From the New York Times:

The chief of United Nations peacekeeping forces, Alain Le Roy, has told the Security Council that a series of explosions in southern Lebanon on July 14 most likely came from an illegal Hezbollah arms cache. He gave a speech behind closed doors on Thursday, and reporters obtained copies on Friday. Mr. Le Roy, left, said there were “a number of indications” that the ordnance was Hezbollah’s, including reports from the Lebanese Army that the civilians who rioted to prevent United Nations peacekeepers from investigating were Hezbollah supporters. The cache included mortars, AK-47s, artillery shells and 122-millimeter rockets. Mr. Le Roy said the weapons were a “serious violation” of the Security Council resolution that ended the 34-day Israel-Lebanon war in 2006.

Hizballah has blamed the blast on a previously unexploded cluster bomb dropped by Israel in the 2006 War.

Meanwhile, alleged Hizballah militants are facing terrorism charges in Egypt. Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah admitted that one of those arrested was a Hizballah agent, but dismissed the charges stating that the whole operation was to smuggle weapons into Gaza and not to commit acts of terrorism.

The Lebanese government has charged 17 people in a plot to harm UN peacekeepers stationed in the southern part of the country. So far, ten people have been arrested and the other seven, including the groups alleged leader, were charged in absentia.

The group, reportedly made up of people from Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian origins, are alleged to be part of Fatah al-Islam, which is thought to be connected to al-Qaeda.

In 2007, Fatah al-Islam forces clashed with the Lebanese military in three months of fighting that left over 400 soldiers, insurgents, and civilians dead.

The LA Times reported that the group was using a billboard ad agency business as cover for spying on UN peacekeepers and the LAF.

The arrests come just days after an explosion in southern Lebanon, which is now under investigation by UNIFIL and the LAF.

Some charge that the explosion came from a Hizballah weapons storage warehouse. Hizballah maintains that the blast came from a previously unexploded cluster bomb dropped by the Israeli air force at the close of the 2006 War.

Earlier this week, there was a large  explosion in southern Lebanon about 10 km from the Israeli border. UNIFIL officials said that the blast was likely from a Hizballah weapons deposit and could constitute a breach of  UNSC resolution 1701 which ended the 2006 War between Hizballah and Israel.

This week marks the three year anniversary of the start of the war.

Hizballah agents were allegedly on scene before UNIFIL and LAF forces showed up. Israel claims that the explosion is evidence that Hizballah is rearming itself with help from Iran and Syria. Hizballah claims that the explosion was from one of the thousands of unexploded cluster bombs that Israel dropped on Lebanon as the war winded down.

The news of the explosion this week comes as Israel  is announcing successful preliminary test of its “Iron Dome” ballistic missile shield. The shield is designed to shoot down missiles and  rockets in the air.

During the 2006 War, Hizballah launched thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, exposing a key vulnerability in Israel’s defenses. The Iron Dome shield will initially be placed just outside Gaza to halt rocket attacks originating from the Palestinian territory.

If the shield is sufficiently effective, Hizballah will have to reevaluate its tactics for the future. This could possibly change the nature of the conflict with Israel to the point of escalation. In this event, Hizballah will have to become more and more sophisticated in its weaponry, which in turn will cause the group to become more dependent on Iran and Syria for its weapons.

At the moment, there is a fragile stability between the  Middle eastern states, and the last thing that this region needs is an arms race between Hizballah and Israel. However, between Israel’s ballistic missile shield and the explosion of an alleged Hizballah weapons depot, it is clear that these two sides at least are preparing for war.

This Sunday will mark the third anniversary of the start if the 2006 War between Israel and Lebanon, and it’s still unclear what was accomplished.

Lebanon suffered tremendous damages, both economically and in terms of lives lost. Israel didn’t suffer nearly the same damages, but the brief war tarnished the image of the IDF as an invincible fighting force and further eroded the moral high ground that Israel has tried to cling to since its founding.

The war between Israel and Hizballah broke out in mid-July 2006, but the seeds were planted many years earlier.

Hizballah was formed by Iran in 1982 to be the Shiite proxy resistance to Israel, which had invaded Lebanon that year. Hizballah and the IDF battled constantly over the years until Israel was finally expelled from Lebanon in 2000, but even after that they continued to clash in sporadic battles.

The two sides got to know each other very well and Hizballah became adept at kidnapping Israeli soldiers and exchanging them for captured Hizballah fighters. Sometimes Israel would exchange dozens of prisoners in return for a single IDF soldier. Since then, hundreds of prisoners held in Israel had been returned to Lebanon and the strategy seemed to be a success.

In the summer of 2006, however, this strategy went off course.

On June 25^th, Corporal Gilad Shalit of the IDF was taken prisoner by Hamas in a cross-border raid from Gaza. Hamas was apparently taking a page from the Hizballah operations manual, and they quickly demanded the release of hundreds of Hamas fighters that had been captured by Israel. The capture of Corporal Shalit put Israel on high alert and set the stage for an abrupt escalation in the event of another kidnapping.

Seventeen days later, on July 12, Hizballah entered Israel and seized two IDF soldiers of their own. The situation escalated quickly, and later that same day Israel launched a massive air assault on Lebanon. Targets were hit all over the country by the Israeli Air Force and Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s office was bombed in South Beirut.

In response, Hizballah started a relentless Katyusha rocket attack on Israel. Thousands of the rockets were launched into Israel from well-hid locations. Two days later, an Israeli war ship anchored off the coast of Lebanon was badly damaged when a C-802 Silkworm missile hit the vessel. Such a sophisticated missile strike was a surprise to everyone outside of Hizballah, and quickly the Israelis knew that they had underestimated their opponent.

Israel was not in a situation that it was comfortable with. It’s one thing for the IDF to be taking fire in other countries, but it’s entirely another when rockets are raining down inside Israel, hitting civilian areas with seemingly no way to stop it. For 34 days this kept up. The IDF kept bombing civilian and military targets in Lebanon and Hizballah rockets kept landing in Israel.

Many in the international community were outraged and demanded the United Nations Security Council call for an immediate cease-fire. The United States and United Kingdom stalled this process though, as each country had an interest in seeing Israel take apart Hizballah once and for all. However, once it became clear that Hizballah would not be so easily defeated, UNSC Resolution 1701 was passed resulting in a cessation of major fighting.

The war was brief but devastating for Lebanon. Over 1000 civilians were killed or wounded and thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed. An oil refinery situated on the coast was bombed resulting in a miles-wide oil slick. The airport was bombed and Lebanon’s infrastructure was severely damaged, including bridges and highways. Towards the end of fighting, Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon which made large areas uninhabitable for farmers and livestock. Lebanese officials put the damages to Lebanon’s infrastructure at about 3.5 billion dollars, and Lebanon’s GDP growth turned negative almost overnight.

For Israel, nearly two hundred citizens were killed, including 44 civilians. Hizballah rockets caused numerous forest fires in the northern part of the country. Israel also suffered billions of dollars of damages.

The war  had many implications in the greater region.

The exact relationship between Syria, Iran and Hizballah has always been speculated on, but after the 2006 War it became clear the trio was a force to be reckoned with. This is exemplified in the launching of the C-802 Silkworm missile. It is a relatively large surface-to-ship missile that likely originated in Iran and passed through Syria into Lebanon where it was finally used. It is also likely that Iranian intelligence operatives trained or instructed Hizballah fighters on how to use the weapon.

The 2006 War was Hizballah’s “coming out party” and it launched the group into world-wide notoriety. Never before had an Islamic resistance group been so successful against the IDF. Hizballah’s credibility was now unsurpassed in the Arab world. As a result, Iran and Syria also basked in the “victory” of their proxy, and a message was sent to Israel that it was not safe as long as it was aggressive towards Hizballah’s patrons.

Israel’s most immediate adversary, Hamas, was also affected. Hamas is a Sunni organization and for a long time it was thought that they would wouldn’t accept guidance from the Shia, but for the last ten years or so, Hizballah and IRGC officials have been operating in Gaza training Hamas fighters. The 2006 War cemented Hizballah’s track record of “success” against Israel and removed all doubt Hamas may have had in receiving tutelage from Shiite sources.  The end result is that Iranian influence has been extended to Gaza, Israel’s southern front.

It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Hizballah and Hamas launch concurrent assaults. Israel has a powerful, well funded, and state-of-the-art military, but it is not clear how well it would perform in a sustained war with two fronts.

If there were any benefits for the Israelis, it is that the war has left them with a quiet northern front.  After the war, Hassan Nasrallah said that if he knew how Israel was going to respond to the kidnapping of the two soldiers he would not have taken that course of action. Israel’s policy of “severe response” has led to a climate for Hizballah where they must carefully consider how they interact with their neighbor to the south. And now that they have become so invested in legitimate politics in Lebanon, any trouble brought on could have dire repercussions for them at the polls. The ebb and flow of hostile rhetoric between the two sides continues, but for now it seems as though they have reached a stalemate. Perhaps this is the best Israel could hope for.

This state of affairs is reinforced by the current climate of reconciliation in the Middle East aggressively sponsored by the Obama administration. Any act of war on either side could disrupt the complex and slow progress that is being made and would certainly be met with severe scrutiny from Washington. Hizballah understands this and has largely been quiet since Obama took office, especially since the June parliamentary elections. But Israel is also “at odds” with the Obama administration and it’s clear that anything done by Israel to disrupt the peace process in the region would be highly unwelcome.

Israel didn’t make any friends in Lebanon by bombing the whole country, but the point was clear: if we have to deal with Hizballah we will take it out on everyone in Lebanon. The goal may have been to make Hizballah unpopular by bringing such a destructive war into Lebanon, which was the case to a certain degree, but this course of action also galvanized the entire country against Israel. And Israel may be supremely unpopular in Lebanon, but for them at least Hizballah must think long and hard before attempting any more excursions into Israeli territory. For Israel, this may be enough.

This summer in Lebanon, things are very different. Much of the physical damage from the 2006 War has been repaired and the country has recovered economically. Beirut has been rebuilt and the tourist season, predicted to be one of the most bountiful in many years, will soon be in full swing. But just beneath the surface things are not so rosy. Israel and Hizballah continue their hostile posturing toward one another and, though seemingly unlikely, any small act of aggression between the two could escalate quickly; we’ve seen it happen. Each side needs to exercise extraordinary restraint in order to insure that this does not happen again, and the international community needs to apply whatever pressure it can to send a message that a repeat of 2006 would not be tolerated.

Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad are expected to meet Monday in Damascus to discuss regional affairs. The two nations are  rivals  in the Middle East and are often at odds with each other.

Last week Saudi Arabia sent two lower level envoys, including the King’s son Prince Abdul Aziz, to Syria with a short list of demands mostly concerning Lebanon and Palestine. The demands were for Syria not to aid the Palestinian resistance outside of the refugee camps; demarcation of the Lebanon-Syrian border especially concerning Sheba Farms; elimination of the Lebanese-Syrian Council; and for Syria to drop the demand for veto power in the Cabinet through its proxies in Lebanon.

Syria expressed a willingness to resolve the border issues with Lebanon, but rejected the other three items.

In the past Hizballah has demanded more control in the government. The situation turned violent in May 2008 when Hizballah forces stormed West Beirut in a show of force. The issue was temporarily resolved by the Doha Agreement, in which the Lebanese government agreed not to attempt to dismantle Hizballah’s communications system and also to leave one of their members in charge of the airport. In addition, Hizballah received veto power in the cabinet, but that part of the agreement expired with the election of a new government in June 2009.

It is expected that Hizballah will reinstate its demand for veto power in the new government. Many feel that, by extension, this would give Hizballah’s patrons (Iran and Syria) undue influence in Lebanese affairs.

Monday’s meeting between the heads of state of each country indicates larger changes afoot in the region. President Obama has made progress towards peace in the Middle East a high priority for his administration, and he is using almost everything at his disposal to further this agenda.

However, many problems in the Middle East are often complicated and overlapping, so addressing any single item often involves addressing several others at the same time. For example, most experts recognize that in order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, you must also involve, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran at various levels. It is likely that King Abdullah, a staunch ally of the United States, will have this in mind when he meets with  President Assad on Monday.

After a long period of hostility between the United States and the Middle East, there seems to be a region-wide thaw occurring. President Assad has invited President Obama to Damascus, a move which signals Syrian willingness to end years of isolation from the West. (If Obama took him up on the offer, he would be the first sitting president to visit Syira since Bill Clinton in 1994.) Last month, Lebanon elected a largely pro-Western government to power. And in Iran, at least before its recent election controversy, the government there seemed to be warming towards better relations with the US and its allies.

The current climate of reconciliation in the region with the West is thought to be largely because of Barak Obama’s “softer” approach to the Muslim world and his harder stances being taken on Israel, a nation that has been the wedge in West-Middle East relations for decades. Also helping the situation is that the United States is winding down its military involvement in Iraq.

In addition, the timing seems to be right for Syria:

“Hezbollah lost the election in Lebanon, Hamas is being subjected to unprecedented attrition and Iran is drowned in its internal crises…All the elements of strength they (Syrians) built  their foreign policy on are collapsing, so for certain they are going to reassess and look for alternatives, without abandoning their past.”

Within Lebanon, a Saudi-Syrian reconciliation could also be highly beneficial, as two of the biggest political factions there are backed be these countries.

Sunni Prime Minister of Lebanon Saad Hariri is thought to be very close with Riyadh, having billions of dollars of investments there.  In the weeks leading up to the June elections in Lebanon, it was reported that Saudi Arabia poured hundreds of millions of  dollars into Lebanon to secure votes for Hariri’s March 14 coalition.

Syria supports Hizballah and Amal in Lebanon, which make up a large part of the opposition.

With Saudi Arabia  and Syria so involved in Lebanon, when they are  at odds,  ofter their rivalry is played out on Lebanese soil though the parties that they influence. So the fact that they seem to be approaching normal relations is a good sign for Lebanese stability.

Just like the Palestinian example above, in order for there to be peace in Lebanon it is critical to engage the regional actors that have such great influence  in this tiny country, because often times peace is only at their discretion. It’s hard enough to maintain order among Lebanon’s dozens of religious sects and political parties  without the surrounding nations making trouble. Hopefully out of this current climate of reconciliation emerges something tangible, stable, and long lasting.