Ben Stein has it right with this article in the American Spectator.

We are in real serious trouble, and I'll tell you how and why I know it:

* Because the Hezbollah -- as has been well reported -- launches missiles at purely civilian targets in Israel as a matter of course, and no one in Europe or in the American left says "boo" about it. It's considered the Hezbollah's "right" to kill Israelis and when they do, they boast about it and promise to do more;

* Because it's been also well documented that the Hezbollah hides behind civilian targets and adjacent to civilian dwellings in Lebanon to fire its rockets at Israel, and when Israel fires back and mistakenly hits a home with civilians, the world of "intellectuals" and "thinkers" blames Israel and calls Israel bloodthirsty;

* Because when the Israelis kill civilians, they apologize, but when the terrorists kill civilians, they brag -- and the beautiful people scream at Eretz Israel and excuse the terrorists;* Because if you substitute "America" for "Israel" and the "terrorists in Iraq" for the Hezbollah, you get what's happening in Iraq;

* Because it is impossible to beat a terrorist movement without using terror tactics, and we as a people of compassion and restraint, both in Israel and the U.S., will not use terror tactics even when survival is at stake, and this means we will not survive.

Read the whole thing.

Mario Loyola says the Israeli offensive is failing.

Israel cannot lift the terror umbrella by fighting in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s positions are too well-dispersed, and its increasingly long-range missiles can be fired from central Lebanon — and even north of Beirut. The buffer zone Israel is trying to create in south Lebanon — now whittled down to a few miles even on the drawing board — will only inconvenience the Hezbollah missile teams. Any stabilization force is likely to have to watch impotently as missiles get fired into Israel over their heads, and they will have as much luck rooting the missile teams out as Israel is having now, which is to say, very little. With all the firepower Israel has unleashed against Hezbollah, the shower of missiles reaching its towns and cities has hardly abated. Israel’s offensive is palpably failing.

Unfortunately, Loyola thinks the only thing that can save the Israelis is the United Nations. If that is the case, the Israelis are doomed.

Sebastian Mallaby says it is time for the U.S. to retreat from its earlier stated goal of a cease fire that includes the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Even before the death toll spiked yesterday, the Bush administration's diplomacy on Lebanon looked like a long shot. The goal, as laid out by administration officials, is to secure a cease-fire that removes the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel. But Hezbollah's central function is to threaten Israel; that is the purpose for which Iran and Syria sustain it. Hezbollah is unlikely to renounce its reason for existence in the course of a negotiation. And the promised international peacekeepers will be hard-pressed to contain a militia that has proved capable of resisting Israel.

If its diplomacy fails, the Bush administration will have to face the dilemma that it's now avoiding: whether to support an indefinite cease-fire that goes beyond the 48-hour suspension of airstrikes announced yesterday but does not neutralize Hezbollah. To support such an outcome would be to retreat publicly. It would boost the prestige of extremists in the Middle East and encourage Iran to defy the West over its nuclear program. Yet refusing to support an imperfect cease-fire would be a greater error...

If he is right, then we are in a lose-lose situation, and for the Israelis, it is an even worse scenario. The only thing I can hope for now is that the Israeli government will suck it up, defy the world, and unleash the IDF in a massive ground offensive to root out and destroy Hezbollah's military capability in southern Lebanon. If they can smash Hezbollah in the south, stop the waves of rockets (which the IAF has been unable to do), then declare a cease fire and call for a an international force to come in as the IDF withdraws back to Israel, perhaps they can pull out a victory.

Dominating the TV news this morning is the incident at Qana in Lebanon. Israeli airstrikes have killed over 50 people, many of them children, in that village which the Israelis believe was the launching spot for over 150 rockets. I have no reason to doubt the Israeli contention that Hezbollah was using that town for its launches. Clearly, there is an abundance of evidence to indicate that Hezbollah is using civilians as a shield for their operations. The Israelis can protest all they like and provide the world with all the evidence they can find, which they are doing (including a new video that purports to show Hezbollah rockets being fired from behind an apartment building in Qana). It does not matter. World opinion will be shaped by the pictures of dead children being exhumed from the rubble. Already, Kofi Annan has called an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, at which time he once again called for an immediate cease-fire. Politically speaking, the whole world is lining up against Israel, except, of course, for the United States. How long can the Bush Administration hold out against the rising tide of world opinion? How long before they must step into line and call on the Israelis to stop fighting?

What is so exasperating for me is, like David Warren, I cannot figure out what the Israelis are doing.

One moment Prime Minister Olmert says Israel is prepared for a battle to the death, the next he starts talking about creating a border security zone only two kilometres wide -- which would be as if the Germans attacked the Maginot line, but not France.

There is speculation, still, that the Israelis are pulling a huge ruse -- exaggerating their difficulties to build Hezbollah's false confidence, before delivering the crushing blow. I can't believe this. The Israeli political class consists almost entirely of big-mouths, and you can't keep a secret among them.

Moreover, I hear alarming reports to suggest internal confusion; and worse, that Ehud Olmert is out of his depth -- thinking politically when his problem is military.

If Warren is right, and I believe he is, then the Israeli government is fumbling away perhaps its only chance to defeat Hezbollah. As I have written repeatedly since this crisis began, if Hezbollah remains intact with weapons in hand then they have won. That will mean money, prestige, recruits, and greater political power inside Lebanon.

The Israelis must invade Lebanon in great force and drive the Hezbollah fighters back at least to the Litani river and, perhaps, even beyond. Only when they have been driven back will the rain of rockets into northern Israel cease, and only then can the Israeli government agree to a cease fire and the introduction of an international force into southern Lebanon that can help the Lebanese Army prevent Hezbollah from infiltrating back into the region. The Israelis must stand before the world as the victors, even if the whole world hates them for it. Better to be a reviled winner, than a despised loser.

HEZBOLLAH SURRENDER?

According to this article, Hezbollah representatives in the Lebanese governments have agreed, as part of a cease-fire proposal, to disarm their military wing.

The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces. The package falls short of American and Israeli demands in that it calls for an immediate cease-fire before working out details of a force and includes other conditions.

But officials said Friday the proposals form a basis for an agreement, increasing the pressure on the United States to call for a cease-fire. Tony Blair said Friday they too want an international force dispatched quickly to the Mideast but said any plan to end the fighting — to have a lasting effect — must address long-running regional disputes. "This is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East," Bush said after his meeting with Blair in Washington. "Yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region." By signing onto the peace proposals, Hezbollah gave Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora a boost in future negotiations. Going into Thursday night's Cabinet session, Hezbollah's two ministers expressed deep reservations about the force and its mandate, fearing it could turn against their guerrillas. "Will the international force be a deterrent one and used against who?" officials who attended the Cabinet meeting said in summing up Hezbollah cabinet ministers concerns. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate. But afterward, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi announced that the package had been agreed on by consensus in a rare show of unity by a divided administration. While all sides seemed to be looking for a way to stop the fighting, details of plans taking shape on all sides were still fuzzy. And it was not at all certain Hezbollah would really follow through on the Lebanese government plan that would effectively abolish the militants' military wing. It may have signed on to the deal convinced that Israel would reject it.

I cannot understand why Hezbollah would fold at this stage, when it appears that they are standing up to the mighty IDF and their popularity is growing in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

There are, of course, several possibilities. First and foremost, they may have been told by their Iranian and Syrian sponsors that now is the time to run up the white flag, as the Iranians and Syrians may be unwilling to take any further steps to re-supply them. It could also be, as written in the above article, that Hezbollah is counting on the Israelis to reject the plan, thus putting the Israelis even more into the role of the bad guys in the court of world public opinion. Or, the could be counting on their ability to evade the peace conditions by making sure that the final agreement contains a weak U.N. force, which would be unable to disarm them, and by allowing the Lebanese Army to re-occupy southern Lebanon, but as a force that would not be willing to disarm them. That last possibility is my best guess.

Hezbollah is trying out some of its longer range missiles, so far without success. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence believes the leader of Hezbollah is hiding out in the Iranian embassy in Beirut, although there is also information that points to Damascus as his hiding place. If he is in the embassy, and the Israelis hit it, that could widen the war.

Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher says that we should be trying to get an immediate cease-fire. Somehow, I think he still has a September 10 mindset.

Meanwhile, Arab public opinion is forcing the leaders of the so-called moderate Arab states to back away from their earlier criticisms of Hezbollah. Ordinary Arabs are thrilled at the skill and courage of Hezbollah fighters. Ralph Peters picks up on that theme in today's column in the NY Post. Peters argues that the Israeli reliance on airpower is allowing Hezbollah to create the perception of victory. If the war ends with Hezbollah still standing, still armed, and still capable of firing rockets into Israel, then the Israelis will have lost. Millions of Arabs and Muslims across the world will look to Hezbollah as the new model for success in their on-going effort to cleanse the Middle East of the "Zionist entity". That would be a disaster for Israel, and for our on efforts in the so-called "war on terrorism".

The Israeli cabinet has decided not to expand the ground war in southern Lebanon. I think they are making a mistake. They have unleashed the dogs of war (in a justifiable response to provocation by Hezbollah), now they must let the dogs do their dirty work. The only justification for war is victory. Half-measures will surely leave Hezbollah on the field of battle with their weapons and their rockets intact (at least to some extent). That will be seen across the Muslim world as a victory for Hezbollah, which will draw to them more money and recruits and an even greater belief in the ultimate victory.

Prime Minister Olmert has outlined a plan for a Hezbollah-free zone near the border. It seems completely inadequate to me, especially while Hezbollah still has rockets that can hit Israel.

Perhaps the reason the Israelis are shrinking from any expansion of the ground campaign is because they are finding it so difficult to defeat Hezbollah in the narrow streets of the few villages they have already tried to take. The tenacity and skill of the Hezbollah guerrillas is also, according to this article in the Washington Times, discouraging other nations from volunteering their troops for an international peacekeeping force.

The violence in the Middle East has given David Warren some reason for hope.

Could Syria be the key to ending the violence? If the results of the Rome meeting are any indication, most international leaders and media types believe it is Condi Rice who is at fault.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, according to this article in the Washington Post, American troops are becoming increasingly frustrated by the difficulties in trying to bring peace and unity to the Iraqi people. It makes sense, of course, when you understand the fact that the American military is not designed to bring peace, unity or democracy to a nation. It is designed to bring death and destruction to the enemies of our peace, unity and democracy. We used the right tool to bring down the Hussein regime. But it is the wrong tool to rebuild Iraq. I am becoming convinced that we do not have the proper tools to rebuild Iraq. In fact, those tools do not exist. Thomas Friedman was right when he said that Saddam was the way he was because Iraq is the way it is. Iraq is an artificial country that can only be held together by fear, intimidation and violence. Since the Iraqi government and security forces, along with their coalition allies, do not strike fear in the hearts of the various thugs and factions that make up the country, since they do not have the resources to buy support, and since they do not have the secret police force to keep everyone in line, they are failing. Partition may be the only answer.

Harold Meyerson is a liberal columnist for the Washington Post. He believes that the European mindset towards both foreign and domestic policies is more correct than the American attitudes as displayed by the current Administration. He has not yet managed to take off the rose colored glasses and look at the reality of a Europe slowing dying as a direct result of those policies. In today's column, he may have begun the process of coming to enlightenment. He calls on the Europeans to step up and create the international military force that most believe is necessary to stand between the Israelis and Hezbollah and enforce a peace deal.

To be sure, a European intervention in southern Lebanon would entail casualties and political risks. But a failure to intervene would undermine every policy goal that Western European nations have for the Middle East, and strengthen the hand of the Cheney-Rumsfeld hawks who believe that American military might is the only solution for the planet's distempers.

For Europe, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. With the Middle East descending into deeper and deeper cycles of violence, one thing we surely don't need is a Europe guided by the spirit of Neville Chamberlain.

Read the whole thing. He articulates exactly the reasons why the Europeans should step up. When they do not, perhaps at least one Liberal American will come one step closer to the realization that the European way is the way of dissolution and defeat.

David Ignatius outlines a peace plan that is favored by the Lebanese government, and that was presented to Secretary Rice.

Tony Blankley says Newt Gingrich is right, that we are in World War III. Jay Bryant agrees. Unfortunately, while the President has used the language of war, he has not put policies into place that would effectively put the country on a war footing. Maybe a President Gingrich would, although I doubt very much he will ever attain the office.

Dick Morris and his wife say that the true friends of Israel cannot let the Democrats regain power.

Christopher Hitchens puts to rest the Iraq/Niger yellowcake controversy. The bottom line? British intelligence did learn that Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. It was right for the President to say that in his speech. It was accurate. Joe Wilson was wrong.

As Israeli forces push deeper into Lebanon, the questioning continues. Is this a fight for Israel's survival, as an Israeli cabinet minister contends in this article in the Guardian (by the way, scroll down and read some of the comments, they will make your hair stand on end)? Is the IDF using improper tactics?

Richard Cohen, after calling the existence of Israel a 'mistake' in an earlier column, now burnishes his pro-Israel credentials with this column.

The "military force won't work" crowd is out in force. This article says air power won't do it, which I agree with, but also implies that military force won't work at all, which I don't agree with.

Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed a bunch of CIA types, all of whom conclude that the Israelis cannot win. After reading the column, I was almost inclined to send an e-mail to the author asking him why he did not end the piece with the conclusion that the only way to end the conflict was for the Jews to leave Israel. I didn't bother.

As for peace-keeping efforts, while this report indicates Hamas might be willing to make a deal in Gaza, in Lebanon the prospects for an international force are rather dim, as it seems no one wants to contribute troops for such a force. The U.S. and France were forced to retreat from Lebanon back in 1983 and don't want to go back, the British say they are over-extended in other areas, and the Germans say they won't go unless Hezbollah agrees to disarm. Since the Lebanese Army has already proven unable or unwilling to disarm Hezbollah, I guess that leaves the Israelis. Perhaps the early end to these hostilities being predicted in the media is just wishful thinking, as Hezbollah is fighting hard, and all they need to do to win is to survive with their weapons in hand.

Orde Kittrie, who is a professor of international law at Arizona State University, and a former State Department employee, examines the Iran connection with the Hezbollah-instigated war in Lebanon/Israel.

The big winner thus far in the clash between Hezbollah and Israel is Iran. Through attacks by its proxy, Hezbollah, Iran is deftly succeeding in distracting the world from the rapidly progressing Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran's success brings it one step closer to one of its ultimate goals. That goal is America's destruction. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has starkly put it: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States. . . . This goal is attainable, and surely can be achieved."

Read the whole thing.

The Iranians also say Israel is 'doomed to destruction'.

The New York Times reports that the Israelis are going to depend on airpower to defeat Hezbollah. If true, it will be a terrible mistake.

The NYT also reports that the U.S. is trying to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. I hope that is true, because that would be a big win against the Iranian mullahs.

Benjamin Netanyahu explains why a cease fire makes no sense.

This is all about the wider war between the West and the Islamists. The Islamists are simultaneously fighting a civil war within Islam, and the Iranian mullahs are also maneuvering for regional advantage against the U.S., the Israelis and the Sunni Arab governments in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the like. But the major war is between the Islamists, both of the Sunni and Shia variety, and the West. Whether it is trying to terrorize Western nations into retreating from the Middle East or terrorize them into changing their laws at home, it is all the same war. I fear that our people do not have the stomach for it and that, therefore, all our technological advantages will do us no good in the long run. I hope I am wrong. I hope the fighting spirit that made the West the dominate culture on Earth has not drained away.

As Israel continues to mass troops on the Lebanese border, the chattering classes continue to debate the wars, both theirs and ours.

On the Left, Robert Kuttner says the President's Middle East policy is a failure. He calls the Administration a bunch of incompetents. On the Right, Victor Davis Hanson says just the opposite, that the policy is a success. We report, you decide.

Bill Kristol thinks the President is the "strong horse", while David Gelernter wonders why American Jews are so wrong about Israel.

Count me in with Ralph Peters, who thinks the Israelis are in danger of losing their war. Someday, the West will wake up and realize that limited wars are a losing proposition. Someday, after sufficient provocation, we will fight the war the way we have in the past against Fascism, and then we will win. Unfortunately, the longer we try to prevent that necessity, the bloodier it will need to be in the end.

THE NUKES OF AUGUST?

What is so significant about August 22? According to this article in the New York Times, the Iranians are insisting that the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia dn China, as well as the rest of the E.U. and the U.N, will have to wait until August 22 to get their answer to the nuclear proposals which would, if enacted, create a compromise solution to the stand-off.

Iran promised again on Thursday to respond to an international package of incentives on Aug. 22 but warned that it would reconsider its position if its case was sent to the United Nations Security Council.

The announcement was in a statement issued by Iran’s National Security Council. The council is led by Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani.

What is so important about waiting until August 22? Well, consider these tidbits from Con Coughlin about the Iranian connection with Hezbollah's initiation of hostilities with Israel.

Just how much responsibility Teheran bears for initiating hostilities remains unclear, but certain facts are now emerging that indicate the timing of the Israeli soldiers' abduction was no coincidence. To start with, there is the visit Mr Larijani paid to Damascus last week after his discussions in Brussels with Javier Solana, the EU's foreign affairs representative, ended without agreement. Apart from fulfilling his duties as chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Larijani, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, is chairman of Iran's national security council and a close confidant of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spiritual guardian of the Islamic revolution and the driving force behind the attempts to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal.

During his stay in the Syrian capital, Mr Larijani briefed Syrian intelligence officers about the nuclear talks and the latest developments in Iran's mutual defence co-operation with Damascus. Mr Larijani then met senior Hizbollah representatives.

The following day, Hizbollah launched its operation against Israel's northern border, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others.

Coincidence? It seems hard to believe. But Mr. Ali Larijani seems to be at the center of it all. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, who tells the world they won't have a response on the nuclear issue until August 22, is also the same man who goes to Damascus, meets with the Syrians and Hezbollah, and the next day Hezbollah takes an action guaranteed to bring an Israeli military response.

I can't quite figure this out, as of yet. But it seems rather suspicious, and ominous.

Israeli officials are now hinting at a full-scale invasion of Lebanon. If that happens, it fits into the scenario I predicted a few days ago, based on a report coming out of Israel at the beginning of hostilities. David Warren explains the scenario. If they do follow through with a ground invasion, will they be able to smash Hezbollah without suffering unbearable casualties? Will the Syrians and Iranians run for cover or will they engage? If they try to sustain Hezbollah indirectly through the Syrian-Lebanese border, will the Israelis bomb the two border crossings that remain open? It is frustrating to read so many articles advocating a wider war, like this one, often written by people I respect, and yet it seems they have lost some sense of history, which teaches us that wars are always unpredictable. Would the Kaiser have pushed the Austrians to take a hard line with Serbia in 1914 if he had known the Russians would go to war over it, followed by the French and British? Probably not. He didn't know it would come to that. None of them knew. They followed their instincts and listened to their prejudices and assured themselves that God was on their side. In the current scenario, take any prediction with a grain of salt, but especially any prediction concerning the behavior of people we do not understand.

Speaking of the unpredictable, how about this report that the Lebanese Army, rather than disarming Hezbollah, may join them to defend Lebanon against the Israeli invaders. If it happens, it will serve as just another reminder that people oftentimes do not do the rational thing, instead, they do exactly the opposite.

Ken Allard wonders if this August will be like August 2001 or August 1914.

The Washington Post says the U.S. should avoid falling into a diplomatic trap.

WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE?

As Israeli troops battle Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon, in what appears to be another limited ground incursion, the question of how this will all play out is being debated by the chattering classes across the world. It is being widely reported that U.S. officials have given the Israelis the green light to continue to pound Hezbollah for another week before the U.S. will actively join those arguing for a cease-fire. Still, can the Israelis achieve their goals through military means?

Charles Krauthammer and Lawrence Kudlow argue that the only way to achieve those goals is by continuing their military offensive and expanding it with a ground invasion of Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. David Ignatius argues just the opposite, that Israel's experience with its previous invasion and occupation of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 provides compelling evidence that Hezbollah cannot be defeated militarily. Both Ignatius and Harold Meyerson bring up the specter of 1914, as I did in a previous post. But it is Robert Tracinski who has really gone off the deep end, along with some other like-minded souls.

If the problem is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes seek to preserve themselves and extend their influence by supporting terrorists across the Middle East, then the solution is to end those regimes--and we should devise a military response directed at that goal.

Excuse me? The President and Congress are now reeling from abysmal approval numbers that are almost entirely derived from our ongoing participation in an unpopular war in Iraq, and the combination of Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching our military resources to the breaking point, and this guy wants to militarily topple two more regimes? He, and those like him, just don't get it. AMERICANS HAVE NO STOMACH FOR ANY MORE WARS. Unless Syria or Iran attacks the U.S. directly and obviously, the American people are not going to politically back any effort to invade those countries and topple their regimes. And, please, don't start telling me about how we can do it with air power. The Air Force generals have been telling us since the 1930s that wars can be won with air power alone. Baloney. If we want to depose Ahmadinejad or Assad and install friendly regimes, it can only be done with a massive ground invasion, as we saw in Iraq. Then, of course, we would be left with the same kind of insurgency and civil strife, as both Iran and Syria are countries with unhappy minorities chafing under the rule of the parties in power.

Just as Israel cannot win its latest war within the political realities of the moment, so, too, we cannot win any military struggle with Iran and Syria under current conditions. Granted, this does not mean that Israel doesn't have the power to win its war, or that the U.S. does not have the power to defeat Iran or Syria. It is simply the fact that the political will does not exist in either country to do the things necessary to win.

For Israel, this would mean a massive ground invasion of Southern Lebanon and the wholesale massacre of the Shiite Lebanese population. No more Hezbollah, and no more potential Hezbollah recruits. The Sunni and Christian Lebanese would be invited to occupy the South after Israeli troops withdrew. This, of course, WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It is the way these problems were solved in the past, but no modern, democratic state would take such extreme measures.

For the U.S., it would mean building an Army of five million men, invading and occupying Syria and Iran, executing the Alawites in Syria and the Mullahs in Iran, and then dividing each country into smaller states, thus giving each aggrieved group some spoils and, thereby, buying their loyalty. Again, an ancient tried-and-true solution, but one that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

So, where is it all going? Expect an unsatisfactory cease-fire in Lebanon that leaves Hezbollah intact and, therefore, another round of fighting in a few weeks or months. Expect the same in Gaza. Expect that Iran and Syria will continue to back terrorists who fight the Israelis in the region and who attack the U.S., her allies and interests around the world. War without end. Or, perhaps, until a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv or New York arouses a medieval fury which ends the war in the ancient way, the way of the Romans. Just ask a Carthaginian about that kind of war, if you can find one.

CAN ISRAEL WIN?

Can Israel win this war, in the end? Certainly they can militarily defeat any foe or combination of foes in their region, as they have shown time and time again. But can a small nation of European Jews, plunked down in the middle of the Arab Middle East, really survive? Richard Cohen, writing in today's Washington Post, tells Israelis that they should be mindful of their history. In fact, he calls Israel "a mistake", a land of Jews who came back to their Biblical home, from which they had been expelled by the Romans almost 2000 years ago, mainly because they were running for their lives from the Europeans who were trying to massacre them. While the Palestinian Arabs who lived there never really had a state of their own (almost all the Arab states are really the creation of European politicians who drew the lines in their competition for colonies in the 19th and 20th centuries), they are part of a larger Arab-Muslim nation that had expanded out from their desert homes over the centuries to dominate the region. In terms of numbers, they still do. This fact will not change with the defeat of any given Arab state or terrorist group. Demographically, the Arabs will continue to grow more numerous, and many of them will continue to hold the view that the Jews are an alien presence who must be driven out. As long as there are new recruits, how can movements like Hezbollah and Hamas ever be defeated?

I expect that the Israelis will mount a ground offensive in Lebanon to try and finish off Hezbollah, or so weaken it that it can be effectively shut out of Lebanese politics and its armed wing can be prevented from returning to South Lebanon either by Lebanese Army troops or some U.N. sponsored peacekeeping force. This, at least, will keep them from being able to launch short-range missiles into Israeli or mounting any further cross border incursions. Hamas, which has been overshadowed by the action in Lebanon, is another and far more difficult story. I do not think the Israelis really want to go into the Gaza strip and fight them house-to-house and block-by-block. Even if they did, eventually they would have to leave, or resume the occupation at great cost. The Palestinians have shown that even a fence cannot stop their ability to make war against Israel. They will merely tunnel under it or shoot rockets over it, or both (as we saw from Hamas a few weeks ago). So, the war will go on. I am at a loss as to how it can ever end, except with the eventual surrender or annihilation of the Jews in Israel, unless the Arabs finally decide that they can live with this Jewish state in their midst.

According to some reports, Israel has sent ground troops into Lebanon, although apparently not very deep and only for a short time. Ralph Peters says that the Israelis may be losing the fighting spirit that has propelled them to victories in their other wars because they are, so far, unwilling to send ground troops into Lebanon to take on Hezbollah fighters directly. But, according to this article, the Israelis are working their way through a plan that includes, eventually, some kind of ground war. It appears that the Israelis are trying to cut Hezbollah off from their paymasters and suppliers in Damascus and Tehran, and then move in to destroy them. This may or may not involve them in direct conflict with the Syrians. There is an argument to be made, and David Warren makes it, that attacking Syria now would be a good idea in order to defeat Hezbollah by toppling one of its benefactors and ending Syrian influence in Lebanon for good. The reason the Israelis may be reluctant to do that is the possibility that it could lead to war with Iran, as well. This might make sense in any event since some people, like Edward Luttwak writing in the Jerusalem Post, believe that the Hamas and Hezbollah operations were planned and ordered by Iran.

Iran's quarreling and competing leaders finally decided to reject the US-European offer of an energy reactor, aircraft spare parts, economic cooperation and more in exchange for giving up uranium enrichment with which they could make nuclear weapons.

Many had hoped that in spite of their extremism Iran's leaders would accept the offer, if only to avoid sanctions - which are sure to come even if in the end China and Russia refuse to vote for them in the UN Security Council. The United States and Europe are united this time, and they can do much by themselves to cut off Iran from world banking, prohibit the travel of Iranian leaders, and stop exports to Iran of everything but food and medicine.

Instead of passively awaiting the inevitable sanctions, Iran's leaders decided to start a Middle East crisis of their own by organizing attacks against Israel. Their aim is to discourage the US and the Europeans from starting another crisis against themselves - financial markets and everyday politics in Europe especially can only tolerate so much conflict.

That gambit could also bring another benefit. Iran's claim to Muslim leadership is now being badly undermined by conflict in Iraq, where Iran supports the Shi'ite militias that are killing Sunnis. Every bloody day of bombings and executions in Iraq reminds Arabs that the Persian leaders of Iran are not Arabs, and it reminds Sunni Muslims everywhere that the Persians are not Sunnis. Attacking Israel overcomes all divisions among Muslims and gains Arab gratitude for Iran's help.

IRAN'S MOVE was prepared in a series of meetings with its local allies, both Hamas of Palestine and the Hizbullah of Lebanon. Khaled Mashaal, the overall Hamas leader who remains safely in Damascus under Syrian protection, traveled to Teheran at one point, where he received some $50 million in cash.

Although an offshoot of the strictly Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, whose financial supporters in Arabia loathe the Persian ayatollahs, Hamas evidently decided to cooperate in Iran's scheme. It was already cut off from Western funding because of its refusal to recognize Israel and it was already diplomatically isolated.

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, after spending much of the last three years demanding U.S. withdrawal from the country, it is now the Sunnis who are clamoring for the American military to stay, according to this article in the New York Times. Apparently, they have begun to realize that the only thing keeping Iraq from imploding into an all-out civil war is the presence of American troops. Perhaps if the Sunnis can convince their armed insurgents to stop their attacks against American troops and the fledgling Iraq forces, and if they can help get rid of the foreign jihadis who do at least some of the suicide bombing, then the American troops can get down to the business of disarming the Shiite militias and getting the Iraqi Army to be a better-trained and disciplined force. This may require our presence in Iraq for many years to come, but if we are not taking casualties, that fact will become one of political indifference here at home, much in the way our presence in Bosnia is today.

A WIDENING WAR

According to this report, Israel has given the Syrians an ultimatum. Pressure Hezbollah to release its captive Israeli soldiers and stop rocketing Israeli towns, or else. The "or else" probably means a series of strikes against the Syrian military and infrastructure. It appears now that Israel is trying to destroy Hezbollah. To do so, they need to sever Hezbollah's lifeline from Iran via Syria. If that is the case, then Israel's actions so far become clear. First, cut the air, land and sea links to Lebanon. Then, punish Syria until she is no longer willing or capable to help Hezbollah any further. Then, pound Hezbollah into dust. Since the Iranians do not have a direct way to give further aid without Syrian help or a way into Lebanon by air or sea, that would effectively neutralize Iranian support without having to engage in a direct war with Iran. It would, however, still leave the Iranians to continue with their nuclear program which, combined with their missile program, is still an existential threat to the Israelis.

The wild card is, of course, how energetically will the Syrians resist if they are attacked directly and will the Iranians come directly to their aid. If the Syrians resist and Iran gives aid, that would mean a wider war with consequences very difficult to determine. Arnaud de Borchgrave, at the end of this piece in today's Washington Times, says people who try to look through crystal balls and predict what will happen in the Middle East tend merely to end up chewing on shattered glass.

THE BIG WAR IS GETTING CLOSER

I have made the argument many times that since 9/11 George W. Bush has been trying to prevent the next World War by fighting smaller, limited wars. Using a relatively limited war-making power, he sought to eliminate the Islamist safe-haven of Afghanistan and one of the most vicious secular terrorist supporters in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also hoped that, in the aftermath, democracy would take root in both countries, thereby creating not only a deterrent to our enemies, who would see two examples of like-minded regimes being thrown onto the dustpile of history, but also create an encouraging example for all those in the Middle East who yearn for democracy, prosperity and religious tolerance. The President may still believe that it is possible, and certainly that it is a worthy mission for a great nation. But, at least in my view, it is becoming ever more clear that the process was flawed from the beginning.

When the United States finally was attacked directly on our own soil in 9/11, it should have been clear to all that this was simply the culmination in a long war that started when the Iranians took our diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979, which was an act of war that was not met with the violence that it required. Time after time in the years that ensued our interests or people were attacked, often by the non-state proxies of the mullahs in Iran, and their sympathizers and allies throughout the Muslim world. Our feeble response to each incident merely emboldened our enemies until, finally, one with enough vision and guts and capability managed to pull off a spectacularly successful attack against us at home. That man, Osama bin Laden, thought that we would retreat, as we had in the past. We did not. But we also did not resort to the total war called for in the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine says states that support terrorists should be treated exactly the same as the terrorists. If we follow that logic then we should have launched military operations against Iran and Syria in 2001. Of course, President Bush really didn't mean what he said. History may yet prove him right not to follow the logic of his own doctrine. Instead, he chose to try and limit the war.

We may be reaching the end of those limits. Our efforts to create democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq are being held back by the continued interference of the Iranians and Syrians in Iraq and the Iranians and some Pakistani elements in Afghanistan, as well as the international Islamist terrorists and the home-grown insurgents in both countries. Stability cannot be achieved in either country until those outside agitators are forced to cease and desist. Meanwhile, the Iranians are now led by a true Hitlerian fanatic, who apparently believes it is his mission to start the global war which will precede the appearance of the "Hidden Imam". For all of his efforts, President Bush may still end up having to resort to the kind of total war he has successfully resisted until now.

With Israeli finally striking back hard after many months of provocations from Hamas and Hezbollah, our hand may be forced. The President might like to wait until the diplomatic process plays out completely regarding Iran's nuclear program. But, if the Iranians and Syrians through their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies continue to pressure the Israelis, they may strike back directly against the Iranians and Syrians. With over 100,000 American troops in Iraq, a country that borders both Iran and Syria, how can the U.S. stay out of the resulting conflict?

The big war is looming. Will the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers be seen by history in much the same way as the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne is now seen? The spark that lit the powderkeg of a World War?

Check out Pajamas Media for a link-filled roundup of news about the new war going on in the Middle East.

The Boston Globe thinks the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas in kidnapping the Israeli soldiers is really a trap set by Iran. I certainly agree that these incidents could not have happened without approval, tacit or otherwise, from the rulers in Teheran and Damascus. Whether they want the Israelis to react as they have, as the Globe seems to think, or they simply wish to continue to weaken the Israeli people by keeping up an undeclared war through non-state proxies, the end result is the same. The war goes on. Can the Israelis find the political will to do what has to be done to win the war? If they can, do they even have the means?

World leaders are urging restraint. Would they be so restrained if their national existence was threatened? I doubt it.

Speaking of Iran, which I believe is the real puppet master behind all of this, Robert Kagan proposes a theory about why President Bush seems to be giving diplomacy so much of a chance.

CONNECT THE DOTS

Now Hezbollah has decided to get in on the act. They have captured two Israeli soldiers, as well as killing at least three others. The IDF has responded with a limited incursion into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based and where the kidnapped soldiers are believed to be held. This leaves the Israelis now fighting on two fronts against two of their most implacable enemies, in the North against Hezbollah and in the South against Hamas. Hezbollah is a Shiite organization, believed to be backed by Iran, and Hamas are Sunni Palestinians. Interesting how they now seem to be cooperating. Interesting how an Iranian-backed group can thrive in a country (Lebanon) that is still dominated by Syria in many ways. Gee, could the Sunni Syrian Baathists be cooperating with the Shiite Iranian Mullahs to, through their proxies the Shiite Hezbollah and the Sunni Hamas, destabilize the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis in order to make life even more difficult for the Americans in Iraq? If you said yes, then great minds think alike.

A man and a woman were driving through Boston last night, as so many people do every night, as I have done many times, when a portion of concrete ceiling collapsed on their car, killing the female passenger. It is way too early in the investigation to draw any conclusions, but it is disturbing to think that a recently built tunnel (constructed in the earlier phase of the Big Dig back in the mid-nineties) should have such a problem, especially in the wake of so many other problems that have been identified concerning the other tunnels, mostly to do with improperly mixed concrete. As a person who was raised in Massachusetts and lived there for much of my life, the word "corruption" comes to mind. I hope it turns out to be just an unavoidable tragedy and not an example of malfeasance or incompetence or both.

The US is not the only country with an immigration problem. The EU is trying to come up with a more unified response. Curiously, there is nothing in the article about the fact that Europe will desperately need all those North African immigrants to keep their economies going due to the fact that the Europeans themselves are not procreating at anywhere near the rate necessary to maintain their societies.

Broadcasters are worried about the new fines for indecent material. It seems I recall, when I was coming up in the business, that it was simply a matter of not using profanity, bathroom humor, or sexually explicit conversation to keep clear of FCC fines or putting the license in jeopardy. Perhaps the suits should think about hiring more of us old dogs who remember the old tricks, like how to do an entertaining show without trying to shock anyone.

What does North Korea want? Regime survival. We should do everything we can to thwart that goal.

Are the Jews doomed? Here is one thoughtful opinion.

While the big news out of Iraq these days is still an unrelenting saga of mayhem and brutality, there are some signs that the situation can still be salvaged. Check out this front-page New York Times story about one area of Iraq that is enjoying relative peace, because the tribes in that area have united to oppose Islamist violence and intimidation.

Also, check out the view from StrategyPage, which indicates that Sunni leaders are finally coming to terms with Shia dominance of Iraq. This is the first step in an actual modus vivendi between the groups that might allow the government to gain the upper hand on the insurgents and militias. If the mainstream Sunnis, especially the various tribal leaders, can come to grips with the fact of Shia dominance of Iraq, then they can make peace with the new government. Unfortunately, I suspect that continued interference from Iran may make the job harder than it should be.

On the other side of the world, Japan is considering its military options against North Korea. Perhaps that will get the attention of the Chinese, enough to convince them to lean on Kim Jong Il until he starts behaving.

THE TRUTH ABOUT DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING

Recently, former Vice President Al Gore has made something of a media splash by the release of a documentary film called "An Inconvenient Truth". In it, Gore asserts that the inconvenient truth is that human-caused global warming is real, despite the efforts of some in government to pretend otherwise. He may be right. But Robert Samuelson has it right when he points out "The Real Inconvenient Truth".

From 2003 to 2050, world population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Read the whole thing. As I have also argued many times, it is simply not possible for political leaders to deliberately slow the growth of their economies. As long as our world economy is based on petroleum, as it is, then we will not see any deliberate effort to limit its growth. We may see, as in the Kyoto Accords, lip service paid to the idea of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but even the signatories will, in the end, ignore their promises if those promises lead to a slowdown in their local economies. The only way out is to find a way to shift the basis of our economy away from the use of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels. Unfortunately, even if we manage to come up with the technological breakthroughs to make that happen, it will not happen in time to reverse, or even slow, the effects of global warming as expected through the rest of this century. If I am right, then we need to make a concerted effort to adapt to the new climate as best we can.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT NORTH KOREA?

What to do about North Korea?

Nothing.

That's right. Nothing.

The failed test of the Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile on 4 July only proves that the North Koreans are, as yet, incapable of building a working ICBM that could deliver a nuclear warhead to a target in the United States. The test-firing of several short and middle-ranged missiles into the Sea of Japan only proves that they are still capable of hitting targets in the region, something we have known for many years. So, North Korea remains what it has been for decades, a diplomatically isolated, desperately poor, heavily armed regional threat. The recent missile tests do not change at all the current diplomatic dynamic. The United States should continue to press the North Koreans to come back to the six party talks concerning their nuclear program. The U.S. should not enter into one-on-one negotiations, or in any other way reward the regime's recent behavior. The U.S. should support a toughly worded United Nations resolution, although it will be no surprise when the Russians and Chinese refuse to go along with any real sanctions. Such sanctions are not terribly relevant, anyway, since you can't put much economic pressure on North Korea, which is almost completely cut off from the rest of the world and is really only dependent on one nation, China, to keep it from complete economic collapse. The Chinese, unwilling to risk the specter of millions of North Koreans crossing their borders in flight from such a collapse, will continue to provide aid to North Korea under almost any imaginable circumstances and despite any misbehavior by the regime, short of all-out war against either China or South Korea.

So, doing nothing or, at least, just maintaining the status quo, will not negatively impact our security or the security of our allies in the region, despite all the chest-thumping we are now hearing from the Administration's political opponents. Stay the course. Continue building anti-missile defenses for ourselves and with our Japanese allies. Continue advocating multilateral diplomacy. Continue waiting for Kim jong-il to die, or be deposed, whichever comes first.

WBZ TONIGHT

I will be filling in for Steve Leveille on WBZ-AM in Boston tonight from Midnight to 5 AM. Among the possible topics:

Should Congress raise the Federal minimum wage? House Republican leaders are thinking about scheduling a vote on the issue.

Is America a force for mostly good or mostly ill in the world? One writer looks at what the world would be like without the United States of America.

How should the Israelis respond if Hamas refuses to turn over their kidnapped soldier, of if they execute him?

Con Coughlin thinks the British have six months to defeat the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Is it simply not possible to win against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting them with the current resources, tactics and lukewarm public support?

I may also bring up the most recent Supreme Court decisions, including the Hamdan case about detainees and the Vermont case about campaign finance limitations. Since it is a holiday night, with folks going home after Midnight from the festivities and fireworks, we may just open the lines and do an open forum, as Steve Leveille calls it. 617-254-1030 is the number. You can also listen in by going to their website at wbz1030.com.

WPRO 3-7 PM

I will be guest-hosting the Dan Yorke Show on WPRO-AM in Providence, RI today as Dan takes a day off. The show airs from 3-7 PM and can be heard in Rhode Island and parts of Massachusetts and Connecticut at 630 on the AM band. Among the topics I am considering for discussion:

Israel's military is told to 'do all it can' to rescue the kidnapped soldier. The militants holding the soldier have issued a deadline for a prisoner swap, or else. Charles Krauthammer says this is just the continuation of the 60 year effort by Palestinians to destroy Israel. Should the Israelis wage an all-out war against the Palestinians? Is there any way to do so that could lead to a real settlement of the issues between them?

The reverberations continue from the Hamdan decision by the Supreme Court. The SCOTUSblog has a round-up of reaction and analysis. Mark Steyn says the Court has found a right to jihad in the Constitution. Can we defeat al Qaeda playing by Geneva Convention rules? Should the detainees at Guantanamo be tried or released?

I am also thinking about immigration reform, the responsibility of the media to keep secrets during wartime, campaign finance reform and, as always, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Rhode Island issues that could come up include the recent GOP state convention and the casino gambling referendum.

Seymour Hersh says there is a war going on inside the Pentagon over whether or not to go to war with Iran. As always, an interesting read.

Canada is finally spending more on her military.

An Israeli airstrike has damaged the office of the Palestinian Prime Minister. I am sticking with yesterday's post (see below) as to my thoughts on this situation.

Some skepticism on the Washington Post op-ed page about the efficacy of biofuels as a solution to our gasoline supply problems. The numbers seem right. We need to increase fuel efficiency dramatically, and go all out to find a replacement for fossil fuels in general.

James Glassman takes a look at faith and tolerance in the 21st Century.

Go to RealClearPolitics for a number of different opinions on the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the Guantanamo detainees. I have long maintained that we should have declared war on al Qaeda, which would have changed the legal dynamics of what the Administration could and could not do in the conduct of the war but, since we did not, we should have followed a policy of trial or release. It is a risk to release some of these terrorists, but why can we not let them go and put them under surveillance? Is it because the CIA is so incompetent it wouldn't be able to pull it off? I think that may be the real answer.

ON THE BRINK

Israel is warning the Palestinians that if they don't hand over their kidnapped soldier, then the Israelis will assassinate the Hamas Prime Minister. Negotiations, brokered by the Egyptians, to reach some sort of deal to hand over the soldier, are not going well. The Israelis are in a tricky spot. Clearly, they would like to get rid of the Hamas-led government. The kidnapping of their soldier has given them the pretext to undertake that mission. They have already arrested dozens of Hamas people who are currently members of the Palestinian Parliament. But, if they launch a ground invasion of Gaza, there will be numerous casualties, including women and children (there have been no casualties so far, as the Israelis have been careful to limit their artillery bombardments to open fields and their initial airstrikes struck a power plant and some bridges). Their soldier will probably be killed upon an invasion and, unless they intend to re-occupy Gaza, it is difficult to see what they will have accomplished. Perhaps they are just bluffing, hoping to get the soldier back and forcing Hamas to lose face, as well as see so many of its top leaders go to Israeli prisons that it will be weakened when the struggle with Fatah resumes. If they do invade, they will face a united front of Hamas and Fatah. I expect the brinkmanship can only go on for so long before the Israelis have to make a decision one way or the other.