Syria and, of course, Hezbollah, which they both support, are all calling the month of bloodshed in Lebanon a victory for them and a defeat for Israel and, by extension, the U.S.

In an online symposium hosted by the conservative National Review, a number of analysts reached a similar conclusion.

Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, summed it up this way:

If there is a clear winner in this war, it's Iran. Regrettably, the "Mullahs of Mayhem" came out of the conflict with nary a scratch — politically, economically, or militarily. While Tehran lost no soldiers, and suffered no attacks on its territory, it was able to:

a) Divert a great deal of world attention from its nuclear (weapons) program, and its support for anti-American Shia militias in Iraq;

b) Strike out at its arch-enemy Israel using its terrorist toady, Hezbollah;

c) Severely damage public opinion about the U.S. in the Muslim world;

d) Put a deep freeze on the Middle East peace process;

e) Push global oil prices even higher, filling its national coffers for advancing its nuclear program, its conventional military, and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah;

f) Catapult itself to a position of leadership in the Muslim world through its support of Hezbollah;

g) And, lastly, remind the region — and the world — that it is capable of creating even more instability if anyone tries to get in the way of its plans for hegemony in the Middle East.

The Israelis themselves seem uncustomarily subdued in the wake of the ceasefire agreed to over the weekend.

Thirty percent of those polled by Yediot Achronot this week said Israel won the monthlong war, while an equal number said Hezbollah won. Thirty-six percent said neither side won.

Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote in his blog:

Israel: Certainly not a winner. ...

Hezbollah: Certainly not a loser. ...

Syria: A senior Defense Department official told me Wednesday that The U.S. is troubled by what official termed "a rise in Syria's self-confidence." This says it all.

Iran: Haaretz' Yoel Marcus phrased it exactly right: "Neither a political accord nor a military victory will change the situation as long as Iran is around, controlling the height of the flames."

So if, for the moment, the edge goes to Hezbollah and its sponsors, Syria and Iran, what comes next?

In the Jerusalem Post, David Kuttab writes that,

Although ordinary Lebanese have paid a huge human, economic, and infrastructural price, Hizbullah has made it clear to the Israelis that they can no longer take their military predominance for granted. The limits of military power have been exposed. Moreover, the madness of war has been clearly demonstrated to all, and, once the current fighting is over, both sides are now more likely to be cautious about actions that might push their peoples and countries into war once more.

Seymour Hersh reports in this week's New Yorker magazine that the Bush administration hoped to use the Israeli air strikes on buried Hezbollah arms caches and command posts as a template for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which also are buried.

Hersh writes that,

According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term—and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah "may be the A team of terrorists"—Israel's campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. "If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can't pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million," Armitage said. "The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

The ultimate result of the Israeli assault on Hezbollah — not to mention the eventual resolution of the Iran nuclear crisis — will emerge only with time. And in London, The Guardian points out in an editorial that the path ahead for today's perceived winner is by no means easy:

Lebanon's Christian and Sunni communities, outraged by Israel's assault on their country, have shown solidarity with Hizbullah as the fighting has gone on. But there has also been anger and that is likely to become more evident in the aftermath of the war. The even more fundamental issue for Hizbullah is its relationship with its own Shia constituency, a relationship built in part on a promise to protect and sustain. The Hizbullah welfare state lies in ruins amid the more general wreckage of the southern economy. Where to find the huge sums of money, even with help from Iran, to rebuild these structures ? And, if the reconstruction of the south is done in part by others, by the Lebanese central government, the Europeans, and international agencies, so the lines of patronage and control will become less clear, a fact that carries with it important political implications.