There is a great deal of information out there about the widening warfare in the Middle East.  So much, really, that I thought it would be helpful for myself and my readers if I culled through some of it and tried to create a summary accompanied by relevant links.  This post will mainly concentrate on the factors that ignited this raging conflict.

One of the lessons I remember from a collegiate history course is that events have both underlying and precipitating causes.  Such is the case with the crisis in the Middle East.  The underlying causes are complicated but can be summed up as follows.  The Middle East is undergoing a struggle between three groups:  1) those more moderate regimes in the region; 2) those regimes led by Islamic fundamentalists bent on restoring the Islamic Caliphate and launching a global Islamic revolution against Western Civilization; and 3) other murderous ideologues bent on establishing and exercising hegemony over the region.

The fundamentalist regimes and the ideologues share two things in common.  Hatred for Israel and hatred for the United States.  Despite their different worldviews, this mutual hatred binds them together.  Both the fundamentalist regimes and the tyrannical regimes are anti-Semitic and anti-democratic - which explains their hatred for Israel and the U.S.  Only by driving Israel and the United States out of the region can free both regimes to pursue their ideologies of hatred, totalitarianism and destruction.

The precipitating cause for the outbreak of violence is the June 25 abduction of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip by Hamas and the July 12 abduction of two more Israeli soldiers by Lebanese Hezbollah guerillas who infiltrated the border between Israel and Lebanon, prompting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to declare that Israel was in a state of war with Lebanon.  The leader of Hezbollah, Hasan Naserallah, declared that he intended to use the Israeli captives as bargaining chips for the release of three Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails.  Israel declared a refusal to negotiate, and rightly so.

On July 12, Israel began bombing Lebanon's airport and main roads.  Israeli attacks intensified into the morning and resulted in civilian deaths.  Later that day, Hezbollah began launching rockets at civilian targets in Israel.  The violence has since grown as Hezbollah has been consistently lobbing missiles into Israel and Israel has in turn been launching bombing attacks and troop incursions into southern Lebanon.

It is important to understand that the Hezbollah terrorist organization controls some posts within the Lebanese government, but not the major levers of power.  The official position of the Lebanese government was a denial of any foreknowledge of the Hezbollah incursion into Israel.  Of consequence, however, is that Hezbollah is the terrorist tool of Iran and Syria and has been used to foment violence against Israel and instability within post-Saddam Iraq.  Charles Krauthammer wrote an informative piece on the motivations and behavior of Israel's enemies, whose very actions confirm their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

Hugh Hewitt has an excellent post on the beginning of this war and its possible endgame in Syria.  Pay particular attention to Hugh's drawing of a parallel between this conflict and Abraham Lincoln's view regarding the possible outbreak of Civil War.  Interesting stuff.  

The conflict took a significant turn when it was discovered that a missile fired at an Israeli warship was launched by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  Make no mistake, Iran is joined at the hip with Syria in their efforts to bring the conflict in the region to a head.  Note in particular Ledeen's view that this conflict appears to have been planned for a long time.  The two regimes are so joined at the hip that fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that an Israeli attack on Syria would be viewed by Iran as an attack on the entire Islamic world. 

In the meantime, the United States appears to be taking the position of hanging back and allowing Israeli forces enough time to try and rout the Hezbollah organization.  International pressure will grow for the United States to pressure Israel to back down.  In my view, the United States needs to let Israel do whatever it must to cripple Hezbollah, including measures that severely weaken the hands of Hezbollah's partners -- Iran and Syria.  The international players are pretty much lining up as one would expect with the United States and Britain supporting Israel's right to defend itself and the western European nations demanding a cease-fire and throwing their sympathies toward Lebanon.

Keep in mind that until recently, Syria had almost absolute control over Lebanon.  Some commentators believe that Syria may have motivations to use this conflict to re-solidify its power in Lebanon, but there is disagreement over whether or not control over Lebanon is part of Syria's overall strategic objective.  Both Syria and Iran certainly want two things:  1) the United States to fail in Iraq and be forced out of the region; and 2) the subsequent destruction of Israel.  Hezbollah has already officially declared all-out open war with Israel.      

In summary, the disease within the region now begins and ends with Iran and Syria.  Only time will tell if the beginning of a long and arduous cure is underway.

"Today there is a strong will... to remove the Zionist regime and implement a legal Palestinian regime all over Palestine. The continued survival of this regime (Israel) means nothing but suffering for the region," he said.

Ahmademejad also issued a semi-veiled threat toward the West.

"Nations in the region will be more furious every day, and it will not be long before this intense fury will lead to a huge explosion," he said.

"The waves of fury of Muslim nations will not be confined within the boundaries of the region, and the people who close their ears to the cries of the Palestinians and blindly support this regime will be responsible for the consequences," Ahmadinejad warned.

It seems like the Iranian policy toward Iraq was borrowed directly from the Democratic Party.

On the main topic of Iraq, Iran said it would ask delegates to agree on a call for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

"The continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq and their inability to control the situation and their delaying of handing over the affairs to the Iraqis has caused damage such as the desecration of the holy sites, the abduction of Iraqi officials and foreign diplomats, as well as the martyrdom of Iranian pilgrims," Mottaki also told delegates.

"I think the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for there to be other nations around the table with us, so that when he looks out and he looks at the table, he looks at the world," Bush said in the Larry King interview.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council was set to possibly consider a resolution as early as Saturday -- but now appears willing to delay the vote until Monday at the earliest.

A new paragraph adds they would also be required to take steps to prevent the purchase of anything related to these programmes from Pyongyang and to stop any money transfers.

In typical fashion, both China and Russia are making noises that indicate that they may balk at supporting the resolution unless it is watered down to mean, you know, nothing.

The draft is backed by the US and the UK, but opposed by two other permanent council members, China and Russia, both of whom want a non-binding statement without the threat of sanctions.

"If this resolution is put to a vote, definitely there would be no unity in the Security Council," Beijing's UN ambassador Wang Guangya said.

When asked if China might use its veto, he responded "all possibilities are open".

China and Russia shoulder much of the blame for aiding dictatorial regimes like North Korea and preventing the international community from imposing any meaningful pressure to forcibly modify the behavior of tyrants.

Unwilling to simply sit back and wait for the United Nations to do anything consequential, South Korea is joining Japan in taking bilateral actions against North Korea.

Just as an aside, the San Francisco Chronicle and the British Daily Mail spew the leftwing talking points regarding the growing crisis on the Korean peninsula.  Surprise -- it's the fault of the United States and Great Britain for attacking Iraq, encouraging WMD proliferation and showing bad faith by not negotiating directly with Pyongyang.   The Chronicle article even ventures into the -- if we can have the weapons why can't North Korea -- world of moral equivalence.   Portraying a dangerous and half-sane dictator like Kim Jong Il as a victim is a feat worthy of note in and of itself.