The Middle East: What happens next?

Option 1: Israel withdraws unilaterally

How? Amid international outcry over mounting civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, President Bush is prevailed upon to pressure the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, to rein in the military.

And then what? Uneasy truce in which status quo is restored: probable halt to incoming rockets but Israel still vulnerable to raids like the one 13 days ago in which two soldiers were abducted by Hizbollah. Hizbollah celebrates "victory" and continues to build its strength as a military force, claiming it has twice defeated the Israeli war machine.

Winners ... Hizbollah - would still claim victory over Israel, angering US, which views militia as a proxy for Iranian terror.

... and losers Israel - would still say it had degraded Hizbollah "infrastructure," but at a huge cost to its international reputation.

So will it happen? Unlikely, given the high political cost to Israel and the US.

Option 2: Diplomatic settlement

How? Israel realises it has launched an unwinnable war. Its US allies fear the invasion has turned the region into a tinder box. Israel takes the route of least resistance and looks to the UN for a face-saving climbdown. The US accommodates by encouraging European countries to send a buffer force on the border with Lebanon.

And then what? Buffer forces come in all shapes and sizes. To work they have to be accepted by all sides. Hizbollah is unlikely to make concessions unless pressed by Iran and Syria - and to do this they will want concessions. International troops would supervise the disarmament of Hizbollah. But Hizbollah is not going to accept foreign forces, having already ''liberated'' its land from Israel's 22-year occupation.

Winners... The US would claim victory for its tactics as, of course, would Israel.

...and losers Lebanon, with its country ravaged.

So will it happen? Increasingly likely, as Israel sees no military solution.

Option 3: Israel snared in counter-insurgency

How? Israel gets bogged down in protracted skirmishes on both sides of its northern border. This would effectively be a reversion before withdrawal from Lebanon by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000. Hizbollah has showed it can survive under occupation. After these Israeli assaults, they would have many more recruits and could inflict terrible casualties.

And then what? Guerilla war as Iran, Hizbollah's prime sponsor, decides to push for decisive victory. Hamas, allied to Hizbollah on Israel's second front in Gaza, intensifies rocket attacks. In Israel, public opinion would remain solid in the short term, but even Israeli morale flags in the face of constant bloodshed.

Winners... In US and British eyes the "terror axis" of Hizbollah, Iran and Syria.

...and losers Israel, facing unending conflict on yet another front and further international condemnation.

So will it happen? Should Condoleezza Rice's diplomacy fail, quite likely.

Option 4: Lebanese government falls

How? Probably only if Israel attacked Syrians first. Syria doesn't want direct conflict, which it would lose. Devastation caused by Israeli attack puts the fragile government in Beirut under unbearable pressure. The country, with 17 sects, risks fracturing. The Iranian and Syrian-backed Shia Hizbollah movement, which has two ministers in cabinet and 14 MPs, is strengthened.

And then what? Disaster. General anarchy, although the US probably does not want to get involved in this. Possible return of Syria as power broker a year after its troops were forced out at the end of a 29-year occupation. But a much worse possible scenario: southern Lebanon could become a cauldron of terror as militant groups pour into the region in support of Hizbollah.

Winners ... At first, Israel's military, Syria militarily.

... and losers Lebanese people, Hizbollah.

So will it happen? Should the Israeli onslaught continue apace, it is quite likely.

Option 5: Israel invades Lebanon

How? Because Israel can't think of anything else to do. But it did not work in 1982, so why should it work now? This would be a massive military undertaking that would evoke memories of the previous invasion, which was the most unpopular war in Israel's history. Possible occupation of Lebanon south of the Litani river.

And then what? Lebanese population and rest of the world mobilise against the invasion, which would fail to dismantle Hizbollah, given Israel's last experience. Israel would be the aggressor, rather than the victim (as it had been when its soldiers were captured). Disaster for Israel, which risks losing soldiers in large numbers and being bogged down in another occupation.

Winners... Few winners except arms sellers and manufacturers. Hizbollah, as fighting wars is what they do best.

...and losers Lebanese people and government, Middle East governments.

So will it happen? Unlikely, given the huge pressure that would be brought to bear on Israel.

Interesting? Click here to explore further