Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [7/09/06 - 7/15/06] major news events regarding Iran. (The reports are listed in chronological order, not by importance) READ MORE

Iran behind Hezbollah's war on Israel.

• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that President Bush is blaming Iran and Syria for Hezbollah's killing of eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping of two more.
• Meir Javedanfar, Meepas reported Israel's government fears that the kidnapped Israeli soldiers may be on their way to Iran.
• MEMRI.org published excerpts from articles and statements in the Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese media on the on the emerging conflict between Israel and Hizbullah.
• The New York Times finally reported that the expansion of the Gaza crisis into southern Lebanon, confronting Israel with a conflict on its northern and southern borders, has demonstrated that the central issue at stake is regional, not local. It is the broader problem of radical Islam and of Iran.
• The Telegraph reported that Israeli commanders regard the northern border as their "front line" with Iran.
• New York Sun in an editorial argued the risks of 'Restraint' in the present Middle East conflict.
• The Boston Globe in an editorial argued that the purpose and the timing of Hezbollah's attack on Israel yesterday should be transparent to all concerned. It plays into am Iranian propaganda campaign, conflating the issue of Iran's nuclear program with what he has condemned as the intolerable existence of Israel.
• John Gibson, Fox News argued that Iran attacking Israel is really an attack on the U.S.
• Reuters reported that Iran's Foreign Ministry denied suggestions that Hizbollah could take two captured Israeli soldiers to Iran.
• YNet News reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a “Fierce response.”
• Globe and Mail reported that an unmanned Hezbollah aircraft rigged with explosives rammed into an Israeli warship..
  
• The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel's escalating incursion into Lebanon could turn its border fight with militant Islamists into a regional war that might lead to Syria, and Iran.
• David Ignatius, The Washington Post argued that behind the crisis us Iran's push toward war.
• New York Post in an editorial argued that while Israel today finds itself waging an undeclared war on two fronts, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the one pulling the strings.
• RIA Novosti reported that just before the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel. Ahmadinejad addressed a high-profile Muslim forum held in Tehran saying "the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," and that "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime" are currently in place."
• FOX News reported that a missile fired by Hezbollah, not an unmanned drone laden with explosives, damaged an Israeli warship off Lebanon. Israeli Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan said "We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hezbollah."
• Reuters reported that the missile was an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles.
• DEBKAfile reported the attack on one of the Israeli Navy’s state of the art warships, Ahi-Hanit, was thoroughly planned in advance by an enemy which managed to take Israel’s military commanders by surprise.
• William Kristol, The Weekly Standard considered why is this Arab-Israel war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Kristol responds, because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Its an Iranian war.
• The Weekly Standard published a recap of the week's major developments in the Middle East crisis saying this was the week the Dark Side went on the offensive.
• Michael Ledeen, The Corner criticized the US response to the current Middle East crisis saying it was all about "I've called this one, he's called that one, we're talking, talking, talking all the time, not to worry." But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." He warned that if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse.
  

Will the world now demand Hezbollah disarm?

• The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel's campaign against Lebanon has reinvigorated debate among Hezbollah's Lebanese foes about disarming the group.
• The Weekly Standard argued that it is time for Lebanon to make a decision whether or not it will finally disarm Hezbollah.
• Dan Darling, The Weekly Standard reminds us that Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist organization, seems determined to maintain its reputation as the world's second most dangerous terrorist group. He added that the September 11 Commission's final report, discussed the cooperation between al Qaeda and Hezbollah's Iranian masters, "In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement... for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States."
• Dore Gold, The Telegraph reminded us that had UN resolutions on Lebanon been implemented, no Israeli soldiers would have been kidnapped in northern Israel this month and there would be no Hezbollah rockets raining on Israeli civilians. He offers some suggestions what to do next.
  

Iran's Nuclear Program & The UN Security Council.

• Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Iran's nuclear case would top the agenda of the G-8 summit this week in St Petersburg, Russia, July 15-17.
• The Washington Post reported that President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow.
• Seattle PI reported that with the uproar over North Korea's missile tests, America and its allies are concerned that all the attention could hurt their effort to curb Iran's suspect nuclear program.
• IOL.co.za reported that US State Department's number three diplomat Nicholas Burns said Iran "miscalculated" by trying to drive a wedge between the United States and its allies and "they're running out of options."
• Reuters confirmed our earlier report about Iran's successful effort to ban the IAEA's Chief inspector from Iran. Interestingly, this report does not mention El Baradei's role in this.
• The Scotsman reported that Iran said that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was not able to answer all Iran's questions about the P5+1 proposal.
• The Washington Times reported that Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said of Iran: "We offered them two paths, negotiations or Security Council action... The Iranians can choose, but the time to choose has come."
• Reuters reported that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "It is really time to get an authoritative answer to that proposal."
• Chicago Sun-Times, in a commentary, argued that diplomacy's a joke to Iran, N. Korea and that it is time for sanctions.
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun argued that El Baradei's firing of his lead Iran investigator this spring at the request of the Iranians, could have explosive consequences for America's policy.
• Voice of America reported that the United States says world powers are fully prepared to seek punitive action against Iran after it failed to provide a clear answer to their overture to Tehran to halt uranium enrichment and return to nuclear negotiations.
• Reuters reported that President George W. Bush, leaving on Wednesday for Germany and Russia, will urge key allies to stay united in their drive to contain the nuclear ambitions of Iran.
• UPI reported that Russia believes Iran to be 25 to 30 years away from possession of nuclear arms.
• VOA News reported that the EU deadline for an answer on new proposals to end the Iranian nuclear controversy went almost unnoticed in Iran. The Iranian press and government leaders just ignored it.
• The Financial Times reported that Iran's chief nuclear negotiator deflected Western pressure for an immediate answer to a package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment saying: "Iranians do not accept anything called a deadline."
• AlJazeera.net reported that diplomats have said Iran's nuclear program appears to have been slowed down by technical problems.
• News.com.au reported that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the world must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and do more to help spread democracy.
• Yahoo News reported that world powers said they would refer Iran back to the United Nations Security Council after Tehran failed to respond.
• The Washington Post reported that Russia and China had promised they would back at least some limited U.N. measures against Iran. The Iranians appear to have misjudged.
• RIA Novosti reported that Russia's foreign minister said possible UN sanctions against Iran will not affect Russian-Iranian military cooperation.
• Yahoo News reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that Tehran could halt UN inspections and quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if subjected to increased pressure over its disputed nuclear program.
• The Washington Post reported that a a copy of the agreement that the Perm-5 plus 1 offered Iran was finally made public.
• The Washington Post reported that Bush failed to win Putin's support for sanctions against Iran's nuclear program.
• Xinhua reported that an Iranian official said that the country's leadership was determined to refuse the West's request for a halt of sensitive nuclear activities.
  

Iran's leaders latest statements.

• Iran Focus said that Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that “the supporters of the Zionist regime must remove this regime before it is too late.”
• Rooz Online reported that Iranian Ayatollah Gorbani said: “We do not accept these human rights and announce that the US and Israel are among countries that violate human rights."
• Reuters reported that Ahmadinejad compared the behavior of Israel in launching an offensive against Lebanon to that of Nazi Germany. "Hitler sought pretexts to attack other nations... The Zionist regime is seeking baseless pretexts to invade Islamic countries."
  

Iranian Dissidents.

• Free-Political-Prisoners.net released a statement and petition in support of Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji's demand of the release of three jailed Iranian dissidents and asked for Western supporters to join him in a hunger strike (July 15-17) if the regime fails to release these prisoners.
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that Iran's most famous opposition figure, Akbar Ganji, is due to arrive in New York on Saturday and attend a meeting with the leftist MIT political science professor Noam Chomsky. But Mr. Ganji will not be meeting with any American government officials.
• The Harvard Crimson reported that Iranian-Canadian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo, arrested on unspecified charges in Tehran this past April, is getting some help from his former Harvard colleagues — several of whom are petitioning for his release.
• Belfast Telegraph reported Akbar Ganji, who will launch a campaign in London on Friday for the release of all Iranian political prisoners.
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun published an interview with Akbar Ganji, on the eve of his first visit to America. Iran's leading dissident says Iran's democracy movement will reject American financial assistance, and that he would meet with American officials only to urge them not to bomb his country.
• Newsweek published an interview with Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji.
  

Iranian leaderships unity weakening?

• Rooz Online reported that at the moment ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi - the intellectual leader of the extremists - and his students are not on the list produced by the traditional right-wing groups in Iran who are finalizing their list of candidates for the critical forthcoming Leadership Experts Assembly elections in Iran.
  

The "18th of Tir" demonstrations.

• DoctorZin reported that on the anniversary of the July 9th, 1999 attack by the Iranian regime on the Iranian student movement in Tehran the Iranian community failed mobilize its supporters in massive demonstrations. While there were demonstrations both inside and outside of Iran they were smaller in comparison with past years. Some argue that future demonstrations will come at a time of their own choosing.
• Iran Focus reported that a large number of students from several universities in the Iranian capital staged anti-government protests July 9th, with the largest demonstrations taking place at Tehran University.

Human Rights and Freedom of the Press in Iran.

• Iran Focus reported that after the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution accusing Tehran of obstructing freedom of expression on the internet, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported the EP resolution and listed all the states but one on the blacklist: Iran.
• CTV.ca News reported that Stephan Hachemi has launched a civil suit against the Iranian government and a handful of specific individuals, three years after his mother died of injuries suffered while in their custody. Hachemi says the civil lawsuit filed in Quebec is the "one recourse that we have. We were blocked. We were not allowed to take another avenue."
• Reporters Without Borders, on the third anniversary of Canadian-Iranian photo-journalist Zahra Kazemi’s death from her injuries after being beaten while in custody in Tehran, today called for a proper trial of all those responsible involved.
• Rooz Online reported that the Prosecutor of the Special Clergy Court Salimi is seeking to change the methods of selecting religious students. He mentioned background family checks, personal records, and the motivation of the applicants as important subjects that had to be taken into account before accepting the applicants. The Iranian constitution specifically bans prying into the ideology of individuals in any form.
• Iran Focus reported on the most recent of 98 executions reported in the state media since the start of 2006.
  

The Iranian Economy.

• Dow Jones reported that recently Iran has begun spending millions of dollars a day storing unwanted crude oil on ships.
• The Financial Times reported that while an Iranian government spokesman said gasoline rationing was on the way, a member of parliament’s economic commission, said that government and legislators lacked “the necessary courage” to approve rationing.
• IranMania reported that Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said India and Pakistan should forget buying Iran's gas at a low price.
  

Iran's Military gaining control of the economy.

• Rooz Online reported that following the decrees of ayatollah Khamenei regarding the privatization of some large government businesses, military commanders are taking over most of these enterprises. The Iranian constitution forbids contracts being entered into in this manner.
  

Iran and Iraq.

• The Jerusalem Post reported that gunmen seized an Iraqi diplomat serving in Iran as he was driving near his home in Baghdad.
  

Iran and the International community.

• Iran Focus reported that Khaled Mashaal, the political chief of Hamas, has left Syria, may have set up camp in Iran.
  

Must Read reports.

• Reuters confirmed our earlier report about Iran's successful effort to ban the IAEA's Chief inspector from Iran. Interestingly, this report does not mention El Baradei's role in this.
• The Times Online reported on what it called the West's 'Secret War' to keep nuclear N. Korea and Iran in check.
• Iran Focus reported that after the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution accusing Tehran of obstructing freedom of expression on the internet, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported the EP resolution and listed all the states but one on the blacklist: Iran.
• Slater Bakhtavar, Persian Journal reported on the ascent of the radical Hojjatieh movement in the Iranian leadership which Ayatollah Khomeini once opposed for being too radical.
• Bill Samii, Radio Free Europe reported that a banned and clandestine religio-political group in Iran, the secretive Hojjatieh Society, is making a comeback and the public might never know just how pervasive the Hojjatieh Society's activities really are.Zogby International released a survey which reports that Iranians (41%) said reforming their national economy so it operates more efficiently is more important than nuclear capability. I also made a few observations.
• Mehran Riazaty reminded us of the history of Hezbollah of Lebanon, its ties with Iran and how this explains the recent crisis in the Middle East.
  

The Experts.

• Reuel Marc Gerecht, American Enterprise Institute argued that the current state of America's Iran Policy would best be described as: Cognitive Dissonance. He argued the Bush administration’s Europe-centered diplomacy to derail the clerical regime’s quest for nuclear weaponry has almost no chance of success.
• Stanley A. Weiss, International Herald Tribune argued that the current animosity between Iran and Israel is an historical aberration and why the two nations may someday become allies.
• Michael Ledeen, The Corner published an excerpt of Ambassador Khalilzad's speech on Iraq in which he starts by talking about "Syria and Iran" and then only discusses Iran, since Iran is the master in the relationship.
• Michael Ledeen, National Review Online reminded us that Israel's present war in the Middle East is just an extension of Iran's 27 year declared war on the US.
• Yossi Klein Halevi, The National Review Online argued that the next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. He argued that the goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
• David Twersky, The New York Sun argued that the war on Iran has begun.
• Kenneth M. Pollack, Reader's Digest while reminding us that Ahmadinejad has declared that a world "without America and Zionism" is "attainable and surely can be achieved." He then argues that the best option for the West is to negotiate its way out of the nuclear crisis. I respond.
• Amir Taheri, The New York Post reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has long envisioned Russia's return as a major world power. This weekend, Putin will see part of that dream realized serving as President of this year's G-8 summit. Putin said he was seeking a "multipolar" world in which the United States would no longer be "the sole superpower that tries to dictate to the world how to behave."
• Michael Ledeen, The Corner criticized the US response to the current Middle East crisis saying it was all about "I've called this one, he's called that one, we're talking, talking, talking all the time, not to worry." But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." He warned that if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse.
  

Photos, cartoons and videos.

• Cox & Forkum published another cartoon: Black Wedding.
  

The Quote of the Week.

Iran Focus reported that just before the launch of the Hamas/Hezbollah offensive on Israel Ahmadinejad said that

“the supporters of the Zionist regime must remove this regime before it is too late.”

Sunday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 7.16.2006:

Ahmadinejad sought Arab support for the attacks on Israel?

• RIA Novosti reported that just before the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel. Ahmadinejad addressed a high-profile Muslim forum held in Tehran saying "the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," and that "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime" are currently in place."

Then he tries to compare Israel to the Nazi's for responding to the attacks.

• Reuters reported that Ahmadinejad compared the behavior of Israel in launching an offensive against Lebanon to that of Nazi Germany. "Hitler sought pretexts to attack other nations... The Zionist regime is seeking baseless pretexts to invade Islamic countries."

Will the world now demand Hezbollah disarm?

• The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel's campaign against Lebanon has reinvigorated debate among Hezbollah's Lebanese foes about disarming the group.
• The Weekly Standard argued that it is time for Lebanon to make a decision whether or not it will finally disarm Hezbollah.
• Dan Darling, The Weekly Standard reminds us that Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist organization, seems determined to maintain its reputation as the world's second most dangerous terrorist group. He added that the September 11 Commission's final report, discussed the cooperation between al Qaeda and Hezbollah's Iranian masters, "In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement... for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States."
• Dore Gold, The Telegraph reminded us that had UN resolutions on Lebanon been implemented, no Israeli soldiers would have been kidnapped in northern Israel this month and there would be no Hezbollah rockets raining on Israeli civilians. He offers some suggestions what to do next.

Update on the missile attack on an Israeli ship.

• FOX News reported that a missile fired by Hezbollah, not an unmanned drone laden with explosives, damaged an Israeli warship off Lebanon. Israeli Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan said "We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hezbollah."
• Reuters reported that the missile was an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles.
• DEBKAfile reported the attack on one of the Israeli Navy’s state of the art warships, Ahi-Hanit, was thoroughly planned in advance by an enemy which managed to take Israel’s military commanders by surprise.

Why this war is different from other Arab-Israeli wars.

• William Kristol, The Weekly Standard considered why is this Arab-Israel war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Kristol responds, because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Its an Iranian war.
• The Weekly Standard published a recap of the week's major developments in the Middle East crisis saying this was the week the Dark Side went on the offensive.
  

Ledeen on the US response to the crisis.

• Michael Ledeen, The Corner criticized the US response to the current Middle East crisis saying it was all about "I've called this one, he's called that one, we're talking, talking, talking all the time, not to worry." But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." He warned that if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse.

Here are a few other news items you may have missed.

• Newsweek published an interview with Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji.
• IranMania reported that Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said India and Pakistan should forget buying Iran's gas at a low price.
• The Washington Post reported that Bush failed to win Putin's support for sanctions against Iran's nuclear program.
• Xinhua reported that an Iranian official said that the country's leadership was determined to refuse the West's request for a halt of sensitive nuclear activities.

Tags: iran, news, iraq, nuclear, military, Israel, lebanon

Iran's Ahmadinejad compares Israel to Hitler

Reuters:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday compared the behaviour of Israel in launching an offensive against Lebanon to that of Nazi Germany.

Ahmadinejad has already received a stern rebuke from the U.N. Security Council for labelling the Holocaust, in which six million Jews died, a myth.

"Hitler sought pretexts to attack other nations," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the ISNA students news agency at the inauguration of a Tehran road tunnel.

"The Zionist regime is seeking baseless pretexts to invade Islamic countries and right now it is justifying its attacks with groundless excuses," he added. READ MORE

Israel's four-day assault on Lebanon has killed at least 103 people, all but four of them civilians. It launched the offensive after Shi'ite Muslim Hizbollah guerrillas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight.

Iran is a traditional supporter of Hizbollah. An Israeli military source said on Saturday an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles (95 km) hit and badly damaged an Israeli ship.

Iran decides to refuse request for enrichment suspension

Xinhua:

An Iranian official said on Saturday that the country's leadership was determined to refuse the West's request for a halt of sensitive nuclear activities, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

"The West has raised two preconditions in a proposal -- freezing nuclear activities and responding to questions raised by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was quoted as saying.

"But our leadership has been determined that they would not accept the demands," he said. READ MORE

The remarks were seen as an explicit rejection of the West's demands on Iran's nuclear program for the first time.

On June 6, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented Iran with a package agreed on by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany concerning the Iranian nuclear issue.

The proposal includes both incentives aimed at persuading Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and possible sanctions if Iran does not comply.

Western countries have been pressing Tehran to respond to the six-nation package before Saturday, but Iran has rejected the request.

The six countries agreed on Wednesday to return Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.

The move drew a strong reaction from the Iranian government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned on Thursday that his country would revise cooperation with IAEA and may quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if the West is not sincere on the nuclear issue.

The Timeline

Michael Ledeen, The Corner:

It was depressing to read Thursday night's press conference with Steve Hadley and Condi Rice, because it was almost all about process, and not about war. Aside from their quite proper insistance that we do want a viable, free Lebanon, it was all about "I've called this one, he's called that one, we're talking, talking, talking all the time, not to worry."

There are harsh parameters on this moment, which is an opportunity waiting to be seized. In another week or so the "international community" (the appeasers and "stability" mavens) will force Israel to stop. At that moment, we should want Hizbollah destroyed in both Lebanon and Syria, Assad under attack from his own people for playing this awful game, and Khamenei humiliated as the artefice of a failed operation. We should be openly calling for regime change in Damascus and Tehran, on the grounds that the civilized world cannot any longer tolerate tyrannical murderers calling the shots in the Middle East and elsewhere.

But we have not heard anything about "seizing the moment." We hear lawyer talk and diplotalk, surrender talk and appeasement talk, and there is no action whatsoever. Is this not the time to go after the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran? What in the world are we waiting for?

And finally, if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse. It's not going away. Stability is a mirage. Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose dishonor and got war anyway. You too, Mr. President. It's the way it works.

Group of Six promises UN Security Council resolution on Iran

Pyotr Goncharov, RIA Novosti:

The events unfolding in Lebanon shed new light on some recent developments, including the statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Israel.

The Iranian leader addressed a high-profile Muslim forum held in Tehran a week ago. "The main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," said the Iranian president addressing the ministers of foreign affairs of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Bahrain and Egypt at the conference of Muslim countries.

Having repeated more than once Tehran's proposal for Middle East stabilization, the Iranian leader also shared his belief that "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime" are currently in place. The obvious connection between such statements and the events in Lebanon, in spite of the fact that it may seem to be a mere coincidence, suggests that Tehran's insatiable desire to "eliminate the Zionist regime" might have motivated the recent attacks against Israel carried out by militants from Lebanese Hezbollah, which has pro-Iranian roots. READ MORE

Many analysts note that the Iranian leader's rhetoric, including his criticism of Israel, is a clear signal of Tehran's ambitions to establish itself as a regional power. But experts think Tehran is running a serious risk in striving to become a regional political leader, oust the U.S. as one of the major players in the Middle East, push its Middle East solutions on the Arab world, and become a guarantor of stability in the Persian Gulf region.

The Bush Administration would never let Iran occupy the leading position in the Middle East. The Iranian rule, as it is (or at least should be) viewed by the White House, will inevitably frustrate the entire regional peace process and the last hopes for resuming Arab-Israeli negotiations. Iran's nuclear program also reveals the country's aspiration to be a regional leader. By some estimates, what Tehran is doing now is "talking the situation out" to win time. The Iran-6 countries have evidently been converging in their views on the steps that should be taken against Iran.

The Lebanese hostility began while the council of ministers of foreign affairs of the six countries (the five permanent members of the U.S. Security Council plus Germany) was meeting to discuss the Iranian nuclear problem. Giving up their hopes of getting a response to their proposals from Tehran, the six foreign ministers have substantially toughened their positions and sent it a clear signal that they would resume work on a UN Security Council resolution on its nuclear program.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who spoke about the results of the Group's session in Paris, the resolution would in effect approve the IAEA's call for Iran to "freeze its uranium-enrichment activities." "We will start working on a resolution that would make the IAEA's requirements binding on Iran," he said.

This time Tehran received a near ultimatum that "if the request that Iran comply with the IAEA's requirements fails to get an adequate response," the Security Council will review the Iranian nuclear issue again and "will consider all options." Tehran was advised not to delay its answer.

Certain improvements in the U.S.'s position on Iran are also obvious. During his recent meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, George Bush also spoke in favor of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem, something Washington has not said before. In another departure from previous policy, the U.S. president said his country is ready to establish "reasonable relations" with Iran, and Iran, in turn, "should stick to its promises."

Tehran still has some time to think the situation over. But, as the six foreign ministers said at the close of the session, the negotiators are "disappointed" by the lack of a positive response from the Iranian side. Moscow in particular is not satisfied with Tehran's wavering, since it runs counter to what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Russian President Vladimir Putin at their meeting. In this context, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on Tehran to stop "guessing how much time is left and handle the situation in earnest."

The feeling in the Russian capital is that, while saying neither yes nor no, Iran is continuing with uranium enrichment and building up its enrichment capacities instead of adopting a stance that "is more in line with the words spoken by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Shanghai." Iran should understand that the UN Security Council has "a wide array of tools," ranging from interim steps and persuasion to trade, economic and other sanctions. What will Iran say this time?

Iran plans to dominate the Middle East

Dore Gold, The Telegraph:

Since the 1982 Lebanon War, the United Nations has repeatedly demanded that all foreign forces leave Lebanese territory.

This evacuation of outside agents provocateurs was rightly seen as the prerequisite for the pacification of the volatile Israel-Lebanon border. When Israel completed its withdrawal from its southern security zone in 2000, one might have expected that this international principle would have been asserted, and a concerted UN effort begun to rid Lebanon of the Syrian army and other foreign forces - notably those of Iran.

Unfortunately, the situation in Lebanon was totally neglected, and ominous developments followed. Israel's withdrawal to what the UN called the "blue line" was recognised by Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. His ruling was confirmed by the UN Security Council on July 27, 2000 with the adoption of Resolution 1310.

But the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hizbollah claimed that Israel actually had more to give to Lebanon. In particular, it wanted a tiny sliver of Golan territory that had been disputed between Israel and Syria. This outstanding grievance, which had no international backing, was used to justify Hizbollah's continuing war against Israel.

What made this dispute particularly dangerous was Iran's decision to deploy medium-range missiles in southern Lebanon, aimed at Israel's northern cities. In 2002, Lebanese media reported the arrival of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to train Hizbollah in the use of these new weapons, known as the Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 - which, unlike the older Soviet-made Katyusha rockets, had a range of some 45 miles. Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon. In return, it acquired a more powerful Hizbollah, with Iranian forces also taking up positions directly on its borders.

The situation was eerily reminiscent of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Then, the Soviet Union had only unreliable intercontinental ballistic missiles for striking the US, so they positioned shorter-range missiles in nearby Cuba instead.

Today, the Iranians have an 800-mile-range Shahhab missile for striking Israel, and are working feverishly to improve its capabilities while investing in longer-range missiles aimed at western Europe. Teheran doubtless calculates that, if the West tries to take measures against its nuclear programme, its Lebanese arsenal could hold Israel hostage. The difference between 1962 and 2006 is that, while President Kennedy made sure that the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba, the international community has done nothing about the growing missile threat in Lebanon.

International attention was drawn again to Lebanon in 2005 after the assassination of prime minister Rafik Hariri by Syrian agents and the "Cedar Revolution" that followed. The UN Security Council called again for non-Lebanese forces to leave Lebanon. It called "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." It also reminded the Lebanese government of the Security Council's previous call, in 2004, "to ensure its effective authority throughout the south, including the deployment of Lebanese armed forces". The UN Security Council wanted the Lebanese Army sitting on the Israeli-Lebanese border - not Hizbollah.

Had UN resolutions on Lebanon been implemented, no Israeli soldiers would have been kidnapped in northern Israel this month and there would be no Hizbollah rockets raining on Israeli civilians in Haifa, Nahariah, Safed and Tiberias.

So what is to be done? READ MORE

First, it is important to identify what should be the aims of the entire Western alliance - including Israel - in the current conflict. The chief goals are simple: full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions that call for dismantling Hizbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese Army along the Israeli-Lebanon border instead. Second, the removal of all Iranian forces and equipment from Lebanese territory, along with any lingering Syrian presence.

This is a regional war. Iran is seeking to dominate Iraq, particularly its southern Shia areas - the provinces where British troops are deployed. Iran's aim is to dominate oil-producing areas by agitating the Shia populations of Kuwait, Bahrain and the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia.

Finally, there is a second front in this war: the Gaza Strip. The Hamas movement, which came out of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, has decided to throw in its lot with Shia Iran and Hizbollah. Like Hizbollah, Hamas has embedded its military capabilities in civilian areas. Leaflets can help warn civilians, even if they give the terrorists advance warning that they are about to be attacked.

Israel must protect its civilians from these ongoing missile attacks, whether from Lebanon or the Gaza Strip. The first duty of any government is the defence of its citizens - a domestic duty which is also an international obligation, enshrined in law. But primary responsibility for what is happening rests squarely with Iran and its local proxies. The international community must see the UN resolutions on Lebanon implemented, and international security restored. That is the first step towards securing a pluralist Middle East, founded on representative government and human rights.

Dore Gold is the president of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, and served as Israel's ambassador to the UN from 1997 to 1999.

Bush, Putin Call for Halt in Middle East Violence

Peter Baker and Peter Finn, The Washington Post:

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin presented a united front Saturday in calling for a halt to violence in the Middle East, but their public show of solidarity barely masked a series of edgy disagreements over democracy, trade and Iran.

Meeting separately before other leaders arrived for the Group of Eight summit, Bush and Putin agreed that fighting in Israel and Lebanon poses a grave danger but not on how to stop it. Bush failed to win Putin's support for sanctions against Iran's nuclear program. And round-the-clock talks to admit Russia into the World Trade Organization broke without a deal. READ MORE

The undercurrent of tension became evident by the end of a polite but reserved joint news conference. Despite pressure at home and abroad, Bush went out of his way to avoid publicly criticizing Putin for stifling internal dissent, saying he did not want to lecture Russia. His only public comments on Russian democracy were to express understanding for Putin's viewpoint on the subject and to delicately nudge him to expand freedom.

"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion," Bush said, "and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."

Putin seized on that remark. "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly," he said, provoking laughter from the Russian side.

Bush seemed caught off guard. "Just wait," he replied softly, maintaining a strained smile.

The Putin jibe highlighted what has been perhaps Bush's most anticipated meeting with a foreign leader all year, a meeting that focused worldwide attention on the state of Russia nearly 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As Russia hosts its first G-8 summit, it is showcasing its economic and diplomatic resurgence but critics said it should not lead a group of democracies when the Kremlin has taken over independent television, imprisoned political opponents, eliminated election of governors and restricted opposition parties.

The situation led to months of heated debate in Washington and European capitals. Bush brushed off calls to boycott the summit and had Vice President Cheney express U.S. concerns about Russian democracy in a tough speech two months ago, then resolved to be a good guest this weekend.

To demonstrate what Bush called a "very good" U.S.-Russian relationship, the two sides reached two nuclear agreements Saturday. The more significant, reported before the summit, will open the door to civilian nuclear cooperation between the countries for the first time. The other launches a global initiative aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism by improving control of nuclear material and facilities and tracing illegal trafficking.

But the failure of WTO talks proved a powerful disappointment for one of Putin's highest priorities. Although 149 nations belong to the global trade group, including China, Russia remains on the outside and the United States is the only one standing in the way of Russian membership.

After years of talks, both sides thought earlier in the week that they were finally close to a deal that would clear the way for Russian accession, and they embarked on marathon negotiations to reach accord in time for Bush and Putin to announce Saturday. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab flew to Moscow on Wednesday and negotiated late three nights in a row in a frantic effort to finish -- at one point going 24 hours straight and eating pizza for breakfast.

She and German Gref, the Russian trade minister, made a breakthrough agreement on financial services that would allow U.S. insurance companies to set up branch offices in Russia while keeping U.S. banks from doing so. At one point, Russians were so optimistic that they said a deal would be signed at the Bush-Putin summit. But Schwab stayed up until 2:30 a.m. Saturday trying to push to the end, only to give up in disagreement mainly over access for U.S. meat products to Russia's market.

"We're tough negotiators," Bush said when a Russian reporter asked about U.S. resistance. "And the reason why is because we want the agreement that we reach to be accepted by our United States Congress." Bush said the agreement was "almost reached" and added that "the intention to achieve an agreement is there."

Although Schwab said the agreement is 90 percent done, she now plans to return home and predicted talks will require two or three more months to finalize. "This is an agreement that could have been closed in time," she lamented.

Z. Blake Marshall, executive vice president of the U.S.-Russia Business Council, said the summit was a false deadline. "Our sense is this shouldn't be viewed as a breakdown in talks or a failure to conclude. We're actually encouraged by how much they did get done."

But Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center said it would be seen in the Kremlin as a major blow because it expected Bush to reward Putin's friendship. "They hoped, people within the government, that the U.S. would do that and I think they feel disappointed," he said. "But I think if President Bush had agreed to this, he would have been criticized in the U.S. for this present to President Putin."

The WTO impasse underscored the divide between Russia and the United States on a variety of issues. On Israel's strikes in southern Lebanon, Bush said "all parties here want the violence to stop" while Putin said, "Bloodshed should stop as soon as possible."

But Bush put the onus on Hezbollah to quit firing rockets at Israel and demanded Syria rein it in. "The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking," he said. "And therefore I call upon Syria to exert influence over Hezbollah." Putin, though, focused on what he and other G-8 leaders consider Israel's excessive response in bombing civilian targets: "We consider Israel's concerns to be justified. At the same time, we work under the assumption that the use of force should be balanced."

Similarly, on Iran's nuclear program, Bush emphasized that he and Putin agree that Tehran should not have nuclear weapons. But that is a consensus they have shared for some time and Putin did not answer when a reporter asked him if he was now ready to support U.N. sanctions against Iran. Instead, he said cryptically at another point in the Iran discussion, "We will not participate in any crusades, in any holy alliances."

And Putin made clear he was not interested in being told what to do on Russian democracy. "He doesn't want anybody telling him how to run his government," Bush noted, recounting their dinner Friday night. Putin echoed that. "We assume that nobody knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation," he said.

Alexei Makarkin, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow, said the day highlighted the current state of the leaders' relationship. "The bilateral discussions are very complicated because we have a common point of view when we are talking about strategic stability but we have disagreements on tactics -- with regard to Iran or Lebanon," he said.

Yet the presidents tried not to emphasize those disputes. "These are two guys who came in who want to have the image of success, they want to say the partnership is going well," said Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a senior fellow at the Nixon Center in Washington. "But this could have worked in 2001. It's starting to wear thin now."

Ganji: 'The Regime Must Change'

Maziar Bahari, Newsweek:

Akbar Ganji is the most vocal voice against the government in Iran. A former revolutionary guard turned reformist journalist, he was jailed for six years for revealing that Iran’s ministry of intelligence played a role in the killings of up to 70 intellectuals during the 1990s. After his release from prison last March, Ganji began a tour of Europe to meet Western intellectuals as well as Iranians in exile.

On Saturday, Ganji began a U.S. visit. During his trip, world leaders including French president Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush have requested meetings. Ganji refused, calling himself “only a journalist.” But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, in which he discussed Iran’s confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, he said he could change his stand on political meetings. Ganji and his acolytes in 25 cities around the world have begun a hunger strike to try to force the release the political prisoners in Iran. Ganji himself says he will lead the protests in front of United Nations headquarters in New York. NEWSWEEK’s Maziar Bahari met Ganji in London on Friday. READ MORE

Newsweek: What do you want to achieve by going on a hunger strike?
AKBAR GANJI: We chose three detainees from three different movements as the symbols of the political prisoners in the Iran and are staging a hunger strike to defend them. They include Masoud Ossanloo from the labor movement, Akbar Moussavi Khoeini from the students’ movement and Ramin Jahanbegloo, an intellectual. These people are illegally detained and are denied their basic rights. They are also under constant pressure to say that they are spying for foreigners. By being here we want to tell their families that we feel your pain and at the same time draw the attention of the world to human-rights abuses inside Iran.

You were recently released from prison and plan to go back to Iran in a few weeks time. What do you think will happen to you?
I think they will arrest me as soon as I arrive in the airport and put me in jail.

Yet still you want to go back?
Yeah. It’s the Iranian government’s dream to keep me abroad. If it were up to them they would keep me in jail. But they were worried about more international condemnation after illegally holding me for six years. When I look at the Islamic republic and its constitution I see that there is no possibility that this system can become a democratic one which respects human rights. I, and people like me, are trying to change the system into a democratic means.

Meaning?
Mainly through civil disobedience. Meaning breaking unjust and inhumane laws. The regime uses these laws to contain our movement. If you’re sentenced then you can be denied work as a journalist for the rest of your life. We say that this kind of laws are unjust and have to change.

One of the people you are here for, Ramin Jahanbegloo, has been charged with an attempt to stage a “velvet revolution.” Is this a new phase in the government’s fighting dissent inside the country?
The Iranian government is trying to accuse all those who oppose it of espionage for the West and the Americans. They are forgetting that 30 years ago, Ayatollah Khomeini said, ‘Our forefathers had the right to write a constitution for themselves and we have the same right to write our destiny.’ Right now we are demanding the same thing as Ayatollah Khomeini did before the 1979 revolution.

Do you think things have gotten more repressive since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken over?
Ahmadinejad’s election was part of the supreme leader’s plan to consolidate the hardliners’ power inside Iran. So, right now most of the high-ranking officials are chosen from the members of the Revolutionary Guard. But this policy has backfired as even high-ranking conservatives oppose Ahmadinejad’s radical policies and consider it dangerous for the country.

Do you think Iran really wants to have a peaceful nuclear program or do they want to build an atomic bomb?
Well, I’m not sure what they wish or not wish. But I can see that their unwise policies are driving Iran towards a catastrophe. Unfortunately, these unwise policies have created a united international front against Iran. I think that Iran and the U.S. should have direct and transparent negotiations with each other to solve this issue. We Iranians should be more afraid of the government’s nuclear program. They obtained all their equipment in the black market and there is no quality control on the facilities. I’m just afraid that something like Chernobyl can happen in Iran.

How solid is the support for the nuclear program among ordinary Iranians?
Not much. The nuclear program has become the butt of jokes among the ordinary people; they make fun of it. But the government doesn’t allow anyone to criticize it. The reformists within the system are against it and have sent a letter to the supreme leader. Many conservatives within the government disagree with each other about the nuclear program. I know that in a recent meeting of the Supreme Security Council former president Hashemi Rafsanjani said that Iran should suspend its uranium enrichment activities because it is going to be disastrous for the country. He even insisted that his words should be written down so it is documented.

Do you think the American government is honest in its claim that it wants to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear program or is it only interested in regime change in Iran?
I can’t read the Americans’ minds either. But I know that Iranian people want peace not war. We want to have democracy and peace in our country and we cannot achieve this through war and military action. I am against any kind of military action against Iran. The Americans should learn from what happened in Iraq. Military invasion will not help the democratic movement in Iran. Actually it will do exactly the opposite. If they plan to attack our infrastructure that would not destroy the Islamic Republic rather it will destroy Iran.

Are you going to meet with any American government officials while you’re in the United States?
I’m a member of a civil-society movement and not its leader. All we need is the moral support of the intellectuals and the civil society around the world. We have a strong pro-democracy movement in Iran. The world should listen to it and take it seriously. Our goal is to create a bond between Iran and the outside world. Any interference by western politicians in our affairs will make us vulnerable to accusations of espionage and acting as the fifth column of the West. Western governments should not interfere in Iran’s affairs directly as it makes the activists in Iran susceptible to the government’s accusations that they are the Western agents. [Still,] I am now willing to meet any world leader if it can prevent a war against my country.

Do you think sanctions should be imposed on Iran?
No, because sanctions will hurt the people of Iran more than its government. We saw the same thing happen in Iraq: sanctions hurt the people of Iraq much more than Saddam’s government.

What is it that the Americans don’t understand about how Iranian leaders think?
One of the main problems of the Americans in their negotiations with Iran is that most of their advisors are Iranians who have not been to Iran for the past three decades. They have no idea about what’s going on in Iran so they give wrong advice to the American leaders. I think a superpower like the USA should not rely on people who have no real understanding of the situation inside in Iran today to draft its policies. One thing that the Americans should know is that Iranians do not want to have a puppet regime in their country. This regime in Iran has to change. But it’s the Iranians themselves who have to change it.

Israel Aims to End Beirut's Tolerance of Hezbollah

Bill Spindle and Karby Leggett, The Wall Street Journal:

Israel continued to bomb buildings, highways and other infrastructure and tighten a naval blockade of Lebanon, but its real target wasn't so much Beirut as Hezbollah's state-within-a-state, which has created a thorny security problem for Lebanon and now the rest of the region.

Hezbollah, which means Party of God, got its start in the early 1980s as a guerrilla force resisting the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Since then, the Shiite Muslim group has turned the Israel-Lebanon border into one of the hottest in the Middle East -- and drastically complicated life for the national government in Beirut. Though the two have managed to coexist, Israel is attempting to heighten and exploit their tensions to its advantage. While that has upped the pressure on Hezbollah, the tactic risks widening the rift to the point that civil war could erupt anew within a country long fractured by religious and ethnic divides.

On Friday, three days after two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah and taken into Lebanese territory, Israel bombed Beirut's main airport for a second time, hitting fuel containers. It also carried out airstrikes against bridges on the main road connecting the Lebanese capital to Syria. Meanwhile, Hezbollah fired some 50 Katyusha rockets into northern Israeli towns. Residents of Haifa, a major Israeli city that Hezbollah shelled earlier in the week, were ordered back into bomb shelters.

The death toll from three days of fighting rose to 73 people in Lebanon -- almost all civilians, including five who died in strikes in Beirut and the south Friday -- and 10 in Israel, the Associated Press reported.

For its part, the Bush administration did little on Friday to suggest either that it would significantly step up its diplomacy to try to quell the fighting or put pressure on Israel to restrain its actions in Lebanon.

President Bush, on his way to a Group of Eight summit in Russia, spoke by phone with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuao Saniora but rejected his request to press Israel for a cease-fire. Mr. Bush, the White House indicated, said only that he would urge Israel to limit civilian casualties. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.

And for now, the U.S. appears to have concluded that the most suitable diplomatic effort is the dispatch of a three-person team by Kofi Annan to the region to try to mediate between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas. The Bush administration didn't appear to be bending to calls -- some from within its own Republican party -- to send a high-level emissary to mediate.

The conflict provoked sharp exchanges Friday within the United Nations Security Council but no firm action. In an emergency session of the council, Israel's ambassador, Dan Gillerman, gave a spirited defense of his country's actions and said it is time for Lebanon to move against Hezbollah and disarm the militia, a call echoed by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. Others were sharply critical of Israel, with the French saying that Israel's actions threaten "to annihilate" Lebanese government attempts to establish control of the country.

Mr. Bush's strong support for Israel in the crisis is emerging as a point of contention as the summit of leading nations opens in Russia. America's European allies have strongly condemned Israel and appear to hope the U.S. will do the same, or at least pressure Israel to pull back. The differences might come to a head today, when Mr. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet and when the G-8 leaders begin their discussions.

Some unexpected regional players have come close to directly criticizing Hezbollah as the fighting has escalated. Saudi Arabian officials, for example, have used their official news services to try to differentiate between what they consider legitimate acts of resistance and reckless adventurism that puts regional security at risk. Meanwhile, within Lebanon's Christian, Sunni Muslim and Druze communities, criticism of Hezbollah has also grown. Yet with Lebanon's army dominated by Shiites sympathetic to Hezbollah, it remains highly unlikely the government will mount a serious effort to disarm the group.

Attacks and counterattacks by Hezbollah and Israel along the border have been common since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. Although nearly all have been isolated and contained, Hezbollah's militia, which includes a highly trained permanent fighting force of several hundred along with thousands of reservists, has regularly launched bold and complicated missions into Israel in recent years.

In 2002, a Hezbollah team infiltrated an Israeli kibbutz, or communal farm, wearing imitation Israeli military uniforms and stayed at least two days. They then opened fire on a school bus, killing six Israeli civilians. Last year, another three-person Hezbollah team was discovered camping out in an Israeli nature reserve, apparently planning an attack. One was killed by Israeli soldiers who discovered the team during a patrol, and two others fled into Israel. Hezbollah stations its best-trained fighters along the border, taunting and harassing Israeli patrols from as little as just a few feet away on the Lebanese side of the border.

The most potent weapon Hezbollah has, however, are the increasingly powerful and accurate rockets launched from southern Lebanon. The group has thousands of these -- many of them supplied by Iran -- hidden in homes and buildings of supporters. That makes it extremely difficult for the Israelis to destroy them without causing extensive civilian casualties and damage.

Yet if Hezbollah's virtual state -- which includes social support and health and education services parallel to the Lebanese government's -- threatens Israel, it also confounds the politics of Lebanon and the broader region. That's because its military is in some ways stronger than Lebanon's national forces, while the group works closely with foreign backers Syria and Iran. Israel's campaign against Lebanon has already reinvigorated debate among Hezbollah's Lebanese foes about disarming the group. READ MORE

A peace agreement that ended Lebanon's civil war in 1989 and two United Nation's Security Council resolutions in the past several years have called for disarming all the country's militias. Yet intense debate on the subject early last year led to no significant efforts to try to disarm Hezbollah. The group has largely succeeded in carving a de facto exception for itself, since its main focus is fighting Israel -- an immensely popular cause in Lebanon and across the Arab world.

---- Yochi J. Dreazen contributed to this article.

Write to Bill Spindle at bill.spindle@wsj.com and Karby Leggett at karby.leggett@wsj.com

The Rogues Strike Back

Robert Satloff, The Weekly Standard:

Iran thumbs its nose at Western diplomats and continues nuclear enrichment. Hamas's chief, speaking from Damascus, boasts about kidnapping an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah launches a cross-border raid, prompting Israeli retaliation in Beirut and a return volley of rockets on northern Israel. Just another bleak week in the hopeless Middle East? Regrettably, no. This one was different. This was the week the Dark Side went on the offensive.

Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah: These are not marginal fringe groups. The first two are sovereign states, the third forms the elected government of the Palestinian Authority, and the fourth holds 25 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and, effectively, two ministerial portfolios.

This was the week that the rogue regimes of the "Old Middle East"--as opposed to the shadowy, faceless terrorist groups of the "New Middle East"--reminded the world that they too have the potential to grab headlines and wreak havoc. Here's a recap: READ MORE

On Monday, July 10, Khaled Meshal, head of the political bureau of Hamas, held a news conference in Damascus in which he took full responsibility for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, whom he called a "prisoner of war."

On Tuesday, July 11, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, told European Union envoy Javier Solana that Tehran was in no hurry to respond to a U.S.-European offer of incentives to end its nuclear enrichment program and would not give a formal reply until late August. Larijani then flew to Damascus, where he praised Hamas for its noble resistance to Zionist occupation.

On Wednesday, July 12, militiamen belonging to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah crossed the internationally recognized Israel-Lebanon frontier and attacked an Israeli position, killing eight soldiers and capturing two. This was "an act of war," said Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who authorized airstrikes on Beirut airport and Hezbollah facilities. Later that day, the United States and other permanent members asked the U.N. Security Council to compel Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. "We called [Iran's] bluff today," a senior State Department official told the Los Angeles Times.

On Thursday, July 13, Hezbollah rockets--supplied by Iran, via Syria--fell on major cities in northern Israel, including Haifa, Safed, Karmiel, and Nahariya, killing two, injuring dozens, and sending thousands to shelters. Israeli shelling shut down all civilian and military air access to Lebanon, as Israel continued bombing Hamas targets throughout Gaza, too. "All operations are legitimate to wipe out terror," said Israel's northern front commander Major General Udi Adam.

That's a lot of tough talk about war, face-offs, and showdowns, even for the Middle East, but what makes this train of events more worrisome than a typical week in the region is that these events--and their perpetrators--are all connected. No, this is not another Middle East conspiracy theory; to paraphrase Henry Kissinger's line about paranoids, sometimes bad guys shooting at you from all directions just might be in cahoots. In fact, the quartet of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah constitutes a better oiled, more cohesive unit than the diplomatic quartet of the United States, the U.N., the E.U., and Russia. Indeed, the rogue foursome is linked ideologically and operationally in a much more organic way than the charter members of the Axis of Evil ever were.

The key, it is important to note, is not religion. Iran and Hezbollah are led by Shiite extremists; Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Sunni movement; and Syria is governed by the world's only remaining Baathist, a secular chieftan of the Alawite sect, which reviles (and is reviled by) Syria's majority Sunni community. A feverish brand of radical Islamism certainly inspires some of these actors, but what drives them together is politics.

A generation ago, before Hamas and Hezbollah ever existed, Hafez al-Assad's Syria and Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran forged an alliance born of their common fear and loathing of Saddam Hussein. When the collapse of the Soviet Union deprived Syria of its superpower patron, leaving it surrounded by NATO-ally Turkey, pro-West Jordan, and the same thug in Baghdad, Assad continued to reach out to Tehran to avoid isolation. For their part, the Iranians exploited the situation, using Syria as the staging ground from which to build Hezbollah into their instrument for exporting the Islamic revolution.

In recent years, Hamas's success has been manna from heaven to the Iranians, Syrians, and Hezbollahis. Though these Palestinian Islamists fought and won their own battles against the more secular Fatah, Hamas's partners in the rogue quartet were perfectly happy to reap the benefits of a new front in their proxy war against Israel.

Today, these four--two states, one near-state, and one state-within-a-state--are collectively motivated by opportunity, not fear. The opportunity arises partly because the hated Saddam Hussein is gone, replaced by a weak, terrorist-wracked Shiite-led Iraqi government, propped up by a bleeding America. But each of these actors has its own reasons for exultation and brinkmanship.

Through Iranian eyes, the fact that the West has imposed no price for twenty years of lying about its nuclear program, but instead is still willing to offer ever-greater incentives, must seem remarkable. Only a preening sense of self-confidence can explain Iran's insouciant attitude toward the U.S.-E.U. offer. Indeed, U.S. and other Western diplomats who were dismayed at Iran's failure to respond to the package of carrots failed to recognize that Iran did respond, through what Clausewitz would have called diplomacy by other means: upping the ante via Hezbollah. With the threat of any meaningful U.N. sanctions months away, the Iranians took the initiative. Their goal is to make Israel just another item on the nuclear bargaining table with the West.

Through Syrian eyes, the fact that the West, operating through the U.N., appears less likely today than at any point in the past year to impose a price on the Assad family for its role in murdering former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri must seem similarly stunning. Only a robust sense of optimism can explain Syria's brutal crackdown on secular reformers and liberal dissidents at home and its ongoing efforts to silence critics--like the courageous journalist Gibran Tueni, assassinated in December 2005--in Lebanon next door. Last week, Syria's accidental president, Assad's son Bashar, evidently looked at the rising price the West was willing to pay Iran to stop its objectionable behavior and decided he wants to get into the game. But, lacking significant oil revenues, he chose the poor man's blackmail of terrorism. Hence Syria's brazen decision to break the fiction of its nonsupport to terrorists by providing Khaled Meshal with a Damascus soapbox to boast of his terrorist deeds.

Through Hezbollah's eyes, the failure of the West to implement U.N. Secu rity Council Resolution 1559--which demands the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon and calls on the Lebanese government to exercise sovereignty up to the border with Israel--nicely fits its view of the Jewish state as weak, brittle, and impotent. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has likened it to a "spider web." Only an unswerving sense of ideological purpose can explain Hezbollah's willingness to ridicule its own role as a Lebanese political party serving in the Lebanese government by taking actions that rain Israeli retaliation down upon the heads of fellow Lebanese.

And through Hamas's eyes, the fact that the West, including Israel and the United States, permitted a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of the Jewish state to take over the reins of government in the Palestinian Authority--an entity whose only raison d'être is to be an instrument of peacemaking--is surely proof of divine intercession. Hamas's attack against the Israeli position at Kerem Shalom occurred just before the Europeans were set to launch a humanitarian aid program that would have dulled the impact of the U.S.-led financial quarantine on the PA, and just after Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas fell into the trap of endorsing a political platform, known as the Prisoners Document, that in large respects mirrored Hamas's own "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only a steadfast conviction in the rightness of the battle against the Zionist entity could compel Hamas leaders to forgo these advantages in exchange for the Israeli reoccupation of parts of Gaza.

Virtually overnight, an audacious Hamas raid has metastasized into a crisis that holds the greatest potential for regional conflagration in years. On a strategic level, the rogues' goal is almost surely to fuse the disparate crises into one--merging either the Hamas or Hezbollah front with Iran's nuclear standoff with the West, perhaps by the transfer of the captive soldiers to Iranian control, by direct involvement of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the rocket fire against Israel, or by some other means.

If that happens, then Hamas and its fellow quartet members may achieve what Yasser Arafat was not able to accomplish with two intifadas--to regionalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thereby radically alter the strategic balance. And if Iran is able to exploit this crisis to show that its nuclear program earns it and its allies special treatment on the terrorism front, Tehran will have proven precisely how beneficial the decision to invest in a nuclear program really was. As the Iranian newspaper Kayhan, close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, editorialized last Thursday, "Nuclear Iran is eradicating the nuclear prestige of Israel." That's the sort of rising star to which Syria would like to be hitched.

In Gaza and Lebanon, a battle between Israel and two of its enemies has now been joined. Its spread to two other enemies--Iran and Syria--is a stark and urgent possibility. Let us not mistake this conflict for a local skirmish, a pesky diversion from more serious business, like stopping Iran's nuclear program or building a free, stable Iraq. On the contrary, it is all of a piece.

Defeat for Israel--either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed cease-fires--is a defeat for U.S. interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists. Victory--in the form of Hezbollah's disarmament, the expulsion of the Iranian military presence from Lebanon, the eviction of Meshal and friends from Damascus, and the demise of the Hamas government in Gaza--is, by the same token, also a victory for U.S. (and Western) interests.

Achieving those successes--and avoiding those setbacks--will take time, persistence, and leadership. While military force is essential, nonmilitary measures are needed too. These include organizing transatlantic consensus on economic and political pressure on Syria, devising a fast-executing international mechanism to disarm Hezbollah, and expediting the Security Council process on Iran. As enervating as it must be to an administration whose policy plate already overflows with tough problems, none of this can happen without America taking the lead.

Robert Satloff is executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.