At this juncture it remains highly improbable that the Bush administration would ever consider sending U.S. Marines to Beirut. Going after Hezbollah in the maze that is Beirut's southern suburbs, American troops would become easy prey in the spider's web of tiny alleyways and narrow streets. And furthermore, certainly not while the United States maintains some 160,000 troops in nearby Iraq.
Still, one can comprehend the frustration, the anger, the shame, the feeling of helplessness felt by this Beiruti, watching on television his hometown being overrun by troops acting on behalf of a foreign power; better make that two foreign powers, who have demonstrated an ability to take control of the country with little effort.
And as Hezbollah and its allies were busy taping portraits of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Gen. Michel Aoun, Hezbollah's Christian ally – who one observer compared to France's Philippe Petain, a French hero turned traitor – cheered on the coup as a victory.
A number of analysts say that this move was "so very predictable from the moment the guns fell silent in 2006." Others, including this writer, tended to believe Hezbollah when they swore that they would never raise their guns against fellow Lebanese.
"When will the world understand: the forces of the Islamic Jihad will never stop trying to conquer until they are utterly defeated? And until such time, they will fight when they are strong, lie low when there are no changes and lie, lie, lie always," Clare Lopez, an intelligence analyst told the Middle East Times.
While the e-mail calling for U.S. military intervention in Lebanon is unlikely to make it past the front gate of the White House or past the first printer – and with good reason – the cry for help from the Lebanese who espoused democracy and believed in the support of the Western powers must not go unheeded. Because, as Lopez pointed out, "This is not just about Lebanon, either."
Ms Lopez is not alone in believing that Syria and Iran have far greater ambitions than taking over Lebanon. Rather, explains Lopez, they see Lebanon as a stepping stone – to Israel and to Europe and to the U.S."
The former U.S. intelligence officer believes that Lebanon "needs to be supported sufficiently that it can be a bulwark – for its own sake, of course, as well as that of the rest of us."
But training the Lebanese armed forces in the latest counterinsurgency techniques and outfitting with modern U.S. hardware is not going to solve the problem. Not when the army's commander in chief and soon to be president of the republic is rumored to have become Syria's man.
In these pages we have maintained that the key to peace in the Middle East was to be found in Syria. We have insisted that in order to move forward, both Syria and Iran needed to be brought unto the equation.
That still pretty much holds true, except that if the key holders do not want to use them in a positive manner, modern armies have more than one way of opening a door. That alternative may not be the most aesthetic, but it's bound to get results.
Either way, through peaceful negotiations or through tactical military intervention – and not a full frontal assault as in Iraq – Syria and Iran need to hand over the keys or face the consequences.