 |
|
||
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
   |  | |||||||||||||||||||||
 U.S. diplomatic options limited in Israel-Lebanon conflictBy Elise Labott  President Bush and the first lady stop over in Germany on Friday. RELATEDYOUR E-MAIL ALERTSWASHINGTON (CNN) -- In times of crisis in the Middle East, the world often has looked to the United States for leadership. But this time the Bush administration has largely stayed on the sidelines. For three weeks, beginning with the June 25 Hamas raid into Israel and capture of an Israeli soldier and subsequent Israeli attacks against targets in Gaza, the United States refrained from launching a major diplomatic initiative to calm rising tensions. Even when Hezbollah later captured two Israeli soldiers and killed another three, the U.S. exercised restraint. Now, with a new front against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and the violence threatening to become a broader regional conflict with the potential to draw in Iran and Syria, calls have grown louder for U.S. engagement. But the Bush administration, which blames Hezbollah for the current situation, has limited diplomatic options, and its capability to focus on the crisis is overstretched by the war in Iraq and nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran. Senior State Department officials said the U.S. has three main diplomatic goals in the Middle East: to help facilitate the release of the Israeli soldiers whose kidnappings precipitated the latest crisis; to pressure Israel to exercise restraint in its operations against Lebanon; and to support the Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But the United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran and virtually no contacts with Syria, the countries it blames for the recent escalation because of their support for Hezbollah. Washington has turned to third parties, asking all countries with influence in Tehran and Damascus to push for Hezbollah to return the Israeli soldiers safely and stop rocket attacks against Israel. President Bush on Friday called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. diplomats reached out to leaders in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. U.S. Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch and deputy national security advisor Elliot Abrams are in the Middle East, engaging in intense shuttle diplomacy. On Friday they met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and are expected this weekend to meet with Israeli officials. The United States wants Israel to exercise restraint with its military in Lebanon, fearing a humanitarian or economic crisis could weaken Siniora's pro-U.S. government. Envoys urgedU.S. calls for Israeli restraint have been pale in comparison to those from leaders in Europe and the Middle East who see the attacks against Lebanon as disproportionate. Not only is the United States reluctant to criticize Israel as it faces terrorist attacks from Hezbollah, officials realize U.S. influence with Israel over its military operations is limited. With the conflict threatening to draw Iran and Syria into a regional war, Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska and a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, on Thursday joined a growing chorus of calls urging Bush to send a high-level envoy, such as Colin Powell or James Baker, to the region. Such a trusted adviser, Hagel argued, would have the respect of leaders there. But an envoy doesn't seem to be in the cards, according to senior State Department officials, nor does a trip by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The officials say an envoy could disrupt ongoing efforts and would be unproductive without diplomatic room to maneuver. As one senior State Department official put it: "At times like this it's comforting to think of sending an envoy, but to where? We can't put Colin Powell on a plane to Damascus and Tehran." For now, all eyes are on a United Nations team sent by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, seen as the best chance to exert pressure on Iran and Syria to gain the release of the soldiers and, ultimately, get Israel to stand down. A peaceful end to the crisis could preserve what many hoped would be one of Bush's more successful foreign policy legacies -- a thriving democracy in Lebanon. But if it occurs without serious U.S. engagement, the United States may find its longstanding role as an "honest broker" in the Middle East diminished, along with its influence in the region -- and particularly perhaps inside Lebanon. Demands but no promises for LebanonSiniora has received no U.S. support for his calls for a cease-fire, and Lebanese diplomatic sources say they are seeing "mixed messages" from the Bush administration. On the one hand, they say, the United States is calling for Syria to play a positive role. But, on the other hand, the United States won't deal with Syria. Also, while Washington has shown verbal support for the Siniora government, officials are still not criticizing the attacks on Lebanon. U.S. officials have instead talked to Israel at great length about the need to avoid destroying civilian infrastructure. Officials add that while damage to Lebanon's civilian infrastructure looks dramatic, it could easily be repaired, and there may be international help offered. Washington still wants Siniora's administration to exercise sovereignty throughout the country and wrest control from Hezbollah in the south, using its army in conjunction with a U.N. force in the area. While the United States tries to discredit Hezbollah, the real force behind any change of heart is more likely to be instigated by Arab nations and influential leaders. Egypt may again emerge as the key interlocutor in the region, and the U.S. leadership role may lose some of its sheen. 
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
| © 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map. |
|
External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pay service with live and archived video. 
