Overextended U.S. Weighs Its Options in the Mideast

The Bush administration, having overlooked warnings to pay closer attention to the worsening situation in the Middle East, is suddenly confronting a dramatic flare-up of fighting that threatens not only to swamp Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts but also to inflame the entire region.

The administration has stood mostly on the sidelines and stuck with its policy of watching from a distance as Israel battled Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip in recent weeks.

But with the eruption of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, that approach no longer appears to be workable for the White House -- if it ever was.

The emergency comes at a time when the administration is overstretched on every diplomatic front, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It also threatens to draw in other dangerous adversaries, such as Syria, and could further destabilize Lebanon and sharpen conflicts with Syria over its Iraq border.

Critics at home and abroad have prodded the administration to engage more deeply, and officials now are grappling with their options.

“The worsening conflict in the Middle East is a blatant reflection of the weakness of the American partner,” Yossi Beilin, a legislator and former Israeli Cabinet member, wrote this month in the Haaretz newspaper.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers Wednesday by Hezbollah militants triggered an Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon, starting what could become a two-front war. Faced with that prospect, U.S. officials have to worry about spillover effects that could begin almost immediately, especially if Israel escalates its use of force.

For more than a year, U.S. officials have pointed to what they see as signs that Lebanon could be moving away from Syrian control toward greater autonomy and stability. But the new fighting underscores the weakness of the Lebanese government, and it could lead to a strengthening of Syria’s influence.

If Israel strikes Syrian locations in an effort to target Hezbollah militants, Damascus could retaliate by allowing a greater flow of militants across its border into Iraq. U.S. officials have recently praised Syria for exerting firmer control over its eastern desert region, but the long border could again become a major headache for U.S. forces in western Iraq.

And Hezbollah’s longtime supporter, Iran, which is facing growing international pressure over its nuclear ambitions, may see the new confrontation as a way to remind Washington of Tehran’s power to strike back at U.S. interests and allies.

Already, the fighting in Gaza has reduced chances that Israelis will proceed with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan for a partial withdrawal of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, a plan President Bush appears to favor, at least in principle.

But the fighting in Lebanon “has taken what was a standoff with Hamas and turned it into a regional crisis,” said Nathan Brown, a specialist on Arab politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Considering the difficulties Washington faces from Iran, North Korea and Iraq, “it could not have come at a more difficult time,” Brown said.

U.S. officials said they were participating in efforts to resolve the Mideast crisis, which began last month with Hamas’ capture of an Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit. They said they were working closely with Egyptian officials and others to try to bring about the soldier’s release, and were pushing the Israelis to keep the fighting in Gaza from leading to a humanitarian disaster.

On Wednesday, the White House condemned Hezbollah’s attack, called for the release of the two Israeli soldiers it had captured, and extended blame to Syria and Iran.

But critics argue that the administration has failed to use U.S. resources and leverage. For instance, U.S. officials should have been working harder to bolster Palestinians who favor peace at a time when radicals have been racing to gain the upper hand in the territories, some said.

“This has been a race between the crazies and those who wanted to end the crisis, and the [United States] has been asleep at the switch,” said Stephen Cohen of the Israel Policy Forum, an American advocacy group.

“This is a dangerous situation because it’s not a time of quiescence; it’s a time when the radicals are on the move.”

Dennis B. Ross, who worked on Mideast initiatives under the administrations of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, said the United States “has pretty much been sitting on the sidelines” and could have done more.

“The point is basically, we really are, I think, preoccupied elsewhere. We’re preoccupied in Iraq, we’re obviously preoccupied with Iran, and now we’re concerned about North Korea,” said Ross, who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “And in the middle of it all, we have a crisis in the Middle East that we’re just not engaged with.”

Bush prefers to give Israel wide latitude to deal with security threats, believing the White House should help from the sidelines rather than try to impose its leadership on reluctant principals.

The administration has pressured the Israelis only on one issue: to refrain from causing wide suffering among Palestinian civilians. The Israeli government, which would rather handle the crisis by itself, has not sought a bigger American role. Neither have the Palestinians, who generally look to the Europeans as a better source of support and humanitarian aid.

The White House has been urged to step up its involvement by officials of some neighboring Arab governments, Europeans and critics at home.

Yet analysts and some foreign diplomats say they fear the Americans hold a weak hand in trying to influence Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

U.S. officials haven’t had contact with Hezbollah officials in the Lebanese government because the United States bars ties with members of a group it considers a terrorist organization.

“If we want to do anything diplomatically, it’s not going to be easy,” said Brown of the Carnegie Endowment.