Hezbollah is now threatening to target Americans.

What?!

I thought that it was just a political party.

This article is disturbing on several levels.

Hezbollah's renewed focus on America has sharpened the long-standing debate among U.S. officials over whether the United States can, and should, go after the group. Some believe that a showdown has been overdue since 1983, when the group blew up the U.S. Embassy and a Marine barracks in Beirut. The attacks killed more than 300 people.

But any offensive would be fraught with political, diplomatic and economic risks for the United States, some officials say. Hezbollah's close ties with Iran and Syria ? the major power broker in Lebanon ? underscore the complexities of pressing the war on terrorism when it involves groups backed by governments, they note.

Gee, I thought that we came up with the template for that one with the Taliban. And why, in light of what we now know, can't we use the Marine barracks bombing as a justification for war? Is there some kind of statute of limitations?

Though U.S. counter-terrorism officials for decades have regarded Iran in particular as a key player in international terrorism, successive administrations have concluded that they had few viable options in dealing with Tehran, said Roger Cressey, a senior counter-terrorism official with the National Security Council in the Clinton and Bush administrations who recently left the White House.

No mention of what those "few viable options" are. It seems to me that the main difference between Iraq and Iran (other than the former's sheer brutality) is the fact that the Iranian government hasn't been stupid enough to invade a neighbor and have UN resolutions passed against it that it could violate. Other than that, it fits the pattern--a dictatorial regime that harbors terrorists, and one that its people would largely like to see the back of.

With thousands of well-trained, well-armed and highly disciplined soldiers, and thousands of missiles and other armaments, Hezbollah could pose a more potent threat than even Al Qaeda, several top U.S. officials have warned.

"I'll tell you that Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is its equal, if not a far more capable, organization," CIA Director George J. Tenet testified to Congress this year. "I actually think they're a notch above in many respects" in part because of the group's ties with Iran, he said.

What that says to me is that it's all the more urgent that we do something about it, even at the short-term risk of stirring up a rattler's nest.

U.S. officials said it is too early for an administration still caught up in the war in Iraq and its aftermath to formulate any new policies on Hezbollah, but top Bush administration officials publicly warned Syrian President Bashar Assad this week against supporting terrorism or sheltering fleeing Iraqi officials. Syria has denied giving refuge to officials of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Really? They were so busy thinking about Iraq that no one has given any thought to the follow through? I sincerely hope that those "U.S. officials" are mistaken.

As usual, the folks at Foggy Bottom seem to lack feck, to the point that even a Democrat is appalled.

When members of the House international terrorism subcommittee recently asked what the administration is doing about the threat, Assistant Secretary of State Earl Anthony Wayne said: "We regularly dialogue with our partners who we think might have [a] more forgiving attitude toward Iran [and] will continue to do so until they change their policies on terrorism, on weapons of mass destruction, on human rights within their own country."

"So they can expect harshly worded letters?" retorted Rep. Brad Sherman (D- Sherman Oaks), the panel's ranking Democrat. "That's pretty much the Clinton administration approach.

"Other than the fact that we're going to bad-mouth them, what else might we do to the government in Tehran?" Sherman asked. "Anything that might even cost them a nickel?"

"...the Clinton administration approach." I love that, particularly considering the source. But I'm afraid that he's right.

I'd sure like to know what the plan is. Or if there is one.

I'm betting there is a plan; the Administration's statements and policies are too coordinated for the current picture to have arisen accidentally. That said, we won't hear it until it's over, and that's years down the road. We'll hear about the next phase in, my guess, about 8 months.

I sure hope we don't have to attack Iran. It is a mistake to judge that country's mood by its disaffected college students, just like its a mistake to judge the U.S. by ours.

It's not just disaffected college students--it's just about everyone of that generation. Anyway, it probably won't be necessary.

Here's the bottom line: if Hizb'allah does in fact start attacking American targets, then if we don't have a strategy, we're going to get one pretty quick that will round them up and destroy them. After the past 19 months, how anybody can conclude that attacking America is going to get them anything other than killed is beyond me.

Even if there is no plan for dealing with Palestinian terrorism focused on Americans, all it will take is one incident, and we'll whip one up fast enough to make the Palestinians' heads do a tarantella. I guarantee they won't like it.

This is no longer the Clinton Administration, nor does Jimmy Carter determine American policy toward terrorists these days.

To Paraphrase JFK:

Any attack by Hezbolla against the interests, property or citizens of the United States shall be considered a direct attack as well by any sponsor states and shall constitute an act of war.

That is the message that needs sending.

You send over Hezbolla, we send over the B-1's!

Our State dept is really a piece of work. Here in LA weve got an Iranian media outlet highly in demand by Iranians operating on a shoestring. Might be worth sacrificing a few embassy china sets for. I used to think Colin Powell was the problem, but its really the whole State dept bureacracy which he seems unwilling to confront, which is really depressing.

The problem is that bureaucracies are hard to confront. Because of civil service rules, government employees at all non-appointed levels know that they'll still be there long after a given secretary is literally history, and it's hard to get them to change, with few disciplinary tools at hand. Institutional inertia is one of the major problems we face in our government, in the State Department and beyond.

> The problem is that bureaucracies are hard to
> confront. Because of civil service rules,
> government employees at all non-appointed levels
> know that they'll still be there long after a
> given secretary is literally history

True, but that just means an innovative approach is required.

For just one example, I see nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress to provide any particular level of funding for the State Department.