Israel attacked Lebanon for 31 days with indiscriminate bombings to achieve these goals. Did it achieve them? The simple answer is: No.

The two Israeli soldiers are still in the hands of Hezbollah and Hezbollah's military power remains. Israel had 167 soldiers killed and already the Olmert government in Israel has come under severe criticism from all political parties because of his hasty war without gauging the consequences.

The first stage of the resolution of the Security Council (1701) that came into effect in the morning on August 14 is a "cessation of hostilities" and the second stage would constitute the "permanent ceasefire." Many analysts consider that given the flawed policy of Israel and the Bush administration, the implementation of the second stage would be a fantasy.

The Israeli-Lebanese conflict cannot be perceived in isolation. It is a symptom of the re-writing of the balance of power in the Middle East between US-Israel and Iran and Russia.

Winners and losers
This ugly and unnecessary war has many losers, but two winners. Among the losers are Israel and the US, and the winners are France and Hezbollah, alleged to have been supported by Iran.

Israel might claim that it has won in terms of Security Council resolution 1701. However, the language the resolution employed is very flexible and expansive. It is like reading a horoscope. The star signs may mean just about whatever you want them to mean.

In terms of the resolution, Israel expects military structures of Hezbollah from the south of Lebanon would be removed. But that will not occur now. The Lebanese cabinet indefinitely postponed a crucial meeting on August 14 dealing with plans to send half of Lebanon's troops to the south.

Hezbollah remains as popular and strong as ever in Lebanon and in the Arab world. Its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has become an icon in the Arab world. A new leader, similar to Gamal Abdel Nasser, has emerged, the Arabs claim. He defied Israel and the US and stood his ground.

Nasrallah claimed historic and strategic victory over Israel. He said Hezbollah power would not go away with destroying homes in Lebanon but only through discussions. On the other hand, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defended his shaky position, but in reality, on the ground, Israel could not achieve what it wanted.

One big loser is the reputation of Israeli soldiers. The reputation it earned in a six-day war in 1967 occupying the West Bank and the Gaza has been totally shattered. Israel is perceived as weak and having a flawed understanding of what its military power can achieve.

What surprised military strategists was the imbalance between the Israeli extensive air campaign and the limited initial ground offensive. Ehud Olmert's words did not match the action. He behaved like Churchill, but on the ground he was no Churchill.

It is true that Hezbollah's power has been somewhat contained but Hezbollah has not been beaten. Just before the cease-fire, it sent 250 rockets inside Israel to demonstrate its continuing military power.

Iran's influence has not been weakened. Rather its image has increased as one of the powers that can influence events in the region. Tehran on said on August 13 that it would not yield "to the language of threat and pressure" on its nuclear program. Iran may review its policy including its membership to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, India and Pakistan are not parties to the Treaty and have nuclear warheads: North Korea withdrew from the Treaty two years ago).

Another big loser in the war is the US. It sided openly with Israel and believed in the power of Israel. After 31 days, when it found that Israel was bogged down with a costly and lengthy war, it had to modify its position and agree with the Council resolution.

Peace in the Middle East requires an effort to mediate conflicting claims, balance competing forces, and tamp down sectarian passions. Arab people want the US to play this role but the Bush administration has so much identified itself with Israel, it has lost its credibility and mediating role in the Arab world. Some say as long as the Bush administration treats the Middle East as a zero-sum game, it will continue to lose.

It is ironic that on one hand the administration spends $1 billion dollars through Karen Hughes, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, to raise the image of the US in the Arab world, on the other it pursues a policy of military muscle to influence other nations politically. This is a poor understanding of how to use hard power to the benefit of the US.

One country in the Council became taller, that is France. France has indicated that it would be willing to contribute troops to the UN force as have Italy and New Zealand. It is a pity that Britain's role under Tony Blair has been totally sidelined.

The Security Council resolution is a compromise between the approaches of the US and France. France wanted Israeli withdrawal first and the US wanted Israeli withdrawal linked to a political settlement. These two approaches were feebly combined in the resolution. There lies the difficulty of ending the war permanently between Hezbollah and Israel.

Another fact is that Hezbollah commands loyalty from Shi'ites because it provides them with the basic daily necessities that the state does not provide them. Iran might be providing arms to Hezbollah but so also the US provides arms to Israel. One journalist wrote recently that: "Hezbollah is everywhere and nowhere" and Israel cannot hope to remove the movement that Hezbollah represents.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.