NEAL CONAN, host:
This is special coverage from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.
Israel and Hezbollah continued attacks across the Lebanese border today. Dozens are reported dead and injured; most of them in Lebanon, where the number killed since the fighting began is now believed to be over 200. Many thousands on both sides tried to find safety in bomb shelters, in basements, or on the road away from the most dangerous places. Foreign countries including the Unites States made arrangements to evacuate their nationals.
In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined his conditions: return of Israel's captured soldiers, a full ceasefire, deployment of the Lebanese army in all of southern Lebanon, and the disarming of Hezbollah.
Iran's foreign minister, on a visit to Syria, said that a ceasefire followed by prisoner swap would be a fair deal. In St. Petersburg, Russia, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan floated the idea of a new international military force for Lebanon. Russia and some European countries said they might consider contributing troops. And the White House said that the United States was opened to the possibility that such a force might be necessary. Secretary General Annan said the blunt reality is that this fighting is not going to stop unless we create conditions for the cessation of violence.
A microphone at the G-8 Summit picked up some candid remarks by President Bush, unaware that the mic was on. The president expressed his frustration with Hezbollah and Syria with a vulgar term.
In this hour, we'll discuss the goals of the parties to this conflict, other countries, and factions in the Middle East, and international players, too; the United States, Europe, Russia. Later, we'll be joined by former Senator George Mitchell, and Richard Haas, of the Council on Foreign Relations. We'll also discuss the weapons being used on both sides.
I'm joined here in the studio by NPR Senior Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins.
And, Loren, amid the talk of an international force, of visits by diplomats, we heard just a few minutes ago that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be visiting the regions soon. Is there any indication that anything can put the breaks on this anytime soon?
LOREN JENKINS reporting:
Well, I think this - you're beginning to see the dynamics of some possible solution, which would involve a ceasefire. You keep hearing ceasefire. Everyone's talking about a ceasefire being important and acceptable, with each one having they're own conditions. The Israelis want a ceasefire with the pullback of Hezbollah, preferably the disarming of Hezbollah, and the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers.
Hezbollah and its supporters seem to indicate they would accept a ceasefire, but they want a prisoner swap, they want Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli hands swapped. There's a lot of diplomatic activity, the French Foreign Minister Villepin is in Beirut. As we heard...
CONAN: He's prime minister now?
JENKINS: He's prime minister now. Sorry. And Condi Rice has said she'll go soon, not - she didn't seem to be thinking it was going to be very urgent to go. It seems to me like there's an idea to let things simmer a bit further before things can be negotiated diplomatically.
CONAN: What about this idea of an international force? There is some history here.
JENKINS: There is history here. There was an international force separating Israel from southern Lebanon that goes way back, goes back 25 years. It was very ineffective at the time. It was a peacekeeping force and not a force to stop war making. So war was made over its heads and through its lines. It is looked on with a lot of disdain by the Israelis and, I think, the Americans; and they're very cold on the subject. But that could be something that would be brought in in any ceasefire terms. It might be acceptable at some point.
CONAN: At some point. But in other words, it doesn't seem like either diplomacy or outside intervention is going to be a factor, certainly for the next period of days. Prime Minister Blair and this idea of an inter - (unintelligible) which is what this will take some time.
JENKINS: I think so. And they're already hearing hints the Israeli security forces - security people are hinting that they have about a week more of activity before international pressure might force them to stop. So I think we're looking at maybe another week of bombing and rocket exchanges.
CONAN: We want to spend the rest of this hour exploring the various players in this conflict and their interests in this conflict. Joining us now to start off discussion is Raghida Dergham. She's Senior Diplomatic Correspondent and columnist for Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab, Arab language newspaper.
Thanks for joining us today.
Ms. RAGHIDA DERGHAM (Senior Diplomatic Correspondent and Columnist, Al-Hayat): Thank you very much, Neal.
CONAN: And let's start off with Hezbollah, whose raid into Israel started this round of the fighting. The events of the past week certainly seem part of a longer-term agenda. Does that seem right to you?
Ms. DERGHAM: Well, if it is a longer-term agenda, it is a very confused one, because I can't even imagine that Hezbollah thought that Hezbollah would be able to win this militarily against Israel. I think it is about reshuffling the cards and trying to somehow position one's self. And probably Iran was interested in positioning itself in the region as a party that is concerned and influential and has lots of cards to play not only in the Gulf in Iraq, but also on the issue of the Palestinians and Lebanon vis-à-vis Israel.
I do not believe that the Israelis and the Iranians have a sort of confrontation relationship. In fact, traditionally, they've had more of a détente between them...
CONAN: Mm-hmm.
Ms. DERGHAM: ...and more accommodation. But it seems now it's about positioning one's self, and that's probably one reason behind the developments and what's going on.
CONAN: Talking about positioning themselves, Syria is all in the middle of this, obviously between Iraq and Lebanon. Also, the exiled leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are in Damascus.
Ms. DERGHAM: Yes, of course. And the Syrians have allowed the leader of Hamas - the military wing of Hamas to issue from Damascus some positions and statements in as far as exchange of prisoners that they wanted with Israel. But that was a noticeable development, because normally Syria tries to be a little more careful about allowing statements to come out from Damascus, although Syria hosts these organizations.
But I think it was rather interesting for Syria to have any developments. Unfortunately, such horrible developments in Lebanon, because it - well, from the Syrian point of view, it somehow alleviates some of the pressures that have been exerted on Syria; accused that it is behind the killing - the assassination of Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. Of course, Syria denies such charges. But the investigation - the U.N. investigation is ongoing, and the Syrians have been trying to somehow fight off the issue of establishing an international tribunal.
And so I think any developments in Lebanon, particularly if they're bad, they may serve Syria at this intersection. And particularly that if there is a weakness in Lebanon, Syria would say, you see, when I was there I was able to maintain stability there. Now I'm gone, and look at you Lebanese, what you've done.
But anyway, I think this is part of the relationship between Syria and Iran and Hezbollah. It's an axis that has developed amongst them. And unfortunately, Lebanon is paying the price. And, of course, there are many Lebanese who would differ, who would say this is about resistance to occupation and Lebanon is in the forefront and Hezbollah is in the forefront.
Well, there are two different points of views within Lebanon on this. But you can see right now, the foreign minister of Iran has offered himself to be a mediator all of a sudden. But certainly, it's not Tehran that's destroyed Lebanon, and so therefore it is not his country. He could look from a far.
CONAN: You described this as an axis. Do you see Hezbollah as an independent actor in all of this? Is it clearing operations in advance with its backers in Damascus and in Tehran?
Ms. DERGHAM: I would think so. At least they will be aware of it. I think such an operation would have definitely been coordinated. I don't think Hezbollah would've done this unless really they would have miscalculated and figured the Israelis would just sit there and not do anything about it.
They may have miscalculated to that extent. They may have not thought that the Israelis would react with such brutality against the infrastructure in Lebanon, the civilians in Lebanon, the civilian infrastructure, but the problem is that we really don't know how much of the infrastructure of Hezbollah has been destroyed.
In fact, we know clearly that the infrastructure of the country has been very largely destroyed. So what might come out of this, if it does - I don't know if there's anything good to come out of this, but I think there is a need for a comprehensive approach and a comprehensive solution that would have to put into the equation what sort of relationship do we have between Iran and Israel, between the United States and Iran, and between the United States and Syria, and Israel and Syria, so that Lebanon does not remain the only country paying the price; and if anything good comes out of it, it would probably be that the establishment of the Lebanese authority, the Lebanese government's authority, throughout the country instead of being at the mercy of militias calling the shots.
CONAN: The mercy of those militias, the most important of which, obviously, is Hezbollah.
Ms. DERGHAM: Yes.
CONAN: There are also Israel's other neighbors and Lebanon's other neighbors, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all of which are nervous, to say the very least.
Ms. DERGHAM: They were very critical of what they called dragging the country Lebanon into this mess, and they were very clear in distinguishing between the right to resist occupation, which they support, and between, you know, militias taking their own - the country hostage and running with its own decisions independent of the government or with the government being the last to know.
But, you know, your question is very important because (unintelligible), behind all of this is also what role does Iran want in the region? Iran is very much involved in Dubai, the protection it receives from both China and Russia, and the Security Council, that it's being absolved from punishment. It's being protected from accountability and, you know, it's all politics, unfortunately.
But Iran also feels that the hands of the United States are tied up because of the mess in Iraq, and their calculation is that well, you know, the Americans can not be serious if they threaten.
So my view, really, in order to look serious in the eyes of Iran, I think United States would have to at one point and I think very soon consider - have to consider strategically what are its options such as maybe to pullout now from Iraq so that the forces are not at the mercy of an Iranian revenge and so that this country could be taken seriously once again as a superpower rather than being ridiculed because of it's bad adventure in Iraq.
CONAN: And when you talk about a comprehensive settlement then, this would have to include Iran's nuclear ambitions as well as its regional goals.
Ms. DERGHAM: Absolutely. It would have to include Iran's nuclear ambitions. I think the United States, this administration might do well deciding you know what? I'll take things exactly as they should be taken. I will have this conversation with Iran, and I'll have everything on the table instead of these sort of, you know, now you see it, now you don't, and through the Europeans.
And instead of piecemeal discussions, whether it's over Iraq or over the nuclear, I think it's important to have face-to-face talks about everything, everything across the board, including, you know, stopping playing with the future of a country like Lebanon and using it for a proxy war with Israel and in terms of the relationship with Syria as well.
I think another component, very important component, of the comprehensive solution I have in mind that I would like to see happen is the fact that there is the need to resolve this Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We need to get that off the table in order to really matter anywhere else.
CONAN: Stay with us, if you would. We have to short break. Raghida Dergham is senior editor at Al-Hayat. We'll be back after a short break. I'm Neal Conan. You're listening to special coverage from NPR news.
(Soundbite of music)
CONAN: This is special coverage from NPR news. I'm Neal Conan in Washington, along with NPR Senior Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins.
Israel airstrikes continued for a sixth day today, killing at least 17 people across Lebanon. Rockets fired by Hezbollah reached as far as Haifa, Israel's third-largest city. We're talking today about what's at stake in this conflict for Israel, for Hezbollah, the Middle East and beyond.
With us is Raghida Dergham, a senior diplomatic correspondent and columnist for Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab, Arabic language newspaper. And before we let you go, you talked about this comprehensive settlement that you thought - that in a way this conflict might help clear the air and force people to focus.
What is it, though, if - can you foresee a decisive end on either side to the fighting that's going to dictate one side or the other agreeing to compromise; or do you foresee that this is just going to be - peter out somehow or end on diplomatic intervention?
Ms. DERGHAM: Well, I think the team of the United Nations that is in the region right now trying to work out some sort of a solution for the immediate crisis of Lebanon is doing a - hopefully is doing a good job because it supposedly has concrete ideas built around the idea - the basic idea, is to have the Lebanese authority, the Lebanese government's authority throughout the country with the support of an international component. That's why they're calling it a stabilizing force.
They're trying to work that out. I'm sure there's going to have to be some exchange of prisoners not only the release of the Israeli soldiers, because it is, in fact, you know, I mean, the Israelis are holding hundreds and thousands of Arab prisoners without even trial and it's collective punishment without even, you know, being accorded(ph) to the rule of law.
So there will have to be that sort of exchange somehow, but I think immediately parallel with this or immediately after that, there is a need for an American action in terms of a comprehensive approach. That is to say besides the component of Iran and what to do in Iraq, that is - the relationship with Iran is of utmost importance. It's also the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian issue is important because as long as you don't resolve that, you're going to have the Arab public never trusting the United States, no matter what.
So you have a popular support right now for defiance of the United States, even in the war on terror. We need to take care of that one component, take away any pretext that says Americans aren't - that there are double standards, they have double standards; they're only supporters of Israel and only Israel at the expense of the Arabs.
So I think a fair solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict in particular, will require that the United States leans a little more on Israel. I mean, Israel is not doing - is not on a picnic in Lebanon, and it's not - it's targeting civilians in Gaza as well.
So I don't think (unintelligible) to be terribly dangerous if the United States appears to be on Israel's side in terms of self-defense without remembering what's behind all this conflict and the roots of it.
CONAN: Raghida Dergham, thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate your time today.
Ms. DERGHAM: Thank you very much.
CONAN: Loren Jenkins, which, let me turn to you and say, she mentioned she thought the United States' scope for action was restricted by its being, it's presence in Iraq. The United States has also been -President Bush has clearly said that Israel has every right to defend itself, but has not exactly been staking out its own position on this conflict.
JENKINS: Well, I think that's - I don't think U.S. involvement in Iraq is what limits the United States' support of Israel or getting more active diplomatically.
I think the United States, the government, this administration, has been probably the most pro-Israeli administration we've ever had, and I think they've pretty much taken the cue of Israel's policies and made them ours.
CONAN: To get a better view of what Israel's goals are in all of this, we turn now to Michael Herzog, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a brigadier general in the Israeli military, the IDF. He's with us here in Studio 3A. It's good to speak with you again.
Brigadier General MICHAEL HERZOG (Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Brigadier General, Israeli Defense Forces): Good afternoon. Happy to be here.
CONAN: Israel says its aim is to dismantle Hezbollah. Do you think that's an achievable goal or that it might be enough to push them back?
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: Well, I'll distinguish between operational goals and strategic goals. Operationally, what Israel wants to do is to minimize Hezbollah's capabilities, military capabilities, as much as possible.
They have an array of 13,000 rockets. I don't know how many militaries in the world have such an array of rockets. So what Israel wants to do is to reduce these threatening capabilities as much as possible and to prevent Hezbollah from arming itself during this confrontation, also in the future.
Strategically, I think what Israel is after is a new equation between Israel and Hezbollah, because the old type of ceasefire enabled Hezbollah to position itself along the border, to arm itself with these thousands of rockets, and then to threaten and attack Israel whenever it wanted. And since Israel left Lebanon in May, 2000, they carried out numerous attacks, firing of rockets, kidnapping soldiers, cross-border attacks, and so on.
So strategically, what the Israelis are aiming to do is first of all to distance Hezbollah from the border, to create kind of a buffer zone controlled by the Lebanese army, and also to get the issue of disarmament of Hezbollah as stipulated by Security Council Resolution 1559 back on the table, top of the agenda, and seriously discuss.
CONAN: Again, operationally and strategically, is this linked to the operations in Gaza and further down the road, of course, the West Bank?
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: There's no direct linkage between the two. But of course we're facing two Islamist organizations and there's kind of an overarching connection between them. Both of them are Islamist organizations denying Israel's right to exist, both of them are political parties and an armed militia, and they employ very similar tactics.
And I think the fact that Israel found itself attacked on both fronts, having left both of them - we left Gaza a year ago and Lebanon six years ago - of course prompted the Israelis to react strongly so as not to invite the next attack.
CONAN: But how do you go about it? Loren Jenkins, you were in the region back in the early 80s. Israel at one point tried to establish the South Lebanon Army, sort of a militia of its own, if you would, to try to control the southern border. That didn't work out. International forces, that didn't work out.
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: We're talking about something different. We're talking about the Lebanese government asserting its sovereignty over the border area between Israel and Lebanon, sending the Lebanese army down south, and then you can augment them with other elements, international elements and so on.
We had UNIFIL for 25 years, as was mentioned by Lawrence(ph). They were highly ineffective because what happened is that they were at the mercy of Hezbollah. I would remind you that when Hezbollah kidnapped three or four soldiers in October, 2000, five months after Israel left Lebanon, it was under the very eyes of a UNIFIL battalion, they even used the car disguised as a UNIFIL car to carry out this kidnapping of soldiers.
So the idea is to have the Lebanese assert the sovereignty and not other elements.
JENKINS: General, you obviously, you're a military man. Israeli intelligence is very good, we hear. Why would you believe that Lebanon has the capability, or a Lebanese army could, in fact, do what an Israeli army couldn't do, was control Hezbollah when you're occupying south Lebanon.
We know Lebanon's a very fragile country, and its army has been useless in every occasion that I know of in the last 30 years.
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: Well, first of all, I think you have - tragic as this conflict may be, you have an opportunity here because Israel has been and is destroying Hezbollah's infrastructure in the south. Hezbollah is much weakened. They're driven to the north, and I think in terms of creating this kind of a buffer zone - it's not a big buffer zone - you can send some Lebanese troops to effectively control that area and back them with some international elements.
You have a Lebanese army of about 70,000 people. It's not a very strong army, I agree, but I think (unintelligible) is not so much the military capability, but rather the fact that there was a sectarian element there, a huge section of - over 50 percent are Shiites. Many of them sympathize with Hezbollah.
Nevertheless, I believe that given the fact that Hezbollah is considerably weakened now, and given the fact that in my view, most Lebanese would support such a move politically, because they are fed up with Hezbollah; they may resent some things Israel is doing, but they resent Hezbollah a lot, and I think you heard that from how Al-Hayat correspondent.
So given the political backing and the fact that Hezbollah is weakened, I think it could come about.
CONAN: Yet does not Israel risk - take the risk, as our correspondent from Al- Hayat pointed out, a strengthening serious role, re-strengthening serious role in Lebanon?
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: I don't think so because - that depends on whether or not Israel feels the political heat from the international community. Syria has kind of (unintelligible) sidelines, but it's clearly a part of this axis that Al-Hayat correspondent was talking about here and Damascus, Beirut and Gaza, if you will.
Khaled Mashal is there. They've been supporting Hezbollah. But I think the way to deal with Syria is through political, diplomatic, international pressure. Not rewarding Syria for anything it might do, but to the contrary, they should know that if they continue to play such a negative role, they will be a lot of pressure on them internationally, and it's time to highlight that.
I think Bashar al-Assad over the last year felt that he was off the hook. There was a lot of pressure building up and then suddenly for some reason no pressure any longer, which is why he allowed Mashal to go out in such a press conference.
CONAN: The head of Hezbollah, yes.
JENKINS: Our correspondent in Damascus, Deb Amos, I was talking with her last night and she said that although there had been a lot of talk that the next step in this war against Hezbollah might be to attack Syria. She said that the feeling in Syria was in fact that they weren't going to be attacked by Israel at any point, because basically the Israeli government doesn't want to topple the Assad - Bashar government because it fears there might be something worse if it was toppled. Do you have any feelings about that at all?
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: Yes. Israel doesn't intend to target Syria militarily - it's been saying so openly - but the reason is not the one you cited, but rather the fact that Israel doesn't want to open a third front for itself.
Israel is currently fighting on two fronts, a Palestinian front in Gaza vis-à- vis Hamas and a Lebanese front. By the way, it's the first time Israel has been fighting on two fronts in years now. Israel was very meticulous about avoiding this during the Intifada years. So Israel has no interest in opening a third front.
I would remind you that if that happens, there will be others, like the Iranians, who will come in; Ahmadinejad threatened that. But what Israel expects to happen is that there will be international pressure on Syria to bring down (unintelligible).
CONAN: There will also be, of course, international pressure on Israel as well to ratchet down the violence in Lebanon.
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: Yes. I expect that you will see more, you will hear more and more voices calling for a ceasefire. You know, you already beginning to hear talk about a ceasefire. This is a beginning. The question is what will be the terms of the ceasefire.
But I think the Israelis will go not to the old type of ceasefire, which will allow Hezbollah in the future to attack once again, but a new type which will minimize Hezbollah's capability to threaten Israel and destroy this situation.
CONAN: General Herzog, thank you very much for being with us today. We appreciate your time.
Brig. Gen. HERZOG: Thank you.
CONAN: Michael Herzog is a visiting military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a Brigadier General in the IBF.
Two American perspectives now. And, of course, you're listening to special coverage of the crisis in the Middle East from NPR News.
Now, two American perspectives. We're joined by George Mitchell, a former Senator from the state of Maine and a special adviser to President Clinton on Northern Ireland. He also served as chairman of the Sharm el-Sheikh International Fact-Finding Committee to examine the crisis in the Middle East. He joins us by phone from New York City.
Senator Mitchell, good to have you with us.
Mr. GEORGE MITCHELL (Former Democratic Senator, Maine): Thank you, except I'm in Maine.
CONAN: In Maine, excuse me. I apologize for that.
Mr. MITCHELL: That's all right.
CONAN: And I'm sure your weather is much better.
Also with us is Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former State Department official in this Bush administration. He's with us from the studio at the Council on Foreign Relations. And nice to speak with you again, too.
Mr. RICHARD HAASS (President, Council on Foreign Relations): Thank you.
CONAN: Richard Haass, let me begin with you. The United States has always been a key negotiator in the Middle East conflict. With the U.S. military already extended in Afghanistan and Iraq, what role can President Bush play in this conflict? What role does the White House want to play?
Mr. HAASS: Well, the United States can play a role in galvanizing a diplomatic package and some of your previous guests have essentially highlighted the essential features. It would be a conditional ceasefire, if you will, one that would involve geographic pullback by Hezbollah from the Israeli border; they would be replaced by either the Lebanese government's army or some sort of an international force.
In that context, one could imagine a prisoner swap. Such an agreement will not just happen by itself. And the United States, possibly acting in concert with the United Nations and others, could be the principal catalyst for negotiations at this point.
CONAN: Senator Mitchell, is this the role the United States should be playing? What does the United States want to get out of this?
Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I think the United States has a very definite interest in a stable and peaceful Middle East. We are, of course, huge consumers of oil. One out of every eight or nine barrels of oil consumed in the world is consumed on American highways. And we also have a close and strong relationship with Israel. We also are promoting democratic institutions in the region.
So we have economic, political, moral, other considerations. I'd like if I might, Neal, to put this in a somewhat broader context, because I think there's a huge shift going on in the Middle East.
For most of Islam's history, nearly 13 centuries now, there's been a division among Shia and Sunni. The Sunnis tended to dominate for a very long time and Iran was for a while the only nation dominated by Shia. One of the consequences of the Iraq war is that rather than being a huge counterweight to Iran, Iraq has now become much closer to Iran, will have a Shia government, and one that, if not subordinate to, at least much more sympathetic to Iran than before.
As a consequence, I think all the Sunni-led governments in the Gulf region are deeply concerned. The Hezbollah is, of course, a Shia force and they're deeply concerned about the consequences of this promoted by Iran and, to a lesser extent but still significantly, Syria.
So I think you have to see this not just as Israel and Hezbollah, but rather as part of a huge historic, possibly paradigm, shift in the entire region.
CONAN: Richard Haass, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. And if you can fold into it, the seemingly - at least operational cooperation between Hamas and Hezbollah. One a Sunni organization, the other one Shia.
Mr. HAASS: One is seeing a much greater Iranian assertiveness. You see a much closer relationship between Iran and Syria. You see after Hamas raised the temperature in the wake of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza by taking a soldier, then you're seeing Hezbollah, if you will, attempt to trump them, almost a bid for a primacy at who could lead the anti-Israeli charge in the Arab and Islamic world right now.
So all that's going on and I think that's true. And I think more than anything else, it represents the new assertiveness of Iran. Iran sees the United States tied down in Iraq. It sees its own influence in Iraq growing. It sees its economic situation dramatically improving because of the price of oil.
So all of that, as Senator Mitchell suggests, does bare out that there has been something of a strategic shift in the region. Coming against it, though, and I take it as one of the few positive developments of the last few days, is the emergence of a more concerted Sunni Arab moderate voice.
CONAN: And we're going to have to pick that up - excuse me, Richard Haass, we're going to have to pick that up after we come back from a short break. I apologize.
I'm Neal Conan. You're listening to special coverage from NPR News.
(Soundbite of music)
CONAN: This is special coverage from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington, along with NPR's Senior Foreign Editor, Loren Jenkins.
As fighting continues in Lebanon, in Israel and in Gaza, the State Department announced today that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would visit the region. And there are other talks of diplomatic efforts underway. The French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is in Beirut today.
And the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, floated the idea of an international course. A UN mission arrived in Beirut with what it said were concrete ideas to bring around a ceasefire.
We're discussing what's at stake for all of the players in the region. The United States, of course, as well. Russia, China, the various other international players, what options are available.
With is former Senator George Mitchell, Democratic Senator for Maine, and chairman of the Sharm el-Sheikh International Fact-Finding Committee to examine the crisis in the Middle East. Also with us Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former director of policy planning at the State Department.
Mr. JENKINS: I'd like to just intervene here and ask both Senator Mitchell and Richard what your feelings are about U.S. foreign policy under this administration? It seems to me what we're seeing is a possible total failure of what looked like very promising - at least from the administration eyes - approach to the Middle East, which was go to Iraq, forget the crisis in Israel and Palestine, put it on the back burner with benign neglect and focus everything on Iraq.
That if you could change Iraq, democratize Iraq, make it a model for all the Arab world that it was all going to spread and you would have a much more positive result. It looks like five years after we've started this, we really have a very negative result; the whole area is in flames.
The balances, the equations, as you pointed out, between the Sunni and the Shia have shifted. We're seeing more turmoil here than we've seen in decades.
CONAN: Senator Mitchell, you want to try that first?
Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I think much of what was stated in the question is plainly correct. There's a column in today's New York Times by Paul Krugman, which quotes some of the statements made by administration officials leading into the war in Iraq, and of course almost all of them have proven to be untrue. And one of them was that this was the sort of way to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, to enhance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, by invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein.
I think that you have a policy that may have had some sound objectives but unfortunately has been plagued by a series of errors in judgment and mistaken assumptions. And the result is of course things are much worse than they've been not just in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian process, but throughout the entire region.
CONAN: Richard Haass?
Mr. HAASS: It sounds a little bit like piling on, so I won't add to the critiques of Iraq. I've called it an ill-advised war of choice. I don't see any reason to change that. And I also think the administration continues to make a mistake by not having a broad, unconditional dialogue with Iran.
But I think in the current context with the problems Israel is facing in both Lebanon and Gaza, I don't think one should be pointing fingers at the administration so much is at Hezbollah and at Hamas. What we're seeing is Israel six years ago and then more recently took dramatic decisions to unilaterally vacate occupied territory.
And in both cases then, this territory has been used as a base from which to attack Israel. And this is bad in and of itself. But also, just imagine the consequences this will have on future political debates within Israel when it comes to the question of vacating the West Bank.
So here, both in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, you see Arab actors taking actions, which I believe are extremely damaging to the prospects of the Palestinians.
CONAN: Just to wind up with you two. There are opportunities as well as difficulties presented by the situation. George Mitchell, do you think that this is an opportunity for - to negotiate something that we were talking about earlier in the program about, about the possibility of a more comprehensive settlement emerging as everybody looks at the dangers involved in this crisis and what might happen unless there is a resolution at this point.
Mr. MITCHELL: Yes. I believe that within every crisis of this type comes both a challenge and an opportunity, and it will be up to the administration to seize the opportunity. I do believe that the United States government is the only entity on earth, government or non government, that has the capacity to create a framework to bring about a resolution of the conflict there.
And the relative absence of a U.S. focus in recent years has led to the circumstance that now exists. Although obviously, as Richard points out, the bad acts are being conducted by bad actors. But I don't think that we can afford another several years of that generally benign neglect in the region, because it's just too important, too volatile, and it easily could spiral out of control in ways that have profound adverse effects.
The price of oil, the rise in the price of oil, means that the value of what's left beneath the ground increases as well. And that's a major consideration. Iran is not moving south just to gain influence over miles of desert sands. What they're interested in is, of course, the resources that lie beneath those desert sands and beneath the Persian Gulf. And we have pursued a policy that has completely - the administration has completely disregarded the overarching issues in the region for more immediate political and, as it turns out, really profoundly mistaken policies.
So I think there is an opportunity. I think it can be seized. I hope the administration will do so. I'm encouraged by the fact that the secretary of state is going, but it will take a tremendous amount of patience and perseverance, which has not yet been on display.
CONAN: Yeah, I was going to ask you also about that, Richard Haass, because clearly the United States has a number of things on the fire as well; not only the negotiations with Iran and North Korea, but the situation in Iraq as well.
Mr. HAASS: Oh, it's hard to imagine a time when the United States had more things at play at the same time. Somewhat shamelessly, I feel the need to say yes, there's an opportunity in all this, and so about a year ago I published a book called, The Opportunity. But that said, it's hard to see a lot of silver linings here unless some significant policies are changed rather fundamentally.
For example, it's not enough just to push Hezbollah back. What we really need to see is a concerted effort to strengthen the forces of the government of Lebanon so they can be a sovereign state in fact and not simply in name. As Senator Mitchell suggested, we really do need to see a major change in our energy policy that would dramatically reduce American consumption and American dependence upon imported oil.
We should engage Iran broadly, comprehensively, unconditionally I would argue. I also think we need some sort of a political dialogue with Hamas. I would not equate the challenge we face, or Israel faces, from Hezbollah by the challenge posed by Hamas. I do think there's a political possibility with Hamas that has not yet been in any way explored.
So yes, there are opportunities here, but they will not present themselves in any way inevitably. They are going to have to be consciously cultivated by the United States.
CONAN: Richard Haass, thanks very much. We appreciate your time today.
Mr. HAASS: Thank you.
CONAN: Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was with us from the Council on Foreign Relation studios in New York City.
Senator Mitchell, thank you for joining us today.
Mr. MITCHELL: Thanks for having me.
CONAN: George Mitchell, former Democratic Senator from Maine, and a special adviser to President Clinton and the secretary of state for economic initiatives in Ireland, and he joined us from Maine, as he pointed out, today.
And also, Loren Jenkins was with us here in Studio 3A. Thanks very much Loren.
JENKINS: Thank you, Neal.
Copyright © 2006 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.