The American, French and Italian troops faced terrorist attacks from Shi'ite and (to a lesser extent) Druze militias almost immediately. The bloodiest day of the Shi'ite campaign against Western forces came on October 23, 1983, when two truck bombs struck American and French barracks in Beirut. 241 American and 58 French servicemen were killed. The U.S. Embassy was bombed twice, in April 1983 and September 1984. And throughout the MNF's deployment, the Americans, French and Italian faced numerous smaller attacks. The Multinational Force in Lebanon lost over 350 killed and a similar number wounded before it withdrew in 1984. Remember also that, throughout this period, Hezbollah were routinely hijacking airliners, kidnapping Westerners and murdering Americans who fell in to their hands.

Note that this all occurred while Hezbollah was fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, and other militias. Any international force mandated to disarm Hezbollah would face the full wrath of the group. And they would likely strike in the following ways.

* Inside Lebanon

A new MNF could expect an insurgency far more lethal than the one ongoing in Iraq. Iran and Hezbollah lead the world in IEDs, as Coalition forces in Iraq have learned first-hand. The recent Israeli experience in Lebanon demonstrates that - unlike virtually all Arab terrorist groups - they can stand and fight somewhat effectively. Israeli special forces, elite infantry, and armour backed by artillery, airpower and gunboats have encountered tunnels, bunkers and trenches all professionally camouflauged. Were Hezbollah's professionalism to be turned against an occupying force, the force would take severe casualties (as the IDF found 1982-2000).

Hezbollah and their backers would quite likely also move to silence Lebanese politicians and journalists who support the disarming of the group. The spate of assassinations following (and of course including) the murder of Rafik Hariri will surely have made many Lebanese think twice before denouncing Hezbollah publically.

As with Iraq, Chechnya and all the jihad battlefields, the MNF would also find itself the target of numerous suicide bombers and terrorists from all over the world (indeed, a jihadi group in SE Asia says over 200 martyrs are on the way to Lebanon). Interestingly, no-one seems to have noted that the jihadis will consider the presence of any non-Muslim MNF (or even an MNF composed of troops from 'apostate regimes') as much a defilement of Muslim soil as the Coalition in Iraq or the NATO presence in Afghanistan.

* Outside Lebanon

Where Hezbollah has really advanced is in its international capabilities. At first committing attacks only in Lebanon, operations in the mid-1980s included a bombing in Spain, a hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner and later the hijacking of TWA 847. By the mid-1990s, Hezbollah was carrying out bombings in Israel, Argentina and London, with bombings in Saudi Arabia, Thailand and elsewhere thwarted. Today, Hezbollah is a major force in the Palestinian Authority, having bought the loyalty of much of the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

Also concerning is the scale of Hezbollah 'support' activities all over the world. Hezbollah operates criminal syndicates in North and South America, Europe, West Africa, South East Asia and elsewhere, raising money for terrorism and their Hamas-style social services network. These cells could quickly turn to terrorism, either facilitating other terrorists or committing attacks themselves. Hezbollah hasn't been nearly so adamant about not striking outside their own territory as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, though they rarely claim responsibility for attacks outside Lebanon and Israel.

There is a case to be made that bombings outside the region are inevitable anyway. But they will likely be aimed at Israeli, Jewish and perhaps American targets. The countries sending forces to join an MNF would become targets, and there aren't many countries willing to put themselves on Iran's hitlist to protect northern Israel and Lebanon. Even those that might would certainly reconsider following a serious attack.

* An Escalation

Hezbollah might 'act out' to stir up another hornet's nest by firing WMD's in to central Israel. There's a report at WND claiming that Hezbollah might fire rockets containing spent nuclear fuel rods at Israel. I doubt the report's accuracy, but the threat is still significant. Al-Qaeda's April 2004 attempt to gas Amman, Aum Shinrikyo's sarin attack in Tokyo and others demonstrate terrorists can get their hands on WMD. For Hezbollah, in large part an arm of Iran, that goes doubly so.

So... who will send troops?

The usual parties have all come up with vague, heart-felt plans. Javier Solana suggests a European force under United Nations auspices. To quote Omri Ceren's cutting remark: Europe, armed forces - discuss.

Kofi Annan was also pretty vague, suggesting an international force under United Nations auspices. Thus far, though, the international community isn't all that keen to get stuck in.

For their part, the Israelis have indicated their preference for a NATO force. Having dealt with the inept, craven UNIFIL force for so long, that comes as no surprise. Equally unsurprising is the deafening silence from NATO itself, with one official complaining that the alliance will be hard-pressed to find 40,000 troops for Afghanistan and Kosovo, let alone troops enough for southern Lebanon. Yes, the 26-member alliance of mostly-Western countries cannot find a few thousand soldiers.

But what has Condi been up to?

Meanwhile, the United States has been looking elsewhere. The supposed lack of diplomacy on the part of the U.S. since July 12th has been lambasted by the press as a sign of America's obscene collaboration with the Israelis. But during a meeting with Lebanese officials, Secretary Rice outlined her plan for southern Lebanon:

Her plan calls for 10,000 Turkish and Egyptian troops to initially deploy to southern Lebanon under a NATO and UN command after a ceasefire has been reached in the two-week long conflict, CNN reported. Later, a larger force of about 30,000 troops would go in to help the Lebanese government regain control of the southern part of the country, where Hezbollah has staged rocket attacks on Israel. The force would hold a buffer zone just inside Lebanon for 60 to 90 days

Assuming the Lebanese sources of the story are correct, it is unlikely the U.S. would make such a suggestion without agreement from Turkey and Egypt.

Of course, who provides the troops is less relevant than the mandate and quality of the force. Any scenario in which an international force is required would obviously mean Hezbollah is still a serious threat to Lebanese sovereignty and Israeli security. Thus, for the force to be effective, it would have to be equipped (and permitted by their respective countries) to aggressively engage Hezbollah.

The key question is whether anyone will give their troops the mandate to fight Hezbollah. If we look to Afghanistan, the so-called 'good war' in the war on terror, the forces contributed by many NATO countries are so restricted by their rules of engagement that virtually all offensive operations are carried out by American, British and Canadian forces. It is probably a good thing, therefore, that NATO isn't looking to be relevant get involved.

If Secretary Rice's plan for Egpyt and Turkey to deploy troops goes ahead, it is unlikely that they would be much more effective. Looking to Egypt's conduct in Gaza, Hezbollah may find itself with a willing, or at least easily bribed, party in the form of the Egyptian army. And while Egypt and Turkey are hardly friends of Iran, they aren't going to want to get in to a shooting war with Tehran's proxy.

Even assuming an aggressive, proactive international force intent on disarming Hezbollah, they will almost certainly be operating with Lebanese ports, Beirut airport and all the roads to Syria open. In other words, Hezbollah's supply of missiles, weapons and advisors will allow them to replace virtually anything lost in fighting with Israel or a MNF.

Much more likely is a larger UNIFIL-type force, who would count the rockets flying overheard and issue passive-aggressive statements to the press. Another MNF would let Hezbollah survive, rebuild itself and attack Israel - and more immediately, increase its domination within Lebanon.

Barring a miracle - a MNF capable of and committed to disarming Hezbollah - we can expect a similar battle to the one we've seen since July 12th again in the coming months or years. Large parts of Lebanon will remain under Hezbollah/Iranian control, and they will use their territory to continue to undermine Lebanese sovereignty, and to attack Israel and other countries.

There isn't a political solution to this problem. Hezbollah has made clear that they will never disarm voluntarily, even if Israel were to release every terrorist in its jails and withdraw from the Sheba Farms - and, for that matter, withdraw from the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Deploying a MNF that lacks teeth would be a demonstration of weakness, which would be bad enough in less 'interesting times'.

But Iran is a direct combatant in this fight - and has even taken losses. In the context of Iran's regional and global ambitions, anything short of crushing Hezbollah will encourage the mullahs to think that the West has no stomach for a protracted battle. We've all heard about the lessons on the West's weakness al-Qaeda and the jihadis learned from the speedy retreats from Lebanon, Somalia and elsewhere. Today, Iran is standing toe-to-toe with Israel. If Israel agrees to an American-backed, toothless MNF, the mullahs will have ample reason to think the West is not serious about checking their aggression. And we will all bear the consequences.