Could It Be They're Overreacting?

Tony at Across the Bay has several interesting things to say in response to the sudden deluge of pessimism emanating from the western press.

All those who talk about civil war have to keep in mind that it's one thing if Hizbullah threatens violence (which is hasn't), and it's a whole other thing if Syrian pitbulls threaten it (i.e. the Baath, the SSNP, the Nasserites, etc.). The latter are totally inconsequential. That's more like vandalism. Even a Syrian campaign of bombs and assassinations won't necessarily escalate beyond that (as Tueni told the NYT). Those are exposed. The only one that would escalate is one where Hizbullah is involved in violence, as that would pit a whole bunch of Shiites against other Lebanese communities. But everyone has been careful not to go down that route, and all the violence has come from Syria and its petty cronies.
....
All Hizbullah is doing is bargaining, only not too brightly. This has cost it credibility and prestige, rendering Nasrallah nothing more than a Nasser Qandil or Asem Qansoh, the pro-Syrian pitbulls that Nasrallah thought he was so above and beyond. Now, just like them and all those small pro-Syrian parties, Hizbullah is risking defining itself as a Syrian enforcer.
....
[T]hey [Hizbullah] have sounded more like the Sunnis of Iraq. That's not the wise move of a confident party. That's the move of a vulnerable party that wants to get guarantees that consolidate its gains. The mixed behavior also suggests internal division (and probably a Syrian threat, as Michael hinted). So underneath all those numbers lies a much more anxious and confused party, uncertain how to proceed.

I don't know who's right here, the NYT and Juan Cole, or Tony, but given the track record of the NYT and other MSM my bet's on Tony.

Read the whole thing here.