AS ISRAELI FORCES POUND LEBANON with a vengeance, it becomes more obvious that Israel's military strategy is not merely a rescue operation or a punitive lesson. It is moving toward a more far-reaching exercise in preemption, aimed squarely at Hezbollah and its sponsor, Iran. There is increasing evidence that Israel is also trying to improve its position in the event that it decides -- weeks, months or years from now -- to try to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.
If you think that's a stretch, imagine for a moment that you are an Israeli military strategist. Just when it appeared that the Hamas government in Gaza was foundering (good) and that Gazans might actually be asked to vote on whether to accept a two-state solution (even better), Hamas changes the subject by attacking Israeli territory and capturing an Israeli soldier. A mini-war ensues, and the referendum is off the agenda (major setback). Next, Hezbollah crosses your border, stages attacks and kidnaps two Israeli soldiers, and when you retaliate, it rains missiles down on Haifa and other Israeli cities. Clearly, you did not expect this. But is it disastrous?
Not necessarily. Israel has long been unhappy with Hezbollah's continuing domination of southern Lebanon, its refusal to disarm (in defiance of the United Nations) and its legitimization as a major force in the Lebanese parliament. Now Hezbollah has handed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government the justification to do what it has long wanted to do: Destroy Hezbollah's offensive capabilities and exert pressure on Beirut and the international community to put an end to the group's de facto control of southern Lebanon.
This would all be desirable for Israel under any set of circumstances. But in light of a possible strike against Iran, taking care of Hezbollah is an urgent, strategic imperative. This helps explain the disproportionate scale of the Israeli response. Yes, Israeli troops entered southern Lebanon in search of tunnels and weapons. But Israeli forces also have struck the Beirut airport and apartment buildings in that city and have attacked army barracks in Tripoli and east of Beirut, fuel tanks in Beirut's port, and a truck carrying medical supplies from Damascus to Beirut's suburbs. Israel knows such attacks will inflict major civilian casualties and trigger an international outcry.
Why would Israel widen the war so far? Why risk international outrage just when several Arab states had summoned the courage to denounce Hezbollah for starting the war?