The month-long conflict between Israel and Lebanon finally came to a standstill on August 14. Israel has decided to accept the UN resolution and cease military action against Lebanon. The United States has undoubtedly played a key role in the cease-fire. However, the United States had many things to consider before stepping in to stop the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

In the aftermath of the outbreak of conflict, the United States repeatedly rejected appeals from the international community and turned a blind eye to Israel's military action against Hezbollah. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed those appeals, saying that it was not yet time for a cease-fire because a transient cease-fire would be meaningless. Public opinion generally supported the idea that the US was behind the Israeli attack, using them to strike at Hezbollah. The Israeli attack had the power to frighten Iran and Syria and even change the political structure in Lebanon. By supporting pro-Western forces in Lebanon, the United States brings Lebanon into its program to develop democracy in the Middle East. However, as the war advanced, the US lost confidence in the decision-making and command ability of the Israeli military and political leaders. A senior US official went so far as to say that Israel's military and strategic goals were vague and their tactics confusing. Instead of damaging Hezbollah, Israel attacks resulted in significant civilian casualties which had long-reaching affects, damaging the United States' international image. If conflict resumes, Israel will inevitably fall into the quagmire of war, and the national and strategic interests of the United States will also be damaged. Ultimately, the US got involved in the Israel-Lebanon conflict after reconsidering its position.

At the beginning of the conflict, US President George W. Bush established a bottom line �C Israeli military action must not weaken the government of Lebanon. The United States regards the pro-Western Lebanese government as another potential strategic resource in the Middle East, as well as an important pawn in constructing a framework for a ��new' Middle East. However, it was not long before the United States realized that Israel was incapable of completely defeating Hezbollah. On the contrary, it has provided Hezbollah with an opportunity to enhance its reputation and increase its support base. The Lebanese government has been weakened. Obviously, there was always a high possibility that the Israel-Lebanon conflict would depart from the track the US had planned for it.

The United States has always been partial to Israel in the conflict, which has brought censure from European countries, especially France. French President Jacques Chirac criticized the United States for its "passive attitude" in the conflict. He even threatened to submit an independent draft to the UN Security Council if France and the United States could not reach an agreement on the drafting of the UN resolution. France has a traditional interest and influence in Lebanon. The United States needs France to resolve the Israel-Lebanon conflict and needs European countries to be involved in mediation between Iran and Iraq. It is not in the interests of the United States to offend European countries for the sake of Israel alone.

The moment of the showdown on the Iranian nuclear issue is approaching. According to UN Resolution 1696, Iran must suspend all uranium enrichment activities by August 31. On August 15th, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would reject UN Resolution 1696 and the Iranian people would not accept this kind of "threatening language". The United States and Iran have begun a new round of competition. The United States must withdraw from Lebanon so as to concentrate on Iran.

Source: Worker's Daily, translated by People's Daily Online