If so, he was badly misled, and so was the president–which is one reason Iran and Syria were quickly suspected of acting as outside agitators. En route to Russia, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacted swiftly to contain the war, although they actively backed Israel’s right to continue its offensive against Hizbullah. The president, aboard Air Force One, made a round of calls to Arab allies, mainly Egypt and Jordan, pleading the case that Hizbullah’s breach of the border was a clear violation of international law. Bush wanted the Arab leaders to know that he was urging Israel to avoid any action that would topple the Lebanese government–and allow Syria to take back control of its neighbor. But in return he urged them to pressure Hizbullah at an emergency Arab League summit in Cairo. In an exclusive interview with NEWSWEEK, Bush said he told the Arab leaders: “Let’s make sure this meeting is not the usual condemnation of Israel, because if that’s the case it obscures the real culprit”–Hizbullah and Hamas.
To Bush’s delight, key U.S. allies offered support. The Saudis issued a statement implicitly blaming Hizbullah for the hostilities, saying “it is necessary to make a distinction between legitimate resistance [to occupation] and irresponsible adventurism adopted by certain elements within the state.” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, in Cairo, echoed that view in a joint statement.
In the longer run, however, it is the calls Bush didn’t–or couldn’t–make that might mean the difference in containing this new Mideast conflict. As part of his policy of isolating terror-supporting groups and nations, the Bush administration has no relationship with any of the other parties at war or the states behind them. That apparently means no dialogue, even through back channels, with Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Senior U.S. officials also said Bush and Rice had no intention of appointing a special envoy at this time. (Welch, having conducted all-day meetings with Israeli officials and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, took off on a previously scheduled trip to Libya over the weekend.) As a result, the president must watch and hope while his whole Mideast legacy–his goal of transforming a region that is the primary source for Islamist terrorism–stands at risk. Also on the line is his strategy of isolating Iran, as tensions mounted between Washington and Europe over Israel’s action. “Usually in the past, whenever there was a crisis in the Mideast, the U.S. would immediately dispatch a high-level envoy,” said Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to Washington, confirming that his government had received no U.S. contacts except a request for visas for Americans fleeing Lebanon to Damascus. “This time the only thing the United States is doing is blaming parties, assigning responsibility. There’s nothing else.”
That’s not quite true. U.S. diplomats are working hard to keep Israelis from killing innocent Lebanese, despite the call by some Israeli hard-liners to make the strikes “Biblical” in severity, according to the senior U.S. diplomat. “The Israelis intend to bruise Hizbullah, and that’s probably a good thing. I don’t think there should be call for a ceasefire right now,” he said. “But we’re saying [the strikes] shouldn’t be unbridled and promiscuous.” In effect, Bush is asking Israel to blunt its own version of the “Bush doctrine,” which holds countries accountable for the terror groups in their midst. The reason is that the infant democracy of Lebanon is one of Bush’s great hopes as a regional model. “In this case we don’t hold Lebanon responsible,” Welch told NEWSWEEK in a phone interview from Jerusalem. “We distinguish between the [Prime Minister Fouad] Siniora-led government and Hizbullah. And that’s why the president talked about defending democracy in Lebanon.”
The other part of the U.S. strategy, Welch said, is to prevent Nasrallah from turning his would-be alliance with Hamas over captured Israeli prisoners into a united front, with Iran and Syria behind him. (Just before Hizbullah attacked, Hamas and Israel were close to a prisoner-exchange deal, brokered by Egypt. Cairo later complained privately to the Americans that it believed Nasrallah, Iran and Syria pressured Hamas to back out.) “It’s to make sure we don’t give the Iranians and Mr. Nasrallah, along with his subcontractor, Khaled Meshaal [the exiled Hamas leader in Syria], what they want, which is to link the two things,” said Welch. “I don’t know if that’ll be possible or not, but it should be. Gaza should be addressed and solved on its merit.”
The question is, will the Arab Street buy that argument? U.S. officials are closely watching public opinion among the Lebanese, who until now have had reason to be thankful to Washington. America, along with France, forced Syria to withdraw its Army from Lebanon, Damascus’s longtime client state, after the suspicious assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri last year. (One drawback: Syrian-supported Hizbullah was elected to the new Lebanese Parliament, which Israel is holding partly responsible.) “Now the administration is confronted with a situation in which Israelis are blasting the moderate anti-Syrian Lebanese government,” says Aaron Miller, a former top U.S. Mideast envoy now at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “This whole operation is a recruitment poster for anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment.” A senior Lebanese official, who insisted on anonymity because of his sensitive ties with Washington, said U.S. pressure on the Israelis was marginal at best. “In practice, what they’re saying to the Israelis is, instead of blowing up a bridge with five bombs, make it four bombs,” he said bitterly.
Bush knows all too well that the two major agendas of his presidency–anti-terrorism and the promotion of democracy–are in danger of colliding with each other in Lebanon. Not surprisingly, says a senior Israeli official, his country is getting mixed signals from Washington. “We’re getting support, and we’re getting requests to tone [it] down. But no pressure at this point.” No doubt the Israelis have reminded the administration that they warned Washington last year it was rushing into Palestinian elections too quickly–that instant democracy would only empower Hamas. The warning was brushed off by the Bush team.
But even the Israeli official says a third-party mediator will be needed as the war escalates. He says that job could be filled by Washington, or possibly the United Nations (a U.N. mission is underway). “That’s what it’s going to take,” he says. But he adds: “Who’s going to take the lead?” One day soon, Bush may have to revisit that question.
