By: Dr. Farooq Hassan

Harvard University

International events of a momentous nature in the past few years have proved that military solutions do not auger well for its users in this millennium. Since 9/11, despite overwhelming superiority of technology and armaments, it is beyond question that military over-kills have achieved little except physical demolition of structures, landscapes and of thousands of civilians. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence that it has generated a wave of nationalism seldom seen on the international scene since the beginning of the last century.

Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Lebanon have effectively demolished the notion of invincibility of supposedly super trained armies against rag tag militias who are determined to undertake “liberation” of their locales - at least as they see it in non conventional warfare. History seems forgotten by those who are supposed to know it. Those wishing to learn may read the accounts of the British Afghan Wars of 1842 and 1843 to comprehend that the greatest Empire of that time at Westminster was ruthlessness brushed aside by a handful of Pathans.

Hezbollah is riding a wave of popularity on the Arab street. Not since it played a role in forcing Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000 has it enjoyed such adulation. Its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, is enjoying something akin to a personality cult. At a time when Arab governments are seen as largely powerless to influence events, Hezbollah is seen as taking on the Israelis - and behind the Israelis, the American superpower. This has put Arab governments - in particular those allied to the United States - and other Muslim leaders, such as Musharraf and Mubarak, in a difficult quandary.

When this crisis began three weeks ago, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan did not hide their view that Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers was “reckless adventurism”. This was unusual enough, but they also openly directed their displeasure at the group’s backers, Syria and Iran. Such publicly voiced stance manifestly pleased the Bush administration as such critiques, for what they are worth, were frequently quoted by the US leadership and by and by dozens of “experts” in the media. It is equally clear that it was routinely ignored [in the West] that such Muslim countries’ governments were roundly criticized at home. The Saudi media made much of the fact that the king and the crown prince made handsome personal donations. In addition, the Saudi state has given $1.5 billion (£800 million) to support the Lebanese pound and help rebuild the shattered country. It is not that these countries have changed their minds. They are only. as a part of the realpolitik of the situation, correctly evaluating the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah. They believe the regional balance of power is shifting in Iran’s favor.

Washington’s Arab friends are pressing urgently for an immediate ceasefire. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has warned darkly of the danger of a wider regional war. Saudi television this past week organized a day long appeal - or “telethon” as the British called it - which raised some $29 million (£15.55 million) for Lebanon. It is not that these rulers have changed their minds. They can clearly perceive the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah and, indeed, of impoverished Syria as well.

Indeed, if a not so subtle endorsement of this phenomenon was needed, it came through the Iraqi and Lebanese Prime Ministers who went out of their way to be critical of Israeli action and impliedly of the US. The comments of the Iraqi leadership were particularly poignant for US policy makers. They were issued in the US and, considering the billions spent by Washington to install the maker of these views as that nation’s Premier, it must make such policymakers ponder of how wrong they may have been!

As such, howsoever they may be negatively viewed by Washington and London, the predominant view in the Middle East, and the wider Muslim world, is overwhelmingly supportive of Hezbollah. The hope of some Western analysts to see the sudden eruption of the Shia and Sunni divide is, in this case, utterly ill founded - as results have shown thus far. For most people, the Palestinian cause transcends sectarian differences. Even al-Qaeda, no friend of the Shia, has felt obliged to speak out. The group’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued a video saying no Muslim can stay silent in the face of events in Lebanon.

Israel’s Lebanon adventures have coalesced the fundamental antagonists in a manner that famous Muslim thinkers like Iqbal & Rumi could not accomplish. Al-Qaeda’s declaration is thus, doctrinally, nothing short of, historically speaking in strategic terms, a startling phenomenon.

The U.S. evidently miscalculated the [cost of the] delay in supporting a ceasefire: A delay that resulted in the tragedy at Qana. It only underscores the awareness that there has occurred, as a result of such overall thinking in Washington, a manifest unintended shift in the balance of power in this region.

Feed on comments to this Post