US: The White House is blaming the crisis on Iran and Syria, writes Denis Staunton in Washington.
Any confusion surrounding the Bush administration's approach to the current crisis in the Middle East disappeared yesterday when president George Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice articulated a clear policy of support for Israel and a rejection of Lebanon's call for a ceasefire.
Washington has expressed concern to Israel about civilian casualties and about the impact of the Israeli bombardment on Lebanon's fragile democracy, but most contacts have been at the level of officials.
The president has spoken in recent days to the leaders of Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan but by yesterday, Mr Bush had not spoken to Israel premier Ehud Olmert since the crisis began.
As a matter of policy, Washington does not speak to Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria or Iran, leaving Israel as the only actor in the current conflict over which it has direct influence. Mr Olmert can reasonably interpret the US president's silence as an expression of approval for Israel's action.
Mr Bush made clear yesterday that the US supports Israel's aim of militarily neutralising Hizbullah, which he described as the root of the problem. Dr Rice went further, arguing that a ceasefire would be worthless without the military defeat of Hizbullah.
"Of course, we want violence to end. But I can tell you right now if violence ends on the basis of somehow Hizbullah or Hamas continuing to hold in their hands the capabilities anytime they wish to start launching rockets again into Israel . . . if violence ends on the basis of Syria and Iran being able to turn on the key again anytime, we will have achieved very, very little, indeed, and we will be right back here, perhaps in a worse circumstance because the terrorists will assume that nobody is willing to take on what has been a very clear assault now on the progress that is being made by moderate forces in the Middle East," she said.
The Bush administration has sought to blame the violence on Syria and Iran, which it believes are using sub-state actors such as Hizbullah and Hamas to launch an attack on US and Israeli power in the region.
Some of the president's supporters on the right claim that Mr Bush has emboldened Damascus and Tehran by failing to take a tougher line until now, and Bill Kristol argued in the neo-conservative Weekly Standard this week that renewed US strength is the proper response now.
"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
"Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions - and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement," he wrote.
Democrats blame the war in Iraq for distracting the administration from other foreign policy objectives and undermining US influence in the Middle East.
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright yesterday criticised the administration's lack of engagement in the current crisis and urged Dr Rice to go to the region immediately.
"I'm very worried that we're at a crossroads and we're not going to take the right turn here. I still do think that we actually need to be more involved. And I wish that the secretary had announced that she was leaving," she said.
Washington's concern for the stability of the Fouad Siniora's government in Lebanon is real, not least because it represents perhaps the only achievement of Mr Bush's drive to bring democracy to the Middle East.
US officials know too that Hizbullah's civilian wing is likely to step into the vacuum created by a collapse of the Lebanese state, providing social services to Muslims and Christians alike and improving its own political standing.
Conservative commentator Tony Blankley this weekend compared the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in Gaza three weeks ago to the 1914 assassination in Sarajevo of Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, warning that there was a significant danger that the current crisis could trigger a regional war involving Syria, Iran, Israel and perhaps the US.
For now, the Bush administration is confident that, unless Israel attacks Syria or Iran, the conflict can be contained and could lead to a military defeat of Hizbullah and the containment of the regional ambitions of Tehran and Damascus.