More important, what have we learned in recent years? One, Israel's occupations of the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon are unsustainable. And two, Lebanon and the Palestinians don't have their act together enough yet to control border areas when Israel leaves -- either by agreement (Oslo) or by just unilaterally withdrawing and throwing the keys over the fence. As a result, the peace process has not been "land for peace," but "land for war." When Israel pulls out of Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank and wants quiet, it needs a reliable structure of authority on the other side, which, right now, neither Lebanon nor the Palestinians alone can provide. The U.N./European force evolving in Lebanon may offer a new model. It's not "land for peace," or "land for war," but what I'd call "land for NATO." Israel withdraws and the border is secured by a force that is U.N. on the outside but NATO on the inside.
 
"The fact that it has a heavy European/NATO component makes it credible to Israel, and the fact that it has a U.N. umbrella makes it acceptable to the Arab world," said the U.N. under secretary Shashi Tharoor, the dynamic Indian diplomat who is a finalist to succeed Kofi Annan as secretary general and who deserves U.S. endorsement. The Europeans have to understand "that something very big is at stake in this force," said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. They have to prove that demilitarization in south Lebanon can give Israel security and Lebanon both sovereignty and an effective international partner to maintain order. If that happens, he added, "it could revive the chances for an eventual Palestinian-Israeli deal on the West Bank and Gaza." Yes, it's a long shot, but maybe something good can actually come out of this good-for-nothing Lebanon war.

Several weeks ago, a gloomy conversation took place between an Israeli visitor and American staffer at the office of a veteran and hawkish senator. "What about Iran?" "Iran is a very serious problem. We cannot allow it to have nuclear weapons." "And do you think real sanctions will be imposed against it?" "Maybe. The possibility exists."
   
"And would they help?" "I don't believe so." "Would America attack?" "I don't think so. The chances are slim."
   
There you have it, on one foot - the entire canon of the Iranian crisis:
   
the threat, the means of pressure, the predicted outcome. Not a single American analyst would be unable to explain the enormous danger to the region and entire world that is posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms. Nevertheless, the American explanation sounds different than the Israeli explanation; it is cold, calculated and remote. And devoid of any sense of existential fear.
   
If it is difficult to imagine the United States using force against Iran, herein lies the reason. Although it has no interest in seeing an Iranian finger on the button that controls a nuclear device, and it comprehends and has processed the difficulties and complications stemming from such a situation - it would be hard to find anyone in America who wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, and who harbors the fear that America might be destroyed sometime soon.
   
Evidently, there is an unbridgeable gap between the Israeli and American attitude to the Iranian threat. About six months ago, in an interview with this writer in Haaretz, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described the disparity by citing a line by the Czech writer Milan Kundera. "A small nation can disappear, and it knows it." He expressed himself similarly with regard to former president Bill Clinton in the days of Oslo, and about his promise to Israel, that "it would take risks, and we would support."
   
This is the abyss that cannot be bridged between the consciousness of an American president and that of an Israeli leader: there are risks that a superpower like America can take, but which for a state like Israel are much more complex. There are situations that an American president is unable to imagine, but are practically the daily bread of an Israeli leader, the product of a familiar and painful history. The moment is growing close, it seems, at which the U.S. leaders are likely to reach that certain point in their attitude to Iran - the moment at which the president's "we will by no means permit" will turn into a traditional capitulation in the form of "the Security Council has again proven that it is incapable of doing anything." (...)
   
Four months ago, the cover of the weekly National Journal featured a skull adorned with the same spikes that grace the Statue of Liberty. "If Iran got the bomb: Could Washington coexist with Tehran if the mullahs got nukes?" ran the headline. The lengthy article offered a hesitant "yes" in response. Suitable deterrents, said the article, could prevent Iran from going wild. America can evidently learn to live with it. It would most certainly not be destroyed. Could Israel draw the same lesson?
   
This is the beginning of a discussion that will gain momentum as it becomes increasingly clear that the campaign to force Iran's hand is ineffective. The debate will weigh possible pros and cons, and consider the line of political credit of the current president. Therefore, the date is also drawing near on which any country that feels threatened will have to weigh its own pros and cons. Each sovereign state will have to tabulate its own account, every nation and its leaders. It makes sense to prepare for that day - operationally, yes, but also, and to no lesser degree, mentally. Because the moment could come when the interests of the American mammoth are no longer those of the Israeli fly that sits on its back. And if and when that day comes, it will be very frightening.

Some say, Israel attacked Lebanon in June so that Hezbollah would be weaker, when the day comes that the Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear sites. It is save to assume that Iran would respond to such an attack in various ways. One of them would be to let Hezbollah hit at Israel's northern border. Now we got European troops at Israel's northern border...Iran can easily arm Hezbollah again...European troops are in the middle of this Israel-Hezbollah-Iran conflict.

MY QUESTION:     Are you concerned that UNIFIL will result in mission creep for Europe?
                                Are we right now stumbeling into an upcoming Iranian-Israeli war?

Or have their already been diaries about this that I missed and did not find via google? 
Migeru mentioned that France stationed anti-aircraft missiles in Lebanon. I don't think they are meant to hit Israeli planes, but Iranian planes. Perhaps the France is preparing for the worst case, i.e. getting involved in an Iranian (and Syrian?)-Israeli war. Or to shoot down some Saudi fighter plane, whose pilots are more loyal to some terrorist groups than their government, and could fly away with one of sophisticated US bombers. As always, I don't know anything, and would appreciate your input.

And please continue the debate in my other diary about the best way is to reduce terrorist attacks in Europe. I would appreciate your suggestions in that thread.