http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=273067

Geopolitical Diary: Flashpoints In a Cease-Fire
August 21, 2006 09 48  GMT

The uneasy cease-fire in the Middle East held on Sunday, despite more tremors below the surface. There were several important developments over the weekend -- most particularly an Israeli military operation on Saturday in the Bekaa region, which the Israel Defense Forces said was meant to disrupt moves by Iran and Syria to disarm Hezbollah. The raid drew a warning from senior U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, who said the truce could collapse if Resolution 1701 is violated again.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that limited Israeli military actions are likely to trigger a return to full-scale hostilities at this time. Rather, it is the diplomatic effort to field and find a leader for a peacekeeping force that perhaps poses the gravest risk to the truce.

There was some movement here as well during on Sunday: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert nixed the idea of countries that don't have diplomatic relations with Israel providing troops. And he suggested that Italy should lead the U.N. force (once it has been fielded), after a phone call with Prime Minister Romano Prodi.

Israel has reserved the right to continue carrying out operations against Hezbollah until the Lebanese military and the international force have been deployed - in order, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev suggested, to keep Syrian and Iran from supplying weapons to Hezbollah. Speaking on Saturday, Regev said that such actions by Israel would "become superfluous" once the Lebanese and international peacekeeping force becomes operational.

But significant questions about that force itself persist. Exactly which countries will be committing troops to the mission -- and how many -- remains a contentious issue. None of the G-8 states, barring France and Italy, will be participating. Moreover, each of the countries that so far has expressed a willingness to contribute forces has made it clear that it will not move to disarm Hezbollah -- saying that is the responsibility of the Lebanese government. And the Lebanese government has made it clear it will not be disarming Hezbollah either.

Which is not to say that there are no signs of tension between Beirut and Hezbollah. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr on Sunday warned Hezbollah against breaking the cease-fire. He also said the army would act decisively to punish those who violate the truce. (On Saturday, he had urged the United Nations to address the issue of Israel's operation in Bekaa -- threatening to halt deployment of Lebanese forces to the southern region if Beirut was not given "clear answers" about the situation. The Lebanese deployment became, at least briefly, a political football.)

Ultimately, it remains unclear when an international force might be deployed -- and so long as that uncertainty persists, the possibility of Israeli operations and the uneasy relationship between Beirut and Hezbollah during the transitional period will remain as points of danger. Certainly, as some have argued, it is plausible that Israeli movements could collapse the truce, but this is just one aspect of a chicken-and-egg dilemma. A delay in the deployment of the international force and the ambiguity of the Lebanese military's role are, in our view, the more lethal issues.