'Birth pangs' of a new Middle East?

Soon after Israel unleashed its latest wanton attack on Lebanon, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had described the resultant death and destruction as the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Indeed, the Middle East may be about to take a new turn, but not the one the US-Israel duo had designed for it.
Their purpose, of course, was to smash Hezbollah, break the will of its supporters to resist aggression, and to reinforce Israel's regional hegemonic ambitions.
Hence the US kept rejecting international calls for an 'immediate ceasefire' in order to give Israel sufficient time to accomplish its objectives. What the Zionist state has accomplished so far is the killing of nearly 900 Lebanese civilians - a third of them children - and extensive destruction of the country's infrastructure.
More than three weeks into an incessant campaign of aerial bombardments and a massive invasion of South Lebanon, the myth of Israel's invincibility stands thoroughly smashed, Hezbollah has earned the respect and admiration not only of all Lebanese people but the entire Arab street in the Mideast as well as the wider Muslim world, creating in the process a wider gulf between the pro-western Arab rulers and their people.
The governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had initially blamed Hezbollah for staring the war. Some Saudi 'ulema' had even issued a decree declaring Hezbollah, like the US and the EU, a terrorist organisation. These same governments are now scrambling to condemn Israeli aggression.
In an unprecedented event a few days ago, many Saudis took out a procession to express their support for Hezbollah. It may have been a heartfelt expression when the Saudi Foreign Minister remarked at a recent gathering that "we" would rather prefer the old Middle East.
While on the 24th day of the fighting, Hezbollah was still giving a tough fight to its foe, slamming more than 100 rockets into northern Israel and missiles into invading Merkava tanks - destroying three tanks on Thursday and Friday alone - Rice said an immediate ceasefire is possible and a UN Security Council resolution to that effect would be approved within days, and that "some very important principles" are to be established for a lasting peace.
Unsurprisingly, the US is still intent on using its international influence to end the conflict on conditions that are blatantly tilted in favour of its protégé.
Reports indicate that there are differences between the US and France over the wording of the ceasefire resolution, with the former wanting to use the phrase 'suspension of hostilities', leaving room for an attack if and when Israel is ready for resumption of hostilities, while the latter urges 'immediate ceasefire'. The two are expected to resolve these differences soon, but it is hard to imagine that the US conditions for a lasting peace would be accepted by either the Lebanese government or Hezbollah.
The US, supported by Britain, is suggesting a new international force in place of the existing one, four of whose members were killed by Israeli bombs.
Also, it plans to provide better arms and training to the Lebanese Army so that it can control the Israel-Lebanon border and, more importantly, disarm Hezbollah.
In other words, Washington wants the proposed international force as well as the Lebanese Army to do Israel's dirty work. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah is not only a militia that enjoys a lot of respect among the Lebanese people for ending, in 2000, nearly two-decade long Israeli occupation of South Lebanon and now for standing up to the 'invincible' might of the Zionist expansionists, it is also a political force well represented in the Lebanese parliament and government.
The plan, therefore, is highly unlikely to succeed. Instead, the US and Israel would find themselves grappling with the birth of a new reality of non-state groups having gained greater confidence to counter and defeat US-Israeli hegemonic designs for the Middle East.