Furrin Affairs

When the Secretary of State does things like visit Lebanon to express her not-so-subtly-veiled hope that Hezbollah will not win the elections, I’m not entirely sure that’s a good thing.  One does not have to wish for a Hezbollah victory to have some doubts about the real wisdom of our involving ourselves so heavily in the domestic politics of another country.  Especially one as uneasy, divided, and unstable as Lebanon, where it’s all too easy to imagine a breakdown in governmental authority turning the Army and Hezbollah on each other, or the Army fracturing along sectarian lines. When the US gives aid to Lebanon contingent on the continued political marginalization of Hezbollah, State views it as an incentive to the voters; the Lebanese government most likely views it as an incentive for rigging elections.  Hezbollah are not the kind of people who would take that lying down, so it’s very easy to imagine this type of policy leading to massively counterproductive results.
Stepping back a bit, heavy-handed intervention in politics abroad often can be a useful tool of state; really, no one’s afraid to do so when it concerns their vital national interests.  I’m just not sure what interest the US has in Lebanon and Hezbollah that does not involve the word “Israel”.  Hezbollah has little avowed interest in terrorizing the United States, and Lebanon is in no way a strategically important location to America (no oil or geostrategic significance).  On the other hand, Israel does have a pretty large stake in Hezbollah not winning the elections, the security of its northern border.  While Israel is our closest ally and we have many interests in common, I think meddling in Lebanese politics is really one of those situations where we’re doing the heavy lifting, and it’s unclear how we benefit.  Not to mention that the risk (even if small) of setting off a civil war in Lebanon does little to benefit Israeli security either.