Hezbollah's Dilemma

I have been meaning to post this article for a few weeks.  It covers a lot of ground, but provides a particularly good perspective on the dilemma facing Hezbollah as it manages its response to the uprising in Syria. 

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136709/mona-yacoubian/hezbollah-after-assad

To summarize, Hezbollah’s dilemma is as follows.  Aggressively supporting its critical ally would bring significant political costs.  Defending the Assad regime’s violent crackdown would align Hezbollah against the popular revolts across the Middle East, and would undermine their claim to the mantle of defending the oppressed and the weak. 

This is yet another strong reason in favor of more decisive action and leadership by the US to hasten Assad’s exit.  Focusing greater attention on regime violence would ratchet pressure on Syria and further threaten the regime’s existence.  This, in turn, would press Hezbollah further onto the horns of their dilemma.  The outcome may not prove decisive for Hezbollah, but if it emerges from this ordeal weakened (either politically or militarily), all the better for Lebanese and regional stability.  This would be a good outcome for US interests. 

Unfortunately, after yesterday’s suicide bombing in Damascus, Western governments’ already tepid enthusiasm for regime change in Syria may cool further.  Attribution of the attack will help determine how their diplomatic efforts evolve.  In the great tradition of the Middle East, each of the significant players in this drama has already detailed a conspiracy to cast blame on different perpetrators.  The Syrians blamed Al-Qaeda in order to frighten the West and the Arab League as to what awaits them in a post-Assad Syria, the Lebanese claim the Assad regime conducted the blast for the express purpose of blaming Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah blamed the US because that’s what they do.  I’ll be watching to see what the Israelis have to say.