tygerland.net

On how this new Middle East crisis is like manna from heaven for a lame-duck President and a struggling Republican Party.

All politics is, as they say, local, and the current hostility in Lebanon is indeed also as relevant to the internal politics of the United States, as it is relevant to the ongoing narrative of the wider Middle-Eastern problem.

The kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was foolish, but few could have predicted the incredible level of retaliation Tel Aviv has unleashed. Recent reports also suggest that if Israel widens its bombing campaign, including the bombing of institutional facilities in Beirut, the fragile Lebanese government would attack Tel Aviv. This would mean full state-on-state war which may bring into play other regional players who have until now, limited themselves to rhetoric, and allegedly, covert support for Hezbollah.

With Mid-Term elections only months away in the States, and with a President failing on every indicative measure, the possibility of significant Republican losses remains real. Those who seek to reshape the Middle East, and those who also wish to see America’s geopolitical power increase - just as its economic pre-eminence begins to wane, have integrated themselves deep within the GOP, and would be loathe to see this investment wasted. Nothing solidifies US-electoral support like an international crisis, and with America’s main Middle East ally in bloody conflict, the voters may have sympathy for the Republican Party’s vehement Pro-Israel stance.

Israel, and the consequential opportunity to label its critics anti-Semitic, is a useful device for the Republicans, which has been used before (with scant regard for legitimacy), by Bush’s political Svengali, Karl Rove. Therefore putting Israel (who are fighting “terrorists,” not as reality would suggest, militants) on the front page, while simultaneously relegating the much less popular Iraqi Civil War from the headlines, is an incredibly savvy political manoeuvre; which is played out in Bush’s refusal to scold Olmert for causing an international meltdown over what is essentially a boarder skirmish.

The benefits of the current conflict for the Republicans are seemly endless. Another derivative is the prospect of driving a wedge into the Democratic coalition. The left-leaning activist base of the Democrats will no doubt have sympathy for the Lebanese plight, and be angered by the ‘disproportionality’ in Israel’s aggressive response, yet their potential Mid-Term candidates, and more importantly their potential 2008 presidential runners, will have an eye on the more conservative centre of the electorate. We have already seen, with the battle over Joe Lieberman’s senate nomination, that the Democrats will split over candidates who some believe do not share their dovish sensibilities.

Of course it’s unknown if the news from Lebanon will prevent a Republican collapse (either later this year or in ’08), and the real puppet masters of the Neoconservative movement would not allow something as trivial as democracy to curb their influence. Indeed, chief Neocon-enthusiast and media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, is courting the obliging democratic frontrunner, Hilary Clinton. It’s clear that it doesn’t matter which man (or woman) is in the White House, as long as it’s Rupert’s man (ironic really, as Neoconservatism was conceived as a rejection of Kissinger’s realpolitik). Of course those with particularly acute political antennae, will also see how this association will also alienate Hilary from the Democratic base (will this mean she’ll have to lurch further to the right for support?), however as we know, much of the Democratic left already see her as the ideologically moribund sycophant, she unashamedly is.

Israel’s effectual siege of Lebanon also offers the potential of drawing Syria, and possibly Iran, into a larger regional conflict. Neither Syria nor Iran would welcome direct conflict with nuclear-armed Israel, who enjoy a far more technologically advanced military superstructure, procured from among others, The United States. Tel Aviv certainly believes it has unfinished business with Syria, and considers Iran to be the greatest threat to its regional dominance. If direct supply lines between Hezbollah fighters and Syria can be proven without doubt, Olmert may feel he has the legitimacy to attack President Assad’s regime.

If Iran can also be tempted to reveal its hand in Lebanon (let’s not forget Hezbollah is a Shia militant organisation) or Gaza, then the possibility for Bush to justify his long-planned extension of his doctrine to Tehran, maybe again be on the cards. Any US-aggression, will more than likely be air strikes, possibly it seems using tactical nuclear weapons, and targeted Special Forces operations.

It must be remembered that Bush has only 2-years left to further the Neoconservative worldview. And with political realities having largely tied his hands of late, he needs events to justify his actions. Anyone who believes that Israel acts independently of the Bush-Cheney administration is thinking in a different era. Neoconservatism has its roots in increasing American power, and ever-closer-ties to the Jewish state.

Americans may feel that the problem is safely halfway around the world, yet in fact, it’s tentacles reach much closer to home. After all, all politics is local.