Now that the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for a "cessation of hostilities" between Israel and Hezbollah and both sides seem to have at least curbed their major attacks, we should all be able to take a deep breath and be thankful that Peace and common sense have prevailed. If only issues of war and peace were that simple. Ever since the guns fell silent, we have witnessed a deafening chorus of victory cries:

President Bush declared "that Hezbollah guerrillas suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel in their month-long Mideast war... There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon." Israel's PM Ehud Olmert announced "There is no longer a state within a state, an entity that exploits Lebanon's weakness... The fighting has changed the strategic balance in the region to Hezbollah's disadvantage." Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah claimed "We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without exaggeration... we came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were defeated." Syrian President Al-Asad exclaimed that "b ecause of the achievements of the resistance (Hezbollah)," the region had changed and that "the Middle East they (the Americans) aspire to ... has become an illusion." Iranian President Ahmadinejad told a crowd of supporters "(Israel) was defeated ... and (Hezbollah) hoisted the banner of victory."

So with every party to the conflict declaring that they have won, the only thing that is known for certain is that there was no decisive victory. It is precisely this lack of decision that bodes poorly for Israel and is being seized upon by Hezbollah. The problem in trying to gauge who prevailed in the conflict is that it is by no means over. President Bush has repeatedly called the conflict the "frontline in the global battle between democracy and terrorism." With Hezbollah still armed and defiant and Syria and Iran pledging to resupply and reorganize the group, it is only a matter of time before the conflict reignites. So are we really right back where we started after 34 days of warfare?

The answer is that it is simply too soon to tell. When asked if he believed the cease-fire would hold, a resident of Northern Israel answered that "it depends on whether we continue fighting the terrorists' tail (Hezbollah), or go after its head (Iran). Like a lizard, if you don't do something about the head, the tail will simply grow back."

The UN declaration 1701, like its predecessor 1559 is designed to disarm Hezbollah and restore Peace to Lebanon. The problem is that the resolution was intentionally watered down in order to remove any real enforcement mechanism. The vaunted 15,000 strong force meant to keep the peace was originally supposed to be based on the UN Charter's Chapter 7 giving the force a strong mandate to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. Under the weaker Chapter 6, the UN is effectively "recommending" the disarming of Hezbollah without actually mandating that it be done. Mohammad al-Saeed Idrees in the UAE's al Khaleej newspaper said it well: "After resolution 1701 ... a new stage in the conflict, a more ferocious and severe one, has just started."

In fact, the backpedaling has already begun. Hassan Nasrallah threatened Lebanese PM Seniora to call off a meeting designed to coordinate the Lebanese army's deployment in the South. Seniora quickly folded under the pressure and refuses both to disarm or remove Hezbollah. Meanwhile Nasrallah is reorganizing Hezbollah's forces in the South with fresh supplies from Syria, a clear violation of the barely 3 day old resolution. France, Turkey, and Malaysia, three of the main promisors of troop strength to the UNIFIL contingent have already said that they will not send troops unless Hezbollah is disarmed. At the same time, Hezbollah said it would continue attacking Israeli troops while they are on Lebanese soil and Israel said that they will only withdraw once the Lebanese army and the augmenting Multinational force are in place. All of these contradictions are inevitably leading to a breakdown of the agreement.

So far the agreement has held remarkably well, however this is only because Hezbollah was beaten back much worse than they are willing to admit. With every passing week, Hezbollah regains its strength and the window of opportunity that this war created to strengthen Lebanon's nascent democracy and reduce Iran's foothold there is diminishing.

The only way any real semblance of peace or progress in Lebanon is going to be made is if decisive action is taken quickly to shore up the UN's promises and Fouad Seniora's ever weakening government. Tehran and Damascus are moving furiously to ensure that Nasrallah remains "king" of Southern Lebanon. Will the West be able to move even more furiously to ensure that Lebanon become a truly sovereign Republic?

Though each side has been busily declaring victory in order to persuade their populations that their way is the way of the future, the real victory or defeat is being shaped much more quietly behind the scenes. The US won a quick decisive military victory in Iraq and found that winning the peace was a much more difficult prospect. It is clear that winning a victory for order and Democracy in Lebanon will be even more difficult then the war that just took place.

If the West is willing to stand up to Iran both regarding its dangerous nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of global jihad then a victory can still be achieved in this war on terror. If instead we continue to be divided and allow Russia and China to torpedo efforts to diffuse the crisis by providing diplomatic cover for Iran then we risk not only rearmament of Hezbollah and a continuation of the crisis with Israel, but the threat of blackmail from nuclear armed jihadists.