The Economist: Nasrallah won.

It's not just the Economist. It seems everyone is on the Hizbullah bandwagon. I think it is far to early to declare a winner in this conflict for two reasons:

1. This conflict may burst open again at any moment, especially if people keep looking to the French to help in any situation under any circumstance.
2. This war is about the future, not the present, and only the future will tell who won.

I will grant that I haven't read The Economist article yet... just got it in the mail, and I will update this post if it goes contrary to the headline, however... The reason Israel invaded Lebanon was not because two soldiers were taken hostage, it was an attempt to cripple the Iranian vanguard of foreign policy in the middle East.

This war was an attempt to remove or limit to functionality of Hizbullah as a thorn in the side of anyone who would limit the hegemony of Iran, and to limit the ability of Iran to dissuade seriousness in the attempt to stop a militant theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons. With that in mind, it is next to impossible to determine who has won this engagement.

The true battle is taking place right now in the debate and effort to disarm Hizbullah. If the attempt fails, Nasrallah and Iran have won, if it succeeds, Israel and the non-dark age world has won.

Many talking heads assert that the political capital won by Nasrallah has shown Hizbullah to be the winner of the confrontation, but to my mind, a swing toward Nasrallah is only valuable to him if the overall power-pie increases within the Iran/anti-Israeli block. If Iran loses Hizbullah as an effective tool, a swing toward Nasrallah has hurt Iran and the Arabs.

For a more nuanced view from the Iranian perspective, look at this Debka article.

//