Saturday Editorial: How balance of power theory applies to Middle East

I have not been reporting on the daily violence between Israel and Hezbollah over the last week or two because you can get that news anywhere.  This is not an ordinary news site -- it is a political news site.  With that said, let me give a little political angle on what we can expect.  This is only for readers who like political theory.  For everyone else, this might be boring.

Israeli forces are touting the statistic that they have already destroyed one-third of Hezbollah's rocket capability.  In the short-term, that is a positive.  But when you think about it, Iran and Syria (especially Iran) stand to gain from prolonging the violence as long as possible (i.e. UN pressure on the Iran nuclear program).  So when Hezbollah runs out of rockets, Iran will simply just supply them with more -- and the violence will continue.

Assuming that the 72-hour ceasefire proposal between Israel and Hezbollah will not work out, even though we all hope it will, I really don't see the violence stopping anytime soon unless Hezbollah is destroyed or a deal is reached with Iran.  Neither will happen.  Ever since the insurgency in Iraq began, Iran has asserted its radical approach to reshaping the Middle East in its Shiite image.  Baghdad, after decades of Sunni domination, is back in Shiite control.  Now, thanks to this latest unfortunate turn of events, Hezbollah in Lebanon is feeling the Shiite influence as well.  So what we have here is what many academics are now referring to as a Shiite Crescent, which spans from Tehran, through Baghdad and over to Beirut.  Think of the phrase "Shiite Crescent" as Iran's sphere of political influence.  As of March 2003, before we went into Iraq, the Baghdad and Beirut fronts of the Shiite Crescent did not exist.  The larger the crescent, the better for Iran.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad took full advantage of a great political opportunity this summer.  President Bush and all the other democracies failed to prop up the new pro-western government in Lebanon that formed in 2005 after Syrian troops were kicked out.  With the government being weak there, Iran is having no problem using Hezbollah to sabotage that territory.  It's depressing that the White House never saw this coming.

But hold on a second.  Logically speaking, with a Shiite takeover of the Middle East, the Sunnis should resist.  After all, Hamas is Sunni -- yet they now support the Shiite group Hezbollah.  Why?  Since Israel is involved, the whole Arab world, Sunni and Shiite, is united in its support for Hezbollah.  That gives Iran a chance to assert their dominance while the Sunnis are distracted.  Sunni governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt are very worried because this Hezbollah violence could polarize the middle east and threaten the very existence of their governments.  Each of those Sunni-led countries have rebuked Hezbollah for the rocket attacks, while also footing some of the blame on Israel.

Putting it simply, the balance of power in the region is disrupted.  As is true about anything in politics, whenever there is polarization, fringe groups always see an opportunity because it legitimizes emotion-based political actions.  When fringe groups see that opportunity and are in control of the situation, they will continue to keep things polarized and unstable to maintain that same trend.  No wonder Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan are worried sick.

With all that said, this next part is really important -- and it pains me to say it.  Our war in Iraq is encouraging that same polarization.  Iran wants us to remain in Iraq, as does Hezbollah, because it fuels anger towards Israel and the west, which gives Iran the added legitimacy need to keep widening their sphere of influence.

The indicators continue to point towards more rocket attacks.  Sooner or later, Israel is going to give Iran and Syria an ultimatum.  Either Hezbollah stops, or Israel will launch air strikes into Syria.  But again, if we go by the balance of power theory, air-striking Syria is precisely what Iran wants Israel to do.  Again, polarization works to Iran's favor because it creates sympathizers on the Arab streets.  Air strikes on Syrian soil will polarize the situation even more -- nationalizing Arab support against Israel.  And again, for the last time, no matter what any conservative tries to tell you, polarization is what Iran wants, and it is precisely what moderate states like Jordan and Kuwait do not want.

Condoleezza Rice and the White House, until this point, have opposed an immediate ceasefire unless the long-term indicators pointed towards Hezbollah being permanently disarmed.  First, Hezbollah will never be disarmed.  The question is whether they will continue to have support?  And second, the longer that the fighting lasts without at least a temporary ceasefire, the greater the possibility that Israel will attack Syrian territory.  When that happens, the balance of power will be completely lost and the chances of a ceasefire will be greatly reduced.  That is why Condoleezza Rice needs to push for an immediate ceasefire.  The United States stands to gain from a ceasefire because the balance of power will be at least temporarily restored.

If there's one thing you need to remember when following the Middle East today, it's that all polarization, no matter which side is responsible for it, helps Iran (since they are on the fringe).  Of course, this is realism theory.  The White House subscribes to idealism.  So don't count on the White House taking this balance of power theory as seriously as I do.

-----------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: Rational Review, TPM Cafe Blogs, Terrorism News, Truth Dig, Blogger News Network, Crooks and Liars, Pol Forest.