Analysts Discuss the Middle East Crisis and the Stem Cell Veto

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree the administration has done a good job?

TOM OLIPHANT: Not entirely. In fact, tonight when we don't know whether or not Israel will be going over the blue line in force, the question is whether the military operations get in the way of the larger political purposes and whether they end up being self-defeating.

What I find a little interesting about this crisis at this point is that the polling data is starting to come in, and President Bush does not appear to be holding a very strong hand. You would expect normally to have a very sharp spike in approval for what he is doing, but it's not showing up.

Gallup is showing almost a 10 percentage-point difference, in favor of disapproval, in terms of how he's handling this. Lebanon makes Americans unusually worried because of its history, which is not favorable.

And I think it's very interesting late today to begin to see Democrats taking independent actions in this crisis, compared to what was going on in Congress earlier this week when you get these routine resolutions that pass overwhelmingly. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, possible presidential candidate, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and interestingly enough, even Bill Clinton himself beginning to make noises about things like special envoys. How does it help this process...

JIM LEHRER: Yes, Biden sent a letter late today asking for a special envoy.

TOM OLIPHANT: I don't mean to be cynical about this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those Democrats are aware of the polling data, and that may be why this was a late-breaking development.

JIM LEHRER: What about this issue -- do you want to pick up on any of that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess I'd just say quickly that the Biden letter I don't understand, because there is a strategy. They're work on it. Joe can call them up, and they'll explain it to them, I'm sure.

The second thing on the polls is kind of interesting. I think that's partly Bush. You know, he's down, so anything he's associated with is going to be down, partly the images. But partly -- and I think this is a post-Iraq...

JIM LEHRER: Images meaning...

DAVID BROOKS: Like we saw on the top of the program.

JIM LEHRER: Absolutely.

DAVID BROOKS: But partly a post-Iraq effect, that fighting terrorists is futile. They seek into the ground, and you can never fight them, which is a difference behind the way people used to see Israel.

People used to see the Israeli army as something super-effective. They could take care of terrorists, and they could win whatever they set out to do. I think that image in the U.S. and, actually more importantly in the Arab world, has been hurt by Iraq.

Now the fact is, Israel has had a pretty effective war they've just won against Hamas, so they might be able to succeed, but people expect people to fail now.

TOM OLIPHANT: That was part of my earlier point. Another way to focus on it, I think, is to look at two dates that are coming up very, very quickly. One of them is next Wednesday in Rome, where this group of friends of Lebanon or Lebanon core group, Secretary Rice will be there, the Lebanese will be there, a very important gathering.

And then, a week from Monday, the mandate for the UNIFIL force...

JIM LEHRER: That's the U.N. force that's already there, small force, yes.

TOM OLIPHANT: That's right, just observing the carnage, basically. But the question of what kind of a new mandate all in this period has to be done.

And I think the question that's being asked a little bit more frequently in the last 24 hours is: How are you supposed to achieve these political tasks, involving goodwill at some point, if there has been a sharp escalation in the fighting starting tonight?

DAVID BROOKS: But the Israelis and the Lebanese government have the same long-term interests. They both want to get Hezbollah out of the south. They're not going to get them out, obviously not going to totally disarm them, but to get some sort of assertion of government authority in the south. They both want that.

But then, as Tom was saying, the trade-off between the force it takes to weaken Hezbollah and how much you alienate people, that's the crucial calculus.

JIM LEHRER: But you agree with Tom that the real issue now is, if Israel goes in there on the ground with an invasion in the next 24 hours or whenever, that could change all of the equations?

DAVID BROOKS: A lot of this depends on the effectiveness. I've been studying Ha'aretz. There's a very good defense correspondent there. Ha'aretz is the Israeli paper.

JIM LEHRER: Israeli newspaper, yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And there's a defense correspondent there named Harel, and he seems to know what he's talking about. And I would say his reports have been sober, suggesting that the Israelis talk about degrading 50 percent, but it's not clear how much they're doing.

JIM LEHRER: Degrading 50 percent of Hezbollah's capabilities.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. But that's the crucial precondition.

TOM OLIPHANT: And I just think, though, that one of the reasons there is an increasing -- it's not skepticism or -- there's no question about Israel's justification here. That's not at issue. The question is: What is wise and what is prudent?

And I think, for a lot of Americans, there's a question of deja vu here. I mean, when you're hearing that we're going to have an invasion that is directed at evil, and that the success in confronting that evil can transform the region, the tendency of Americans is to say, "Wait a minute. I've heard that line before, haven't I?" And that's where Iraq plays in.

So I just think it's remarkable this early in a crisis that Americans are not flocking to support President Bush, and they are not flocking to support Israel. Opinion in this country is sharply divided, not on whether Israel is justified, but on whether the military operation should continue or whether there should be cease-fire and an attempt at negotiation.

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, that's significant. I would just say, if there's a cease-fire now, then Hezbollah wins. And then they'll be so emboldened. And we're in a weird position, in that we have a policy, but we don't have any military control.

JIM LEHRER: Yes, yes, we have the power of persuasion, you're saying, but that's it?

DAVID BROOKS: To some extent, but it's up to Israel to fight this war. And their long-term interests and ours do not necessarily go together.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I disagree with the idea. I think it would be rash. I've become very incremental these days. I think I have a long-term interest, the same as my neo-conservative friends, and Bill Kristol is the most prominent...

JIM LEHRER: Yes, he's the one who wrote the editorial in the Weekly Standard that started this.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And so I want to do things one thing at a time. On the other hand, I think one of the things that Bill recognizes is that Iran is an aggressive, imperial, long-term threat to the country.

And how would this week look if Iran already had a nuclear bomb, a regime that's stated as its goal the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map? The world passions are inflamed. Iran has this bomb. We would be terrified that Iran would use that bomb against Israel and that would drag the whole world into the conflagration.

JIM LEHRER: Tom?

TOM OLIPHANT: From my perspective, what has been most interesting about this little flare-up is not that there is still a hard core of opinion from this camp, whatever you call it, but that it has evoked sharp reaction and almost a resurgence in another camp within the conservative world that claims to have learned the limits of America's power and learned that this kind of ambitiousness in the world can turn out to be reckless, even though the motives are right.

And so, you know, while a lot of Democrats I think are content to maybe hold the coats of these people who are at each other's throats...

JIM LEHRER: Let them go.

TOM OLIPHANT: ... yes, let them go -- it's interesting that the other point of view in the conservative world, not merely Pat Buchanan -- it goes a lot further than that; Francis Fukuyama would be another example -- who believe, as conservatives often have taught us over the years, that we should be aware and respectful of the limits of government power.

DAVID BROOKS: These are the ancient two branches of foreign policy conservativism, the one -- and George Will is another on that side -- goes back to Edmund Burke who says societies are extremely complicated. We don't really know much about them. If you try to do something dramatic, you're probably going to lead to all sorts of intended consequences, and that's Burke.

And then the other side, you could say it's Churchill. You've got evil in the world; you've got to stand up to that evil; and you've got to defeat that evil. And these are two strains, and they're just playing out.

JIM LEHRER: And we're about to play out of time here, but before we go, quickly, Tom, you first, why did the president choose stem-cell research to exercise his first veto as a president?

TOM OLIPHANT: He had no choice, because this ran right up against his position. But I think what we saw last night -- this week, rather, was the end of President Bush's involvement in this issue. It's now part of this year's politics. It will be part of '08. If John McCain had been president this week, we'd have had a signing ceremony in the East Room.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think is going on?

DAVID BROOKS: I agree. There's no question where the majority is. It's against the president. But he did it on a matter of principle. He believes you don't create life to destroy it, but it is the minority position in the country.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.