Chris Nelsons top line

Chris Nelson’s top line summary from this evening’s edition of The Nelson Report …

The war in Lebanon is already a public relations disaster for Israel, and a very real human disaster, with no end in sight, for thousands of Lebanese. Clearly Israel, under military attack, is not officially concerned with the PR, but you could already see in the very competitive Israeli press, late last week, warnings that the IDF was not being careful, that military plans had already gotten out of hand, and that a diplomatic debacle might be in the making.

Over the weekend, it became clear that Lebanon is also at risk of becoming another serious policy failure for the US.

The announcement by Secretary of State Condi Rice that she was going to the region, but would not seek direct meetings with Syria, the country the US claims to be at the heart of any “solution” to the Lebanon crisis, has sparked much international criticism, and rekindled debate in the US over the basic lack of Bush Administration policy.

Or, put another way, the Lebanon situation has exposed, once again, that US policy, under Bush, is largely whatever the Israeli government says it wants. So the long term effect of this on US-Arab relations generally, and the US ability to be constructively involved in any serious peace process, is once again under debate.

In any particular flare-up in this unhappy region, debating who shot first is a distraction, since the conflict has been going on for generations. The question is, or should be, does the US have a policy with a realistic chance of success, and is the US involved in a process to further that policy…in this case, to resolve the flare-up of the moment? Whether a long term “solution” is possible is always another question….see Bill Clinton/Camp David, etc.

However, as long-time Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross likes to say (our paraphrase) “having a process may not get you a solution, but having a process does give you a chance to contain the damage.”

A week ago, much of the international community seemed willing to agree with the US, that Israel had the right to go after Hezbollah, or, at least, the right to go after Hezbollah sufficiently to push back the missile attack capability and threat. But by mid-week, the Europeans were calling for “cease fire” regardless.

Today, even the Bush Administration is making noises about a cease fire…and citing the centrality of dealing with Syria…but not yet. How much damage is being done, and will be done, to the US ability to be constructively involved in the Middle East is emerging, now, as the big question.

A critic within State privately worries, “Condi could get points for the US just by trying to talk directly with Syria. But apparently her view is if she can’t get a quick deal that makes her look good, she won’t even try.”