These are dangerously unsettled times in the Middle East. There are so many bitter scores to settle, so much violent dissension, such implacable hatreds, that it would take only a spark to set the whole region alight. Or so it would seem. Many observers predict a hot and bloody summer.

What they have in mind is not only a continuation of the calamitous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible extension of the Afghan conflict to the tribal areas of Pakistan, but also a major war in the Levant.

The fear in the region is of another war breaking out between Israel and its neighbors, a war which would engulf Lebanon, Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories — and even risk an intervention by Iran. In view of America’s close alliance with Israel, American interests would inevitably be affected.

In a new warning this week, the U.S. State Department urged Americans to defer traveling to Lebanon and advised those in the country to “consider carefully the risk of remaining.”

So how imminent is the threat of war?

Could the Arabs start a war? That must be judged highly unlikely. Hizbullah in Lebanon and HAMAS in Gaza have the ability to provoke Israel with pinpricks, but whatever they might manage to do — say, in the way of Qassam rockets or hit-and-run cross-border attacks — the initiative to escalate the conflict into a major war would always lie with Israel.

Syria is the only one of Israel’s neighbors with any serious military capability. Might Syria then start a war? This, too, is highly implausible, because of the rumored divisions within its top army cadres, and also because Israel is so much stronger. Israel has highly-developed military industries of its own and receives massive aid and advanced weaponry from the United States.

Indeed, Syria’s current stance would seem to be merely defensive. It failed, or was unable, to respond when the Israeli air force, in a surprise and unprovoked attack — no doubt intended to intimidate Damascus — destroyed a military installation in eastern Syria last September. Far from wanting war, Syria has on the contrary sought to defuse tensions by calling repeatedly for peace talks with Israel — most recently in the message it conveyed last week through former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Asad told Carter that he believed that about 85 percent of the issues between Syria and Israel had been resolved in negotiations in the 1990s, and that he was eager to conclude a deal as soon as possible.

The answer, therefore, to the question of whether war will break out this summer must lie with Israel. In particular, it will depend on whether Israel continues to choose to resolve some of its strategic dilemmas by force.

Three of these dilemmas seem particularly pressing. They relate to:

• the unprecedented rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a major regional power;

• the challenge posed by Hizbullah and HAMAS, two militant non-state actors on Israel’s borders; and,

• the possible changes which a new American president might make next year to America’s Middle East policy.

Iran has emerged as a regional rival, not only of Israel but also of the United States. Its influence is huge in Iraq, increasing in Syria and Lebanon, and is now reaching into the Palestinian territories and the Gulf States. It poses a threat to the regional hegemony the United States has enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Foolishly, the United States did not foresee that by attacking and destroying Iraq — with Israel’s eager encouragement — it would create the conditions for Iran’s emergence. The United States and Israel must now live with the consequences of their strategic blunder.

Contrary to Israeli fears and propaganda, Iran’s nuclear program poses no known “existential threat” to the Jewish state. But it could knock Israel off its perch as the Middle East’s most powerful nuclear and military state, thereby limiting its freedom of action against such local adversaries as Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

Will Israel — with or without U.S. help — attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? In spite of the bellicose rhetoric of some Israeli leaders, this seems highly unlikely. The predictable consequences for the region of such an act, for Israel itself and for American interests, are too horrendous to contemplate. The United States and Israel will probably have to make do with containment and deterrence, while continuing their efforts to undermine Iran’s economy and to mobilize Arab states against it — as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was attempting to do in Kuwait this week.

Israel would, of course, like to destroy both Hizbullah and HAMAS. But this is no easy task, since the two movements are deeply implanted in the local populations and wage a form of asymmetric guerrilla warfare, with which a conventional and increasingly disenchanted army like Israel’s is ill-equipped to deal.

Israel tried — and failed — to smash Hizbullah in its costly Lebanon war of 2006. Only a very rash Israeli leader would try again in the present circumstances. Israel will no doubt have to live with a powerful Hizbullah, backed by Iran and Syria, dictating the political order in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to attempt to bring down the HAMAS government by besieging, starving, and bombarding the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza. But this brutal policy shows no sign of success. For HAMAS to accept the siege would eventually mean a slow death. It is, therefore, challenging the blockade by attacking Israeli crossing points when it can, much as it did last January when it brought down the fence on the Egyptian border, leading to a mass break-out of some 700,000 hungry Palestinians.

A further major worry on the Israeli horizon is that the next American president might not be as aggressively pro-Israeli as George W. Bush. The possibility of an American withdrawal from Iraq and of a U.S. “grand bargain” with Iran must also be a source of great anxiety. It is not surprising that U.S.-Israeli lobbyists, including the big guns of the Washington Institute, strongly support John McCain, smear Barack Obama and have mounted a venomous campaign against Jimmy Carter.

Has Israel got an alternative? Yes, the alternative is a comprehensive peace. But Israel is unwilling — indeed unable — to pay the price of such a peace, which would require a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. No Israeli leader has the political vision or the moral authority to contemplate such a move. Too many facts have been created on the ground on Palestinian territory. The messianic Israeli dream of controlling the whole of historic Palestine remains very much alive.

Nor can Israel consider accepting the terms proposed by HAMAS, which are an exchange of prisoners, a lifting of the Gaza siege and a mutual ten-year truce. To accept such terms would mean accepting a form of mutual deterrence, something Israel has traditionally rejected.

The truth would seem to be that Israel can neither wage a full-scale war against its opponents nor make peace with them. It is therefore condemned to continue to rely on its present policies of besieging Gaza, intimidating its opponents by long-distance air and commando strikes, and decapitating hostile resistance movements by assassination.

Such skirmishes seem bound to continue, keeping the region in a high state of tension and taking a heavy toll on civilians, especially Palestinians. Barring a miscalculation by one side or another, this low-level warfare would, however, have the merit of sparing the region a major conflagration.

The summer may not, after all, be as bloody as some fear.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of “The Struggle for Syria”; also, “Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East”; and “Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.” © 2008 Patrick Seale