The latest Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, which focusses on the relationship between Iran and Syria, sugests that the current situation in Lebanon makes Bashar al-Assad’s position vis-a-vis a regional Sh’ite/Sunni split more difficult:

Experts say the leaders of several Sunni countries in the region are worried about the rising influence of Shiite Iran. “A regional war is a losing proposition for them,” Hokayem says. “Who’s going to be the anti-Israel, anti-United States champion? It’s going to be Iran, not them.” Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—all Sunni nations—took the unusual step of criticizing Hezbollah at a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers July 15.

However, cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, an Iraqi Shiite leader, has spoken out in support of Hezbollah. Many regional leaders fear a full-fledged sectarian war in Iraq could spark
a similar conflict across the region, which could pose a quandary for Assad’s secular regime. “If there was a regional military war between Sunnis and Shias, the Syrians will be hard-pressed” to choose sides, Hokayem says.

If anything, the continuing conflict has strengthened Assad’s position both domestically and among the more radical Arab public due to his past and continuing support of Hizbollah. The current strain of thought that is emerging is that Syria may move closer to the West if the right signals are sent, both by the US and its Arab allies in the current conflict, but that’s doubtful considering the current upswing Assad is riding. As long as Hizbollah remains popular and embroiled in conflict, Assad will remain popular. While his relationship to Tehran has dragged him unwittingly into the current situation, he is reaping dividends by appearing tougher on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than the regional Sunni powers. Syria may be a lackey of Iran, but that relationship is currently opening up tremendous regional opportunities for Assad’s regime and proving a massive public relations win.

Via the Wall Street Journal Online:

Lebanon’s army, which so far has sat on the sidelines of the violence raging in the country, will join the fight against Israel if Israeli forces invade the country, Defense Minister Elias Murr said on Al-Jazeera television. “The Lebanese army — and I stress — the Lebanese army will resist and defend and will prove that it is an army that deserves respect,” he said. In most of the previous Israeli attacks, including in 1978 and the 1982 invasion in which Beirut was occupied, the Lebanese army largely stayed out of the fighting. Twenty Lebanese soldiers have been killed in strikes on their bases during the nine-day-old Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.

It’s probably somewhat important to note that Elias Murr is the son-in-law of Lebanese president, and Syrian lackey, Emile Lahoud. With Hizbollah holding nearly a fourth of the Lebanese parliament and two seats in the cabinet (energy and foreign ministires), and with Damascus-leaning Murr at defense, the Lebanese army entering on behalf of Hizbollah does not look like an impossible scenario. The possibility is only multiplied when the continued destruction of the Lebanese infastructure is taken into account. Israeli targeting of civilain-heavy areas is meant to disable the transportation networks Hizbollah could utilize to either move the two Israeli soldiers out of the country, or receive logistical support from Iran via Syria. While that goal is most likely attained, the unforuntate side effect is massive popular unrest among Lebanese citizens aimed at Israel, not Hizbollah. All the factors are adding up to a possible escalation with the unexpected entry of the Lebanese army on behalf of Hizbollah, and with popular Lebanese support.