Word from Michael Totten (via Naharnet) that Syria is telling its citizens to leave Lebanon by July 15th in anticipation of a “[p]ossible eruption of violent crisis” and even more shockingly, has already invaded Lebanon. The Syrian army has penetrated to a depth of three kilometers into the Bekaa Valley. They are digging in, throwing up berms and revetments with the evident intent of staying a while.
The invasion, coupled with the call for their citizens to get out of Lebanon means one of two things could be at work here; a gigantic bluff being run by Syria and Hizbullah in advance of the multi-party talks in Paris that will take place later this week or a genuine war warning. With the unpredictable Assad, it’s anyone’s guess at this point what he has in mind. But given the absolute, unbending determination the Syrian President has shown to keep the International Tribunal from meeting added to the fact that no one in the west appears willing to stand with Lebanon in this, her most desperate hour, I am leaning toward the belief that Syria is about ready to manufacture an “incident” that would set off a violent confrontation in Beirut between Hizbullah and the March 14th forces, giving Assad an excuse to re-occupy the country or allow Nasrallah to deploy his well armed, well trained militia against the March 14th amateurs.
Many signs recently have pointed to some kind of resolution to the 7 month long cabinet crisis that has virtually paralyzed the government. Nasrallah promised many months ago that the elected government would be overthrown peacefully and hasn’t delivered. He’s had his followers in the streets of Beirut surrounding the government building while Prime Minister Siniora and his ministers have hung tough in the face of incredible dangers and provocations.
But time is running out on Assad which is why the rhetoric from the opposition has been escalating drastically the last 10 days. Walid Phares:
The main issue now is the presidency of the republic. Elections are currently slated to take place in September. But current, pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will try to postpone the elections as long as he can. The March 14 movement (opposed to the Syrian regime) will try to vote for its candidate — not yet selected — by late October/early November. The new president won’t be recognized by Hezbollah and its allies.Hezbollah and its allies will form a government of their own and take control of large parts of Lebanon. This plan is two years old. It is being publicized only now by both parties in the propaganda-warfare realm.
There is a possibility that the “axis” may attempt to break down the Seniora government during the summer (July-September) through ground action, and also by initiating the formation of another cabinet.
Al Mustaqbal, the pro-Hariri daily is publishing reports about a potential coup d’etat by Hezbollah as a “preemptive strike.” The information about Iran-Hezbollah plans for a coup, were made available as early as 2006 by the Lebanese international lobby (also known as the World Council of the Cedars Revolution). The March 14 coalition chose to release this information now, as the other side is also leaking it in an attempt to intimidate the Seniora cabinet. Hence, as both sides are leaking it simultaneously, it has been picked up by international monitors of the various media, including MEMRI. In short, the plan of a coup d’etat by Hezbollah, and backed by Iran and Syria is two years old, but it is surfacing now as the crush moment draws dramatically closer. “
MEMRI is reporting the same thing; that Hizbullah is set to form a “shadow government” in Lebanon:
For the past month, senior officials in the Hizbullah-led Lebanese government, as well as Lebanese President Emil Lahoud, have been threatening to establish a second government in Lebanon, or to take “historical” and “strategic” steps that will be announced in due course.The crisis between the March 14 Forces and the Lebanese opposition has deepened with the approach of the legal date set for the presidential elections, which the opposition is threatening to prevent, and in light of harsh criticism by the Lebanese government and the March 14 Forces accusing Syria of being behind all the recent attempts to destabilize Lebanon.
On June 18, 2007, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Lebanese opposition, reported that Lahoud had postponed until mid-July the deadline on his ultimatum requiring the opposition to apprise him of their plans against the March 14 Forces. According to the paper, if the crisis is not resolved by July 15, the opposition will form the second government. [6]
On June 25, 2007, Al-Akhbar reported that the opposition had already discussed plans to form a second government and to take over the government ministries, in the event that the Al-Siniora government continued to adhere to its current positions. The paper added that the opposition had even begun to name the individuals who will form the second government.
A senior member of the Lebanese opposition told Al-Akhbar that he believed that if the second government is established, the Lebanese army will adopt a neutral stance. He estimated that the regions that would be loyal to the second government would be larger than the ones remaining loyal to Al-Siniora’s government. He further said that people from the South, from the Beqa’ valley, and from a large part of the Mount Lebanon region, as well as in the North, would refuse to recognize Al-Siniora’s government. He added that UNIFIL would find itself facing a new reality when it discovered that Al-Siniora’s government was no longer able to support its activities or ensure its security. [7]
It should be noted that an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is affiliated with the March 14 Forces, estimated that the second government’s jurisdiction would include South Lebanon, that is, the area bordering Israel, and the Beqa’ valley, that is, the region bordering Syria. [8]
Lots of speculation but little in the way of hard news about the plans and purposes of the Assad/Hizbullah/Iranian axis.
This presents something of a dilemma for Siniora and his besieged cabinet. They know a storm is coming but they don’t know when and are unsure of its magnitude. A Hizbullah move to create a “shadow government” would probably generate a lot of publicity but would hardly change the power equation in the country. Hizbullah has been an independent force for years, exercising authority in the south in opposition to the government. They have their own infrastructure in place already. Any declaration by Nasrallah – even if his “government” included Christians and Sunnis as ministers – would fail to generate much support outside of the Hizbullah stronghold in the south.
This leads me to believe that Nasrallah has something else planned in conjunction with the formation of another government in opposition to Siniora. It could be, as Phares points out above, the initiation of some kind of violence in the streets – past patterns suggesting a series of bombings possibly in Sunni areas of Beirut – that would give legitimacy to Nasrallah’s call for a new government to control the spilling of blood. This would certainly ratchet up the pressure on Siniora. His refusal to accede to Nasrallah’s demands in the face of increasing violence might – just might – give Syria an excuse to move back into Beirut.
Would Assad dare? Michael Totten:
Syria can, apparently, get away with just about anything. I could hardly blame Assad at this point if he believes, after such an astonishing non-response, that he can reconquer Beirut. So far he can kill and terrorize and invade and destroy with impunity, at least up to a point. What is that point? Has anyone in the U.S., Israel, the Arab League, the European Union, or the United Nations even considered the question?
There has been no outcry about Syria’s moving troops into the Bekaa from the United States, from the French, from the west, from the Arab League whose Secretary General Amr Moussa has been in Damascus talking with Assad in a futile attempt to head off disaster, from the Saudis, nor from the Iranians who MEMRI reports has moved from a position that opposed the idea of a Lebanese Civil War to now supporting Assad’s position that the International Tribunal must be headed off by any means necessary.
Who will stand with Lebanon? Will anyone fight to save what’s left of Lebanese democracy?
Even if Assad doesn’t order his tanks into Beirut, it is clear that he and the opposition forces are slowly gaining the upper hand in this cabinet standoff. Siniora can do nothing except endure the pressure coming from Nasrallah and Assad. They have tried every formula possible – without giving up their majority status – to try and accommodate Nasrallah and his beef about Shia cabinet representation. Every time it appears that a solution is at hand, Nasrallah has backed off and raised the ante. He has variously demanded new parliamentary elections as well as holding hostage the presidential selection process until Siniora is gone and his handpicked toady is in place.
There simply is no placating Nasrallah. Compromise and accommodation are not his goals. He means to overthrow the government and will accept nothing less. The coming talks in Paris beginning Saturday among all parties is just more window dressing for Nasrallah, one more venue where he can spout his lies and sound reasonable, all the while plotting his next move in this deadly game of chess with Siniora and his western backed government.
The answer to the question of who might help Lebanon is unfortunately, no one who could do much good before the storm hits. The United States, already involved in one civil war in Iraq could hardly be expected to deploy any troops to Beirut in order to become embroiled in another. The French, with their long standing affection and sense of responsibility toward the Lebanese people wouldn’t move militarily without some help from the EU and the US even if Sarkozy demonstrated a willingness to do so.
The United Nations would examine the situation carefully and after a couple of weeks of debate would issue a watered down resolution condemning the Syrians for meddling in Lebanon. As far as ordering the 13,000 UNIFIL force in the south to assist the Siniora government, that simply won’t happen. Those forces are not configured for combat and besides, it would be a huge stretch to imagine the UN involving itself in a civil war by taking sides.
The Saudis, as Lebanon’s chief financial ally, could only stand and watch as Lebanon was gobbled up by Assad. King Abdullah has no desire to get into a shooting war with either Hizbullah or Syria. Other moderate Arab states would also condemn any coup in Lebanon but would except an Assad fait accompli as a fact of life.
Except for rhetoric, Siniora and the March 14th forces will find themselves alone to face the tiger. And as the situation moves toward a climax, the painful reality will be that in the face of a ruthless, determined foe, the United States and the west failed to protect and nurture the hope for democracy in one of the most pro-western, secular Arab nations in the world.
UPDATE
Allah also believes the Syrian army’s move into Bekaa presages some kind of political denouement to the crisis. He sees “the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon as guarantors of the new government.” In this scenario, Assad keeps his forces out of Beirut while letting Nasrallah and Hizbullah slug it out with the woefully undermanned and underequipped Christian and Sunni militias. Once Nasrallah has the clear upper hand – something that should happen rather quickly – Assad moves in to prop up Nasrallah’s new government while ruthlessly suppressing any opposition to it. This is something the Syrian intelligence service was born to do, having proved themselves more than up to the task both in Lebanon and rebellious areas of Syria.
12:22 pm
Hard to believe but next year will mark the 50th anniversary of a U.S. president (Eisenhower) sending marines into Lebanon because of political turmoil. Things don’t change much…
12:58 pm
Who will protect Lebanon from a Syrian invasion?...
By Rick Moran
Word that Syria is telling its citizens to leave Lebanon by July 15th in anticipation of a “[p]ossible eruption of violent crisis” and even more shockingly, has already invaded Lebanon….
2:55 pm
Has Syria really invaded Lebanon yet? I prefer to wait for a confirmation of this news.
Since the USA has given up their role as an “honest broker” and has started to support Israel’s landgrab unconditionally and to try to corner Syria’s Assad, things get messed up there more and more.
– Assad’s regime is consolidated by the US desaster in Iraq and due to Hezbollah’s success in the recent short Lebanon war. – Iran is greatly empowered courtesy of USA who crushed their main enemy (the Sunni Baathists) and brought to power Iran’s Shiite allies, Dawa & SIIC. – In Palestine Hamas grows to become the salient voice of the Palestinians.
Things develop … and seem to spiral out of control gradually.
I suppose next year (maybe earlier) USA will air-raid Iran, and Israel will use this “opportunity” to try to finish Hezbollah.
Both wars will have repercussions, i.e. effects and side-effects, that will be out of control.
(This US government and its supporters never were good in anticipating the ugly consequences of their well-intended activities.)
Those two powers with the big stick in the MiddleEast – the high tech fire power – should not forget that – they only can destroy with this fire power, but they cannot build, – they will create ever more determined enemies who learn to fight an asymmetric war and sacrifice their lives in it, – they undermine global economy (by endangering the oil flow from the MidEast).
US and Israeli politics in the MidEast are counter-productive in these three respects.
Time is now on the enemies’ side. We need the MidEast oil, and cannot afford an explosion of the whole region as long as their is no replacement for this ressource. So why on earth do we play with fire?
The current evolution toward a Hezbollah dominance and a restauration of Syrian influence in Lebanon is just a small piece in the mosaic that builds right now.
Europeans like me watch with desparation how USA and Israel build up a fire in which they might get burnt – and in which we might get burnt with them.
(We Germans have our own experience with hubris and political irresponsibility: see 1914-18, and see 1933-45! We thought we were sooo strong … and so gooood, of course, so much better than the others …)
9:48 pm
Syria will roll through Lebanon like a steamroller through vanilla pudding. And no one will stand up for Lebanon. And Syria will line its forces along the Israeli border, side by side with Hezbollah while Hamas lines up in Gaza and just for good measure, Al Qaeda will begin the attack on Jordan. And the World will sit on its collective hands.
The Harry Reids and the John Murthas and the New York Times and the Rick Morans will have used and nurtured the Iraq War Surrender attitude in the U.S. to a point that while Israel burns our Marines will be back at their bases in the Carolinas turning out the last light.
Lebanon is lost and it’s barely started. If any of you know any Americans in Lebanon and Israel, get em out now because they will be lambs left to slaughter.
10:12 pm
Unfortunately I’m not sure anyone in the West can stand up for Lebanon. Syria and their allies in Iran are backed up by the most powerful nation on earth which is Russia. Also, Iran recieves much support from the second most powerful nation on earth which is China.
The United States has suffered enormous losses due to its mis steps in Iraq. The US is largely finished as a major global power. Any additional fighting in the Middle East will involve fighting against either Russia, China, or their proxies. At this time, the US military does not have the fire power to defeat either Russia or China.
The best thing for the US to do at this point is to withdraw entirely from the Middle East, secure its northern and southern borders, develop more of its own oil and gas reserves, and build more refineries.
3:35 am
Fight4:
This is nuts. The President proposes yesterday EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN PROPOSING FOR SIX MONTHS!
Is he a surrender monkey too?
“[T]he president has mapped out a best-case scenario for Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009, that would still see considerable numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, but in a different role. If events work out as Bush hopes, aides said, U.S. forces by then will have sharply reduced their mission, pulling out of sectarian combat and focusing instead on fighting al-Qaeda, guarding Iraq’s borders and supporting Iraqi troops. Instead of operating under a U.N. mandate, the United States would negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government for a smaller, long-term presence.”
The problem is for people like you is that anyone who deviates one iota from what you consider the correct path in Iraq is a traitor. Well, the goddamn President of the United States is advocating a course of action above that I have been advocating for 6 months!
What does that make you? A traitor to the President?
3:41 am
This is what I said back in April:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/04/29/a-clarification-or-two/
And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.†That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.
Where the f**k do you see “surrender” in there?
7:31 am
Okay Rick, I’ll explain it to you. Way back you advocated placating the Dems. You mentioned a “token” withdrawl. There is no such thing as “token” to the Dems and the Surrender monkeys. That’s like giving six months more to Iran to fix their paperwork for the UN Atomic Energy Commission while they use that six months to further the bomb.
Your plan is flawed in the same way you don’t give a bank robber with a bank full of hostages a helicopter and a million in cash in exchange for the hostages. The same way we didn’t take bin Laden up on his offer of amnesty for the U.S. and Europe. If you believe there is one Dem leader in Congress that will change their attitude with a withdrawl of say 10 or 20,000 troops, then you perhaps now see the wisdom of McCain-Feingold.
Hillary Clinton said it best….”Not next April, not tomorrow, but TODAY!”
And this is the kind of person you want to appease with a “token” withdrawl?
Rick, if you actually believe that a gesture of withdrawl would not amount to a hole in a dam that then bursts wide open, I’ve underestimated your perception of the Left.
And finally, I wrote my piece to on here before the President spoke yesterday. But that makes no difference. My contention all along is that we follow the strategy of Gen. Petraeus. If Petraeus has the time and troops that he asked for and is allowed to report back in September and he then throws his hands up and says, “We just can’t get it done”, then I am for following his recommendations.
And to clarify something, Rick. I never called you a traitor, you referred to yourself that way. My reference to you was that you purported a mission of surrender and have nurtured that opinion in this Land. And I stand by that opinion. I see the danger in that…being that 90% of the people in your camp right now would not authorize any military action anywhere in the World for any reason. A surrender and withdrawl from Iraq simply means the end of any credible U.S. deterrent to attacks on Israel or any other democracy in the World.
And if I can go one step further…you will see a movement in this Country that will resist any act of retaliation to another major attack on U.S. soil.
8:35 am
I have to agree that Assad is moving on Lebanon. What would you do if you were in his position? The timing is perfect with the US tied down in Iraq and having problems with Iran. Assad has long made it known that Lebanon was a part of Syria, and now he is poised to make that happen. But this is not entirely a great idea for Syria. The region now becomes a hodgepodge of tribes, sects and religions seething under Syrian control. Long term, under a dictator less accomplished that Assad, this could very well fall apart.
11:06 am
Assad is Saddam lite. His father slaughtered 10,000 Shias in a couple of towns to the north of Damascus in 1988 while Bashar has been absolutely ruthless against domestic opponents. I have no doubt that he will have no qualms killing as many Lebanese as necessary to maintain control.
12:36 pm
Rick, yes he learned well from his father who killed thousands when The Muslim Brotherhood went to far. Never the less he is a, very much in the minority, Alawite along with his ministers and officer corps. That fact does complicate things for him in that members of other religious groups will always feel ostracized and resentful of being ruled by a very small minority sect, particularly when all of the top jobs [and the graft that goes with them] only go to Alawites. Another possible fly in his ointment is that if he tries to rule through Nasrallah as a proxie there is the potential the Nasrallah might decide to act independently, knowing he has Iranian support. I admit these things are long shots, but as we have seen in the witches brew of the Middle East even well laid plans can go very wrong very quickly. Good post by the way, very informative.
7:58 pm
1
“Who will stand for Lebanon?”
Are the Shiites of Lebanon not part of Lebanon – and more than a third of it? They are Hezbollah and Amal, and are proSyrian. They are not represented adequately in the election system, thus discriminated politically. They want their democratically legitimate share.
So: Who will stand for the WHOLE Lebanon?
2
Assad is not Saddam lite. A dictator, but not worse than Mubarrak in Egypt, f.e..
And by the way, most Syrians are backing him now because they see what is happening in Iraq …
Oust Assad – and you get the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus. Anybody of you wants to have that?
3
How many percent of the US voters now demand a more or less complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?
As long as you assume the USA is a democracy you will have to consider: People will get their will!
People are tired of this war, of the lies they are told about successes, of the wasting of money, the wasting of lives, the spoiling of the army, the gloating of the enemy who humiliates the proud US army …
And people will get more tired by the month. So it is just a question of time until politicians are coerced to follow this will of the people – whether they like it or not.
Or don’t they have to follow this will of the people? Do you think that against the will of the people the USA should go on trying to occupy Iraq?
Is there a power in the USA that is beyond the will of the voters?
As long as you appreciate democracy you ought to include in all war plans:
Can you convince a majority of your people that it makes sense until the end – even when backlashes will make the war a bloody burden?