As Mark in British Columbia, Canada put it, "Hezbollah's surprising resistance has turned out to be the totally unpredictable wild card in this conflict - if they had been smashed in a few days, Israel's story would likely be the accepted version, since the surrounding Arab leaders were still in a position to condemn Hezbollah." But by hanging in there for so long, he said, Hezbollah has come to a "no-lose" situation where even ultimate defeat looks heroic and inspires potential recruits. In death, Hassan Nasrallah could affect even more minds than he has in life.

Harkadahl in the UK elaborated, "The broadest possible lesson from this conflict is that will cannot be imposed by force. For every Hezbollah fighter killed, two take his place. For every Lebanese civilian killed, a whole family is radicalized." Ari Verveer in the Netherlands similarly argued that while Hezbollah might lose its cache of rockets in the short term, over the coming years "a divided, economically weak and unstable Lebanon can only add to the number of guerrillas Israel will have to face."

Not all readers agreed, however, that Hezbollah would gain strength. Our featured reader, Ben Rosenschein, argued that the war gave Lebanese people a second chance to decide whether Hezbollah was acting in their interests. If not, he suggested, citizens and secular leadership could together force its disarmament once and for all.

Along with the Bostonian Atheist, Rosenschein contended that the response of Israel to the kidnappings was appropriate and regrettably necessary. Both writers invited their U.S. readers to imagine a violent Mexican gang attacking Los Angeles with rockets. "Now, what would you do?" they asked.

An extended debate over the character of Hezbollah ensued. Israeli panelist Saul Singer adamantly refuted his colleague Ali Ettefagh's characterization of Hezbollah as a "resistance movement". Saul said it was a "transnational terror" organization that must be completely incapacitated.

When reader Daniel Miller asked Saul, "What exactly would a legitimate resistance movement look like if not Hezbollah?" Saul responded, "If Hezbollah's objective were to free Lebanon and were it not an Iranian implant out to destroy Israel, then it would have disarmed itself in 2000, when Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon. The claim that Hezbollah built such a massive force to "liberate" Shebaa Farms is risible."

The important point, says Saul along with many of our readers that "Iran and Syria are even more to blame for this war than Lebanon." Should Israel open a third front against Syria? reader Jacques Saleh asked. Saul entertained the idea, but said Israel could not stretch itself too thin. The following week, in a PostGlobal Live Debate from Jerusalem and Beirut, Saul Singer and Michael Young both called upon the international community to deal forcefully with Iran.

They said that was the best hope for Lebanon, which could soon be embroiled in civil war. Hezbollah would inherit a Lebanon flush with anger and confusion and as an empowered party, it would refocus widespread frustration onto its domestic political foes. Meanwhile, Hezbollah would silence opposition and enforce firm Shiite hegemony. With Iran's aid, a Shiite crescent would then develop across the region, both warned, challenging minorities and secular regimes and spurring multiple conflicts. Reader MikeB worried that World War III could be in the works.

Yet as Daoud Kuttab wrote hopefully from Amman, Jordan. The horrors of war could have some salutary effect if high toll makes Israel wary unilateral action and Hezbollah reluctant to engage in violence. If followed by intensive international engagement, Kuttab suggested, in the end the war may awe citizens into accepting a more lasting peace.

With diplomacy and Iran at the center of this two-week-old debate, and with the recent refusal by Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, we sent the following question to our panel, and invite you to join the debate:

Officials from Tehran reportedly refused to halt uranium enrichment, instead offering the United Nations a "new formula" for further negotiations.

Is Iran just trying to buy time? Should the UN negotiate more with Iran, or impose sanctions because of its failure to comply?

Let us know what you think.

Two additional notes:

»On Monday, July 31st, Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed in the Post saying the U.S. must engage Iran on more than the nuclear issue. Is this an opportunity?

»And tomorrow, Thursday at noon ET, Ali Ettefagh from Tehran will be online to answer questions about life in Iran and the nuclear deal. Click here to pose question now.