As Stan notes, it seems unlikely that this attack was planned as a response to Israel-Hezbollah conflict, though it’s conceivable that al Qaeda sped it up to steal the thunder of Hezbollah. Regardless, the thwarting of this plot reveals something that may be lost in all the talk of a unified Islamist threat. Whether it succeeded or not, this plot was not in the interest of Hezbollah. They are fighting a media war more than anything else. If the world’s attention is taken away from the story of Lebanese civilians being killed, Israel has a much freer hand to beat the stuffing out of Hezbollah (which, apparently it needs considering its mixed results so far). If this attack had actually been successful, it would have been a boon for Israel’s war effort. The West, would once again have its anger directed at Islamic extremism, the media would turn its attention from Southern Lebanon and Israel would once again be seen by many as a frontline state in the battle against Islamic extremism.

The point here is not to see world events through Israel’s eyes but rather to show how there are a different antagonists at work (as I mentioned in yesterday’s column). Al Qaeda — as well as various other Sunni extremists — do not much like seeing Hezbollah (or Iran) get the limelight. Hence, there’s a vicious cycle built into this global conflict in which various terrorist groups are eager to control the storyline. The same holds true for rogue nations as well. From Venezuela to North Korea to Iran, we see regimes eager to dictate where the spotlight goes. Sometimes, North Korea says “hey look at me!” by testing some missiles. Sometimes, Iran says “Hey look over there” and prompts Hezbollah to distract the world’s attention from its nuclear program. Among the numerous dangers here is the temptation of Western governments, chiefly our own, to react to one “hot spot” after another without dealing with structural threats more systematically. It is an obvious and understandable temptation, but it’s one that must be kept in check.