While the dust is beginning to settle over last week’s armed thuggery by Hizbullah against the Sunni community in West Beirut and the Druze in Chouf, several Middle East analysts have come to the conclusion that Iran was behind the violence in Lebanon:
Increasingly, prominent Middle East analysts and observers are suggesting that the past week’s events in Lebanon were part of an attempt by Iran to impose a new order in the Middle East through Hezbollah’s weapons. Raghida Durgham, al-Hayat daily’s reporter in Washington, wrote on May 16 that the party’s arms offer a doorway for Iran to enter Lebanon, one that does not require sending a foreign army like the Syrian troops that entered Lebanon after the civil war. “Iran today is like a border to Lebanon because of Hezbollah’s arms and Iran’s continuous support,” she wrote. “Syria is the important link between Iran and Hezbollah’s arms. However, the strategic decision is made by the Iranians.”Durgham also quoted a high ranking Arab source who stressed that the best explanation for Lebanon’s recent crisis is that Iran feared a US military attack this summer, which it sought to preempt by mobilizing Hezbollah.
If this is true – and I have doubts about just how much the Iranians really “control” Hizbullah – it represents a radical shift in Iranian strategic thinking. Previously, Iran has been perfectly content to basically sit back and watch the United States get bogged down in Iraq while we were slowly losing influence among the Sunni states in the region. Their assistance given to the Iraqi terrorists, militias, and insurgents has not altered the military situation in Iraq. It wasn’t designed to. It was designed to keep the US pinned down while they plowed ahead with their enrichment program.
Now that they are on the cusp of being able to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, they have apparently decided to put the hammer down and go for broke in Lebanon.
Former 12-year Hezbollah member and fighter Rami Olleik, now an instructor of Agriculture at the American University of Beirut, also suggested, based on his own experience with the party, that the past week’s confrontations are part of the war between the US and Iran. “The difference is that March 14 did not merge organically with the US project as much as Hezbollah did with the Iranian project. Hezbollah and Iran’s projects are inseparable,” he added.Likewise, Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh also indicated to NOW Lebanon that the Lebanese opposition’s military operations last week were obviously an Iranian decision. “However, moving the front to Lebanon was a trial that has turned against Iran, as it opened the issue of [Hezbollah’s] arms,” Hamadeh said.
According to Hamadeh, the Arabs, led by the Arab League, have taken back the political initiative and decided to stop the military takeover of Lebanon. “The battle in the Chouf made [the opposition] stop and think, but even in Beirut, they couldn’t have stayed longer,” he stressed.
Appearing on my radio show last Tuesday, Professor Barry Rubin suggested that one way to counter this Iranian thrust was to have the United States become much more active in its support of the government. To date, the US (and France) have remained largely in the background, letting Saudi King Abdullah carry most of the diplomatic load. But should the US then try to “organically merge” with the pro-democracy Sunnis in Lebanon to match the Iranians and Hizbullah?
I can give 5 good reasons off the top of my head why such a move would be incredibly dangerous – backlash against the government, being asked to arm and train Sunni militias, risking our reputation in a civil war situation, the high cost of failure, and the potential of being dragged into another war.
In fact, I can give only one good reason we should get much closer to the March 14th government; Iran is there and so far, we have not engaged. We are giving Iran a cheap victory because of our reluctance to support the government. If Iran does indeed want to make Lebanon a proxy site for a war, we refuse them at our own peril. A Lebanese government dominated by Hizbullah under Iranian control and buttressed by Syrian muscle would at the very least scramble Middle East politics but good.
With the government revoking its two controversial decisions, Hezbollah’s quasi-state now appears stronger than the Lebanese government.“Negotiations took place under pressure and threats of escalating the military operations. The government from now on will be under the command of Hezbollah, and it would never dare to make any decision that is not in Hezbollah’s interests, otherwise they will occupy the country,” Asaad stressed. He added that dialogue should now focus on one issue: either the arms go, or Lebanon goes.
If that is the choice, it will almost certainly be Lebanon that “goes.” Despite the Arab League’s efforts at mediation in Doha this weekend – and the question of Hizbullah’s arms will be discussed – not much will be accomplished if only because Hizbullah is now seen as an occupying force in its own country. They promised not to use their guns on the Lebanese, that they were only to be aimed at Israel. Now that the great lie has been exposed, they have become isolated. No longer a state within a state, they are simply a rogue militia that seeks to impose its will by the barrel of a gun.
And standing behind the curtain urging them on is Tehran who understands that bringing down the democratically elected government backed by the US and the west would deal a blow to our entire position in the region. If other players see the US fail to engage and pick up the Iranian gauntlet, they will draw the necessary conclusions and make their own peace with the Iranians as best they can.
While Sunni leader Said Hariri swears that he will not try and recruit a Sunni militia to fight Hizbullah thus avoiding what would be a catastrophic civil war, his followers may have other ideas. As Druze leader Walid Jumblatt found out to his chagrin last week, people being attacked do not always follow orders. Even after ordering the Druze to lay down their arms and allow the army to take up their positions, the fighters refused and ended up dealing Hizbullah a stinging defeat. Thus, it is becoming apparent that the political leaders have a tenuous hold over their followers and that the next round of violence may spin out of control to everyone’s detriment.
This isn’t the endgame in Lebanon. But unless the US decides to throw its weight behind the moderate, pro-democracy Sunnis in Lebanon soon, it could all be over before we even realize it started.
5:52 pm
Guess who said this?
“the American people can look back at the track record of George Bush, supported by John McCain, and say to themselves, let’s see, we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were none. We were told that we would be there relatively briefly. We have been there over five years. We were told that this would cost maybe 50 billion, 60 billion.
We are now on $600 billion. We were told this would make us safer and that this would be a model of democracy in the Middle East. Hasn’t turned out that way. We were told this would not serve as a distraction in Afghanistan. You have Bin Laden sending out videotapes, today. And our own intelligence estimates say that Al Qaeda is stronger now in Afghanistan and in the foothills of Pakistan than in anytime since 2001. And Iran is stronger now than before we invaded. So the American people are going to look at the evidence and they are going to say to themselves, you know, we don’t get a sense that this has been a wise foreign policy or a tough foreign policy or a smart foreign policy. This has been a policy that often times has been revolved around a lot of bluster and big talk but very little performance. What the American people want right now is some performance.”
6:50 am
Assuming the Iranian influence in Lebanon is as you describe, the question now becomes does the Admin engage the situation there or uses it as a casus belli for a direct Iranian attack. I suppose there is always the third option of twiddling their thumbs, but I pray they aren’t that foolish.
Or foolish enough to attack Iran. No – there are measures we can take to bolster Siniora far short of war. There are risks – but depending on what we do, they are manageable.
ed.
10:32 am
You mentioned that Professor Barry Rubin, a recent guest on your radio show, said “To date, the US (and France) have remained largely in the background, letting Saudi King Abdullah carry most of the diplomatic load. But should the US then try to “organically merge” with the pro-democracy Sunnis in Lebanon to match the Iranians and Hizbullah?”
This is a great point and in my opinion, further evidence of one of Bush’s biggest strategic blunders. He has placed too much trust in our “allies” the Saudis and Pakistan. These are the very people most responsible for the growth of radical Islam. How can we continue trusting them to help broker our interests in the world when clearly we have totally different and often conflicting interests.
I hope the US works directly with Lebanon in making sure they have the resources needed to demand that Hizbullah either disarm and become a political party or, be disarmed as criminals. However, the onus to stop Hizbullah squarely falls at the feet of Lebanon’s 2/3 non-shia population. If they are content to capitulate, it will come to be.
2:03 pm
Iraq, Persain Gulf and Lebanon
What are we doing in Iraq, Persian Gulf and Lebanon, region about 7000 miles away from our USA home?
We have killed a lot of people in Iraq and are paying a price for our invasion of the land. The price is being paid by people in our great Armed Forces and our children who have to pay for the cost of our adventurisms.
Don’t believe it for a minute that we are in the Middle East to give them democracy. Let us do that in our own backyard, our own hemisphere. Please travel to Mexico, our nearest neighbor. Let us spend some of our money and expertise to better the life for these people. Really if we want to do something right, spend the money and manpower in Africa among the neediest people in the world. Feed them and educate them.
We can’t even fool ourselves anymore.
Does the old colonial technique, separating nations into groups then making them to fight each other, works anymore? The Middle East will do best without the United States; they have done it over 4000 years. No thanks, they say: “we would not need your democracy.”
Please let us go home. We have a lot of things to do in our own Old USA and hemisphere.
4:14 pm
#4, we must focus on credible threats. If Mexico poses a threat, we need to spend some resources on it. I agree that we are not in Iraq to promote democracy. Promoting democracy is a strategy to blunt the credible threat many felt Iraq posed to the US. It was not an end and is only a partial means, as paying partial attention to Gen. Petraeus’ two major appearance before Congress would have made clear. Your characterizations of Iraq as some kind of colonial harbinger seem off, since we handed over power some time ago. Our military over there has not been used to push our will down the GOI’s throat. I actually think democracy in Iraq poses a regional threat to the bad guys, which is part of the strategy. Iran is not doing well internally. But they are capable of wreaking havoc on the region.
I am guardedly optimistic about what is happening in Iraq, but guardedly pessimistic about much of the rest of the world. The actions against the Mehdi militia, Iranian Quds force, including the Iranian Special Groups, AQI all seem to be doing well. AQI is dying. Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army units are doing better. But corruption is still a huge problem. Do you think we would have been better off using $600 Billion in massive USAID initiatives in our hemisphere or continent? Do you really want to ignore the sacrifices of our citizens and squander our accomplishments? I want them home yesterday, but only if the day before that they accomplished their mission. If we deem the mission impossible, then bring them home. But the soldiers on the ground seem hopeful and committed, so I must be, also.
Mr. Moran, what actions should we take in Lebanon? Diplomatic? Aid? Should we arm the Druze population more heavily than they already are? Should we seek to influence the balance of power to allow others to stand up to Hezbollah? Should we try to convince the allies of Hezbollah that their alliance is foolish?
And should we do any of these overtly? Or covertly?
Lebanon is a mess. It is horrible that a country like that should be reduced to this, but they are scarred by their civil war and by Syrian/Iranian ham-handedness over decades.
Setting up a proxy seems foolish with risk. The fault lines seem stark, and they seem to have been exacerbated by Hezbollah’s actions. But Hezbollah also emerged more powerful, apparently.
Thanks for any additional input.
4:20 pm
#4, Africans should really be able to feed and educate themselves. They have accomplished great things historically. But strongmen like Mugabe squander their resources, turning a breadbasket into a charity case. The US is doing great things in Africa, with AIDS education, research, prevention, medicines. Anti-malarial initiatives which have saved multitudes. Micro loans to allow hard working entrepreneurs survive and thrive. Not that I think those should be actions our federal government takes, but our government is far more progressive than I like, and probably more than you are aware (of :-)).