How the Lebanon Crisis Complicates U.S. Prospects in Iraq

But if U.S. congressional leaders have learned not to expect quick fixes in Iraq, many were shocked that Maliki, in the course of a visit to Washington seeking greater assistance, publicly broke with the Administration's position on Lebanon. Maliki, addressing the media, was very clear that he blamed the crisis on "Israeli aggression," and he declined to criticize Hizballah.

Maliki's stance highlighted a major problem facing the Bush Administration's Middle East crisis: The U.S. has viewed Israel's fight with Hizballah as an opportunity to rally Arab support against growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. But it is not even able to rally the support of Iraq, an Arab government dependent for its security on U.S. troops.
Iraq is still in the state of war with Israel and from formal point of view could send its troops to Lebanon. At least Iraqi government could send weapons to Hezbollah. Btw, even a moral support to Hezbollah could soften relations between Iraqi government and the insurgents.

As for the question in the title of this thread then American positions in Iraq are so bad that even Lebanese war cann't make them worse.

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads