Actions speak softer than words

The New York Times has a very informative article on Hezbollah, the Shiite parastate that runs southern and eastern Lebanon. Unfortunately, the title of the long article (all that most people are likely to read) makes the baseless claim that "Hezbollah Becomes Potent Anti-US Force". Nothing in the article backs up that claim, let alone anything in reality. Sure they don't like the US, but to say that it is "more menacing than al-Qaeda" is preposterous. The US is actively at war with al-Qaeda, who has attacked with such deadly efficiency that they caused mass death in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon! For crying out loud, you don't get much more menacing than that!

The NYTimes article is fine on the facts, but draws no logical geopolitical conclusions from the facts. "Hezbollah's incessant oratory about destroying Israel reflects more psychological warfare than the reality along Lebanon's southern border. Only periodic, carefully scripted attacks have occurred since Israel withdrew its military from southern Lebanon in May 2000 after 22 years there. Hezbollah, whose reputation soared with the Israeli withdrawal, launches small Katyusha rockets every few months against the disputed Shabaa Farms area in what analysts call a means of maintaining its resistance credentials." Basically, Hezbollah won its battle - forcing Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon. Now they maintain the fiery rhetoric, but their actions are confined to hucking a rocket or two across the border, and occasionally taking revenge on Israel - assassination for assassination.

The article is correct in saying that Hezbollah is very strong. It is. But, unlike al-Qaeda, it has a lot to lose by angering the West, and it has gone to lengths to establish links with the EU, and I believe wants to cement its role as a regional actor rather than go down in a blaze of glory. The sensationalist title slapped on an otherwise excellent article should be an embaressment to the Times' international editor.