Of Intifadas And Intifadas

CBS News Reporter Charles Wolfson is a former Tel Aviv bureau chief for CBS News, who now covers the State Department.

In what military planners and analysts call "asymmetric warfare," the clearly superior American and Israeli armies are being contested by strongly motivated irregular forces with less firepower and fewer resources. In both cases, the two weaker parties have found a way to make progress for their cause, to live to fight another day.

In Iraq, a deal has been struck to end the standoff in Najaf, but only after Sadr's Mahdi army militia was able to hold American and Iraqi military forces at bay for more than three weeks. Even though they tried political negotiations, neither the American military nor the Allawi government was able to cut a deal. Only after intervention by Iraq's senior Shi'a cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was a solution found.

While Israelis and Palestinians still grope for a permanent solution to their conflict, the level of day-to-day street fighting has been reduced in the past few months, replaced by political infighting on both sides. "In Israel," an Israeli official said, "the big story is politics. Security is important but it's being managed better. The number one issue is politics. Will Prime Minister Sharon disengage from Gaza, or will his government fall first?"

While Palestinians continue to search for political leaders capable of gaining the confidence of the Bush administration and the Sharon government, they continue to be hemmed in by Israel's so-called security fence. And although the Bush administration claims it acts in the interests of both sides, it is not likely to rebuke Sharon or fail to support him in almost any action he takes, at least not before the November election.

That was evident this week when Sharon's government issued a tender for the building of more than a thousand new apartment units in established West Bank settlements, a move meant to appease its right-wing supporters. Although Washington and Jerusalem have agreed to disagree about what constitutes a freeze on settlements, the most officials at the State Department offered by way of rebuke was that a technical team would be going to Israel soon to discuss the situation. The Israeli official said only that "Israel is working in close consultation with the Americans." The unofficial interpretation of these comments is a diplomatic wink and a nod.

Back in Iraq, the deal to end the standoff in Najaf is too fresh to truly know if it will hold. What's telling is who was able to cut it, and who wasn't. The fact that neither Allawi nor his American backers was able to deal effectively or decisively with al-Sadr speaks volumes about the limits of their power just as the quick resolution of the standoff by Ayatollah al-Sistani does about his.

With Allawi's government trying to follow internationally-backed plans to have elections in January, local politics is surely playing the dominant role in Iraq just as it is in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Whether Moqtada al-Sadr keeps his word (history would suggest otherwise) or has a future role in Allawi's government will become clearer in coming days. For the moment, Allawi will claim the standoff ended without harm to the holy Imam Ali mosque in Najaf; in other words, a victory. Al-Sadr will avoid arrest or detention and still maintain access to the fighters loyal to him, enough for him to maintain victory too. The clear victory of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is self-evident. Only the price he will exact for it is not.

By Charles M. Wolfson