Iran and Syria are the key to influencing Hizbullah, writes Paul Cullen
Despite the gloom, a consensus is emerging on the elements of a diplomatic initiative to resolve the current crisis.
Any solution will have to include: a comprehensive ceasefire; the extension of the Lebanese government's authority to southern Lebanon; an effective international force to help the Lebanese keep the peace; some form of demarcation group to deal with border disputes; economic funding for the rebuilding of Lebanon; a resolution of prisoner issues; and implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for the disbanding and disarming of all militias in the country.
For Israel to agree to a ceasefire, it will first have to be convinced that its military objectives have been largely achieved.
That means knocking out most of Hizbullah's 13,000 rockets, destroying its command centres and killing as many of its leaders and foot soldiers as possible. But the Israelis will also seek to neutralise the danger to its northern border by creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
The critical question is who would - and could - keep the peace in this area. The Israelis might hang about for a while but to do so in the long term would only leave their forces open to further guerrilla attack. Many would like to see the Lebanese army do the job but this isn't a runner without Hizbullah agreement, which seems unlikely.
Asking Shia soldiers in the Lebanese army to take on their brethren in Hizbullah is a recipe for another civil war.
So some form of international force will be required to monitor and possibly enforce a ceasefire. But who would be acceptable, who would be willing to serve and what mandate would they be given?
The experience of Unifil, which was a monitoring force only, shows the risks of limited intervention in such a troubled region. What is called for now are soldiers with peace-enforcing powers, who might also be deployed on the border with Syria in order to stem the arms flow to Hizbullah.
On its own, an international force would end up being viewed as an occupier, pace the British army in Northern Ireland. Instead of keeping the peace, it could end up doing the Israelis' fighting for them, with as little likelihood of success. It's a point to ponder for those calling for Ireland to take part in such a force.
And while Hizbullah will agree to a ceasefire to stop the suffering of its people, what about the other elements of a deal? Why should it give up control of southern Lebanon? What is to stop it immediately rearming? These questions point to the need for a wider diplomatic solution.
The key to influencing Hizbullah lies with its financial and military backers, Syria and Iran. They have just seen large stockpiles of military ordnance they supplied to Hizbullah go up in smoke in a relatively unplanned way.
Many analysts believe the reason Iran armed Hizbullah so generously was to create a messy second front for the Israelis and/or Americans in the event of attacks on its nuclear installations. Now it must decide whether to reopen the arms pipeline to allow Hizbullah replenish its weaponry.
The problem is that the US is not talking to Iran and Syria, whom it regards as members of the "axis of evil" sponsoring terror worldwide. Dialogue with Iran, whose leader has said Israel must be "wiped off the map", is seen as a waste of time. Syria is at loggerheads with the West over its alleged role in the murder in 2004 of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, while Iran's nuclear programme is seen as a front for making a bomb.
Europe could play a role here by reaching out to Syria and Iran but it isn't clear what it can offer in return for engagement beyond recognition for Iran's status as a regional power. Syria in particular, whose secular leadership must feel increasingly surrounded by fundamentalist neighbours and militias, could be receptive to contacts.
At least the US is engaging more in the Middle East than hitherto.
Implicit in secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's shuttle diplomacy in recent weeks is recognition that there is at least a role for "jaw-jaw" in addition to "war-war". Even if it won't admit it, the US administration realises the situation in Iraq is on a knife-edge. Rice's task in Lebanon is to deliver peace with protection by implementing a ceasefire at the same time as seeing that an international force is sent in to beef up the Lebanese army.
Hopefully, she won't forget what all Arabs see as the root of the problem, Israel's occupation of Palestine. This is where, as Tony Blair said in 2003, "the poison is incubated" and terrorism gains its impetus.
The Middle East has seen many wars but it is salutary to remember that it has also seen many ceasefires and periods of peace.