The Security Council must pass a resolution quickly on the situation across the Israeli-Lebanese border, or at least issue a strong statement agreed on by all its 15 members.

The message should be crisp and clear: The council commends Israel for taking the necessary steps to implement resolution 1559 (2004), and urges the Israel Defense Force to maintain its operation in Lebanon until all the provisions in that resolution are fully met.

Then the council should declare itself “seized of the matter” and move on to Iran’s nuclear threat.

Well, that will be the day. When I suggested the idea to council diplomats over the weekend, all I got was a whole lot of chuckles.

In reality, when the council takes up the Lebanese issue this morning, most diplomats will call for a “diplomatic solution” to bring a quick “end to the hostilities.” They will predictably push for a cease-fire and urge “both sides” to return to conditions conducive to a “peace process.” While some will want to condemn Israel, others will say that, as in yesterday’s G-8 statement, “restraint” should be asked of the IDF, while unnamed “extremists” are denounced.

One council member, America, will resist such action and then be accused of frustrating the will of the international community by shielding its Middle East ally. Some will sneer that a mighty Jewish lobby once again is driving Washington to dangerous adventurism.

Unable to muzzle Israel, the council then will be criticized for its ineffectiveness on the Middle East. America’s support of Israel, which led to a veto of a resolution on Gaza last week and might still require a veto of a similar one on Lebanon this week, will be cited as the main stumbling block for achieving future council unity on Iran.

On the diplomatic front, in short, Tehran’s well-calculated maneuvering will have won another battle.

There are, however, realities beyond the virtual world of Turtle Bay diplomacy. Disarming a military force answerable to Iran and Syria is not only necessary for Israel’s long-term security needs, it is also the only possible action that can further the positive course charted by the Security Council to assist Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution.

Led by America and Lebanon’s former colonial ruler, France, and inspired by the bravery and dedication of the Lebanese people, in September 2004 the council passed its seminal resolution 1559, which called on all foreign powers to leave Lebanon. Syria soon buckled under the pressure and withdrew its troops, though not all its agents, from Lebanon.

That, however, presented only a partial implementation of the resolution, which also called “for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias,” and supported “the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.”

Hezbollah, as well as pro-Syrian terrorist groups inside Palestinian Arab refugee camps, remained heavily armed. Unable to take control of the southern part of the country, the independence-oriented government of Prime Minister Siniora, with strong French support, launched a “national dialogue” meant to convince the southern Shiites to disarm.

But since Hezbollah was created to counterbalance Israel’s military power, and disarming would never be part of its Tehran-based agenda, the dialogue, naturally, was one-sided.

The failure of that policy was on full display last week, when Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received his marching orders from Tehran at the exact time Russia and China finally determined that the mullahs had indeed rejected a package of diplomatic incentives and that the Security Council should deal with the Iranian nuclear menace.

Hezbollah’s Syrian and Iranian ties, incidentally, are not mere “allegations,” as the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said on CNN yesterday. In April they were documented in a report prepared for the council by the United Nations’ Lebanon envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen.

Instead of falling in Iran’s trap, the diplomats should laud Israel’s contribution to resolution 1559, which “calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions.”

Israel has an interest in maintaining the momentum of independence and democracy in Lebanon, but it cannot afford a hostile, unpredictable military force on its northern border. Neither can the government of Lebanon. Largely using air power rather than invading troops, only Israel can help Beirut extend its sovereignty over the whole country. Mr. Siniora should welcome its assistance.

That will be the day.