It is sometimes hard to believe the remarks coming out of Cairo over the past 48 hours are actually directed at Hezbollah. The Egyptian press has tagged its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, with denigrating epithets like the "monkey sheikh," and remarks from security officials in Cairo to the Israeli press sound reminiscent of how generals speak in times of war.

Those same officials air blunt warnings that Egypt will "vigorously hit back" those who endanger its national security, "whether Iran or Hezbollah." Cairo has made clear that from its perspective, Hezbollah had crossed each and every line in the sand.

This is not the first time Egypt has thwarted the plans of Islamist groups to harm Israelis in its territory. Still, the current incident is being viewed in Egypt as more serious than ever before it, as this time Israel was merely a secondary target.

Egyptian security sources said Hezbollah cells were planning strikes against ships in the Suez Canal, an incalculable strategic asset for the country, and this would not be the first time regional war broke out over disrupted traffic on its waters.

The canal nets Egypt billions of dollars a year, a revenue source second only to tourism. A strike on a ship crossing it would be a dizzying blow to Egypt's economy, President Hosni Mubarak's regime, the country's standing in the Arab world and its own national pride. Tourism would also experience a steep drop if Egypt became perceived as a country which cannot maintain its internal security.

A giant question mark hangs over Nasrallah's motives. Hezbollah would presumably gain from attacking Israeli targets and smuggling weapons to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but the pace with which it admitted publicly that it operated terror cells on Egyptian sand will only diminish its standing.

In the eyes of the Arab world, this is a deed that simply isn't done. Syria, if it operated similarly against Jordan or Saudi Arabia, would never admit as much. Even Israel, since its failed 1997 assassination attempt on Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Amman, is hesitant to conduct such actions in Arab countries with which it has peace agreements.

One possible explanation for Hezbollah's actions is that its leader became a victim of his own hubris. After blatantly intervening in Palestinian affairs, he took de facto control of Lebanon and openly threatened Egypt during Israel's Gaza offensive for supposedly siding with the"Zionist enemy."

Perhaps he erred in believing he could go toe-to-toe with Mubarak, and even hoped the move would bolster support of his organization ahead of Lebanese elections in two months.

Prof. Eyal Zisser, head of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said Hezbollah's actions in Egypt would not change the voting patterns of Lebanon's Druze, Sunnis or Maronite Christians, and its Shiites generally support the movement anyway.

Former Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. (Res.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash believes Nasrallah was fulfilling a mission he was ordered to carry out by Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is striking a hard, provocative line against Israel and the West, and under his mentorship Nasrallah seems to be sticking his neck out even further.

Ze'evi-Farkash believes the Middle East is on the brink of a particularly significant period in its history as the Barack Obama administration calls for renewed dialogue with Tehran. But Iran would want to enter such a dialogue from a position of strength, seeing the international community is too weak and hesitant to stop its nuclear program or its intervention in affairs in countries around the region.

In Israel's eyes, a high-profile confrontation between Egypt, Iran and Hezbollah is good news. But even now, it is best to keep in mind that Egypt is hardly working in Jerusalem's best interest. Egypt's rage at Nasrallah will not necessarily translate into comprehensive steps against weapons smuggling to Gaza, or to warmer relations with Israel.