With many thousands in Israel and Lebanon fearful for their lives after a sixth day of unabated violence, it is natural that world leaders should clutch at any straw that may help to end the latest chapter of Middle East bloodshed. They, like many millions of others, are anxious to see a prompt ceasefire, even if such a lull does not immediately promise a lasting peace. This is understandable and, at least in the current circumstances, any day without rockets fired and bombs dropped is a day worth having. Ideas about how to bring this about, though, are not necessarily all good ones.

Before G8 leaders left St Petersburg yesterday, the idea of sending an international force to the region gathered pace. Championed by Kofi Annan and Tony Blair, it envisages troops from a range of countries occupying a 12-mile-wide buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Mr Blair said that such a force would “stop the bombardment coming over into Israel”. The Foreign Minister of Finland, currently holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, went so far as to suggest that the international troops should be seen “as part of a long-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict”. There is certainly merit in having the boldness to regard a setback as an opportunity, but only if the analysis of the underlying problem is correct.

It is hard to see how ground troops, presumably under UN auspices, could stop Hezbollah’s Iranian-made rockets, with a range of 50 miles, from sailing overhead. Besides, there is already a 2,000-strong UN mission in the area, where it has been since 1978, although it does not have the power to enforce peace. Any new force, presumably with a stiffer mandate, could take months to form and then mobilise. This may be an honourable idea, but it does not look like a solution.

Likewise, Mr Blair needs to be sure that his shuttle diplomacy has purpose. The Prime Minister, unaware that his remarks were being recorded, suggested to Mr Bush that he could travel ahead of Condoleezza Rice because, as he put it, she would need to succeed whereas he could “go out and just talk”. However well-meaning his motives, this crisis needs more than prime ministerial words.

Although history suggests that the region’s problems are intractable, the parameters of the current crisis are simple. Iran, with help from Syria, is trying to maximise its influence. Its arming of Hezbollah with rockets that can reach deep into Israel gives the radical militia group, and ultimately Tehran, the power to sabotage any Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. It is of widespread interest, particularly to the Arab world, that this “Shia crescent” is not allowed to become the region’s powerbroker. This includes Syria.

Mr Bush may have been talking Texan rather than diplomatese, but he was right when he said that Syria could swiftly stop Hezbollah. And only the permanent spiking of Hezbollah’s guns will lead to sustainable peace. That will require a diplomatic coalition of the willing, which must include Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to pressure Syria into doing what makes sense for its own future.