Right Wing Nut House

Has President Assad of Syria miscalculated again?

Widely believed to be complicit in the assassination of ex Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, Assad may have believed at the time that by killing the beloved ex-leader, he was heading off major opposition to his plan to extend the term of office of his ally President Emile Lahoud. In fact, the Lebanese Parliament rubber stamped the constitutional change that allowed Lahoud to serve until 2007 -but Assad paid an unforeseen price. More than a million Lebanese took to the streets demanding a speedup of the Syrian army pull out scheduled for later that spring. Stung by the size and scope of the demonstrations as well as the inability of Assad’s hand picked Prime Minister to form a government, the Syrian army was forced out along with the dreaded security apparatus that had held Lebanon under its thumb for nearly 20 years. The law of unintended consequences devoured Assad’s hopes.

Now once again a political assassination has taken place in Lebanon. This time, the message sent is even cruder and more direct; if we can’t take power by the vote, we will do it by the gun. If two more ministers in Prime Minister Siniora’s cabinet are killed or resign, the government will fall and Assad’s willing partners in Hizbullah will be well positioned to dominate any election. Through violence and intimidation, they would have the whip hand in any electoral contest to replace Siniora’s government.

But Assad once again may be underestimating the desire of the Lebanese people for freedom and independence. There is a chance that the millions who took to the streets to drive the Syrians out of their country may be called upon to demonstrate again - this time in support of the government that they freely elected in the Summer of 2005:

Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and former President Amine Gemayel called on Tuesday for unity in the deeply divided country after Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel’s assassination.

“Assassinations will not terrorize us,” Saniora told a press conference after an urgent cabinet meeting.

“We will not let the criminal killers control our fate.”

Saniora said “it is time for all Lebanese to unite.”

“The government will take up all its responsibilities in order to protect the interests of the Lebanese,” he pledged.

Saniora said “this aggression increases our determination to see the creation of the international tribunal” to try suspects in the 2005 murder of five-time Premier Rafik Hariri.

“It is time for all the Lebanese to rally around the international tribunal,” he said.

“I call on the Lebanese…to be alert to the sedition planned for them,” he said.

While all the March 14th Forces are calling for calm and restraint, the real question is what the Lebanese people may be thinking about all of this.

Would they consider taking to the streets again to support the democrats? It is one thing to demonstrate with little danger of confronting opposing forces. But it is quite another to go into the streets knowing that a confrontation with the armed militia of Hizbullah looms. And much has happened since those heady spring days in 2005 that have disillusioned some and caused others to question the efficacy of democracy itself. The war with Israel turned many Lebanese against the United States. And Siniora - fairly or unfairly - is closely identified with our efforts to help bring democracy to Lebanon.

Still, there may be a large reservoir of support for the March 14th Forces with ordinary Lebanese. And while they may not be opposed to some kind of cabinet compromise that would increase the number of Shia ministers, this violent attempt to affect the current crisis almost certainly does not sit well with them. They may feel compelled to support the government out of patriotic pride - the same kind of pride that drove them into the streets to demonstrate against Syrian hegemony in their country.

The situation in Lebanon is almost certainly coming to a head. The United Nations is expected to approve the rules for the Tribunal and send them back to Lebanon for the final go ahead by Siniora’s cabinet. The Gemayel assassination along with the news that another government minister was fired upon today makes it absolutely clear what Syria and Hizbullah’s end game is. Tony at the Lebanese blog Across the Bay:

This comes as the UN is set to approve the intl. tribunal today to send it back to Lebanon to be ratified. It also comes at the same time as Hezbollah and the other Syrian agents prepare to take to the streets for a coup d’état to protect the Syrian regime from the tribunal.

My fear is that they will go after a couple more ministers to ensure the government falls.

If this kind of scenario were to unfold, it would mean Hizbullah street demonstrations and Gemayel’s funeral procession would pretty much occupy the same space at the same time. I have no doubt that the ordinary Lebanese who will pour into the streets to show their love and affection for the crown prince of one of the great political families in Lebanon will stand up and be counted when it comes time to show their support for democracy. Whether it will be enough to stave off disaster is anyone’s guess.

The Associated Press is reporting (and the Daily Star confirms) that Lebanon’s Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel was killed by gunmen near Beirut on Tuesday. Gemayel was the son of former President Amin Gemayel, a respected politician and participant in the National Dialogue which until recently, sought to avert a crisis by negotiations with Hizbullah over a new “unity” government.

The choice of the younger Gemayel as a target was no accident. It sends an absolutely clear signal to the rest of Prime Minister Siniora’s cabinet, written in blood, that no one - not even the Prime Minister himself - is safe:

His fatal shooting will certainly heighten the political tension in Lebanon, where the leading Muslim Shiite party Hezbollah has threatened to topple the government if he does not get a bigger say in Cabinet decision making.

Gemayel was rushed to a nearby hospital seriously wounded, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. and Voice of Lebanon, the Phalange Party mouthpiece reported.

The party later announced that he was dead.

Crude, but effective. I doubt whether Nasrallah himself knew in advance. He doesn’t want civil strife. He’s willing to threaten it but when it comes right down to it, he would prefer to swallow Lebanon whole rather than pick up the pieces after a ruinous civil war.

That doesn’t mean that Nasrallah won’t use his militia to foment a crisis in the streets. But he is hoping that the pressure he can put on the March 14th Forces coupled with international pressure on Siniora to give in to his demands will give him what he wants without a messy sectarian conflict.

No. This attack has Syria’s stink all over it. It’s exactly the kind of crude message that Syria sent by assassinating Rafiq Hariri; oppose Syria and you die. I’m not sure what this will mean politically. Too many boxes within boxes to sort out. Nasrallah will deny involvement to the heavens and perhaps even accuse the government of carrying out the assassination in order to undercut his position with the people. The March 14th Forces must tread carefully lest they be seen as taking political advantage of the death of a member of a much beloved family in Lebanon. And the Christian Phalange party may seek retribution against the Shias - a disastrous turn of events if that occurs.

Nothing will happen until the funeral. We should get a better idea of how things are shaking out then.

In the meantime, the International Tribunal should expand its mandate to include an investigating into this murder as well. Until Syria is brought to account for the murder of Hariri and other anti-Syrian journalists and politicians, the Lebanese people will never really be free. They will always be looking over their shoulder, waiting to see what Syria might do to rob them of their nationhood.

UPDATE: METHINKS THEY DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH

Both Syria and Hizbullah have condemned the killing:

Syria on Tuesday condemned the assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, calling the shooting of the anti-Syrian Christian politician in Beirut a “despicable crime.”

The official news agency Sana said in a statement, “This is a crime aimed at destabilizing Lebanon… Syria is careful about preserving Lebanon’s security, unity and civil peace.”

SANA also quoted an anonymous official as saying, “This despicable crime aims to destroy stability and peace in Lebanon.”

The pro-Syrian Hezbollah party in Lebanon also came out against the murder. Hezbollah member Ahmed Melli told Al-Jazeera television, “We strongly condemn and denounce this killing. It was carried out by those forces who want to harm the future of Lebanon.”

Please note that the Syrian statement about preserving Lebanon’s “security, unity and civil peace” does not include the term “independence.”

This makes 5 prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese murdered over the last 2 years:

Former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was killed in a massive car bombing in February 2005. The journalist and activist Samir Kassir and former Communist Party leader George Hawi were killed in separate car bombings in June last year in addition to lawmaker and newspaper manager Gibran Tueni was killed in a car bombing in December.

Tueni was publisher of the largest Arab daily newspaper in Lebanon, An Nahar and was a much beloved figure. And that list doesn’t include 3 or 4 others who have been wounded in assassination attempts including a very popular female TV reporter.

UPDATE II

Via Malkin, a great article by Daily Star Opinion Editor Michael Young in the Wall Street Journal today that calls for Syria to be punished for the Hariri asssassination:

The Iraq Study Group’s report, expected in the coming weeks, will possibly include such an invitation. Syria’s Lebanese foes fear they will pay if the U.S. and Damascus cut a deal.
If so, it wouldn’t be the first time for Mr. Baker. In 1990, he was a leading light in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, which ceded Lebanon to Syria in exchange for President Hafez Assad’s agreement to be part of the international coalition against Iraq. An inveterate “realist,” Mr. Baker is not likely to balk at negotiating with Mr. Assad if it means the U.S. can buy some peace of mind as it transforms its presence in Iraq. His proposal is unpopular at the White House, and last week Mr. Bush made that known to Mr. Baker and his colleagues. However, because of his electoral defeat, the president, pressed by a Congress avidly searching for new ideas, might find less latitude to ignore Syria down the road.

Unless, of course, the U.N. incriminates Syrian officials in the Hariri murder. That Mr. Assad realizes the fatal implications of this connection was evident when British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently sent a senior adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Damascus for a chat. The visit, reportedly approved by Washington, aimed to see if Syria could be enticed away from Iran. If The Economist is correct, and the magazine spoke to Mr. Sheinwald upon his return, the Syrian president has four conditions: an end to the Hariri investigation, a guarantee that the U.S. would not undermine his regime, a return of Syrian influence in Lebanon, and the handing back of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967. No doubt Mr. Assad would demand much the same from the U.S. if it ran to Damascus to “engage” him on Iraq, assuming the Syrian leader would consider conceding to Washington in a moment of strength what he refused when he was weak.

The key is the Tribunal. All else becomes impossible for Assad if the Syrian government is implicated in the Hariri killing. Syria would become an international pariah and Assad himself might find himself on the outs.

I have a feeling that things are going to go south very soon in Lebanon.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Americans have been in a foul mood recently.

One would think that taking satisfaction from giving the Republicans the heave ho and depositing them in the minority would lift the spirits of our citizenry and buoy their confidence so that we could face the future with that good old fashioned American optimism that has carried the nation through difficult times in the past.

Alas, such is not the case. America awoke the day after the election and realized that kicking the GOP out of power was only part of the problem. The other half of the electoral bargain - passing the baton to the Democrats - has so far, proven to be something of a disappointment. Rarely has a party come to power as the Democrats have with such a paucity of ideas on how to cure what ails us. You can hardly blame them. Their electoral strategy involved keeping their mouths shut while the Republicans self-destructed and events in Iraq played out to their advantage. Not a brilliant battle plan but it worked to perfection - with the help of Mark Foley and the media-savvy insurgents and terrorists who have made Baghdad and its environs a hell on earth.

Unfortunately, now that they are poised to run the legislative branch of government, the lack of specificity about what they intend to do about Iraq, about Iranian nukes, about a slowly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan is coming back to haunt them. This has further soured the mood of our fellow citizens and we approach the holiday season with some trepidation and many questions unanswered.

Events the world over seem to be spinning out of our control as conflicts and crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Darfur, Somalia, and several other hot spots have proved themselves resistant to any solutions we have been able to offer. Whether our efforts have been unilateral, acting in concert with our allies, or even undertaken via the questionable auspices of the United Nations, it seems that the enemies of freedom have it all going their way.

Not so fast, my dejected countrymen. In a surprising number of conflicts and crisis where it appears the enemy has a singular advantage, the fact is that any “victory” they might achieve at our expense will almost certainly come with enormous problems for them as well. And given that their legitimacy is not based on popular sovereignty but rather comes from the barrel of a gun, this makes any domestic problems that may crop up as a result of an American “defeat” a threat to their very existence.

Take the Iranians, for example. As long as we’re in Iraq, the mullahs will continue to do their best to destabilize the government by supporting insurgents and the various Shia militias that are gleefully slaughtering their fellow countrymen who happen to belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. But something has happened in the last few months that even the Iranians didn’t count on. The militias appear to have splintered, many members breaking away from any kind of central command structure and are now operating as independent death squads. Even Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the extremist Mahdi Militia has admitted he no longer controls large numbers of armed men who are roaming the streets of Baghdad looking for victims.

Losing control of their proxies is not the worst of it for the Iranians. The Democratic electoral victory has them even more nervous. Not because they think the Democrats are interested in victory in Iraq but rather because they know that the Democrats want as quick an exit for our troops as can be done without exposing themselves to political charges of cutting and running. The obvious corollary to an American withdrawal is utter and complete chaos in Iraq with not only Shia slaughtering Sunni but also rival Shia militias - the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades - slaughtering each other in a quest for power.

Ahmadinejad may be a loon, but he’s not crazy enough to tolerate a failed state on his border. The Iranians may be forced to send their own troops into the resulting chaos and quagmire to restore some semblance of order. And wouldn’t that be the irony of ironies as it would be payback time for Iraqis who would gladly transfer their hate from occupying Americans to the Iranians who they fought for 10 long years in one of the more brutal wars of the 20th century.

The collapse of the Iraqi government would also give greater independence to the Kurds in the north who already enjoy a large degree of autonomy from Baghdad. With Kurdish Iranians over the border already seething over their perceived second class citizenship and yearning to be united with their ethnic brothers and sisters not only in Iraq but also Turkey and elsewhere, the Persian nightmare of restless minorities causing trouble within the Iranian border may become an uncomfortable reality. And once a few groups start to rebel, anything is possible including a general uprising against the rule of the theocrats.

Also, any success that the Iranians may have with their nuclear program is a double edged sword. While the chances of an American strike against Iranian nuclear facilities may be fading, the fact is that most of the world is united against the idea of a nuclear armed Iran. The closer the mullahs get to their goal of manufacturing a weapon, the more pressure will result from countries like Russia and China that today seem to be hanging back, reluctant to impose even minimal sanctions.

As the Iranian program progresses, they may find those who have been running interference for them at the United Nations less and less sanguine about radical fundamentalist Muslims having the ultimate weapon. And with their economy in the toilet and nearly 50% of the population under the age of 25 (26% under the age of 14), tough sanctions and the resulting international isolation could create the perfect conditions for a revolutionary overthrow of the government.

Meanwhile, Syria is, if anything, in even more trouble than Iran. Just next door, Israel has been making noises about going after Hezb’allah’s patron and supporter in order to keep the terrorists from re-arming. And while Syrian President Bashir Assad continues to meddle in the affairs of his Lebanese neighbors, his support and encouragement of Hezb’allah may be about to yield the unintended consequence of a civil war. Nasrallah is no Syrian toady and is now following his own agenda that he hopes will bring him to power either directly through new elections or indirectly by giving him veto power in a new “government of national unity.”

Resistance to Nasrallah’s plans may erupt into street violence within the week. And while most observers believe that Hezb’allah would emerge victorious, the resulting fractured society would be almost as hard to govern as next door Iraq. Besides, Assad needs Lebanon virtually intact. The little country has been a cash cow for the Syrian Alawi ruling class as they milked and skimmed the economy in the past for every farthing they could.

It is Iraq where Assad faces the most danger. A precipitous American withdrawal would present the Syrians with many of the same problems faced by Iran with a few extra headaches thrown in for good measure. The 90% of Sunni Muslims who make up Syria’s population would not look kindly on the slaughter of their co-religionists in Iraq. Refugees would pour across the border, straining the government’s resources. And the nightmare prospect of a potential radical Shia state ensconced on his border has been one reason that Assad has cooperated - however minimally - with American efforts to staunch the flow of fighters coming into Iraq via Syria.

Even Russia and China, who would seem to gain from American setbacks in the Middle East, would be facing problems that may, in the long run, actually draw them closer to the United States on some issues.

The nuclear non-proliferation problem doesn’t end with Iran. Both nations realize that it is in their vital interest to keep a lid on the bottle containing the nuclear genie if only to forestall a nightmare future with dozens of nuclear powers, any one of which capable of igniting World War III. This is why eventually, both nations will work with us to keep Iran from getting the bomb. The alternative is just too gruesome to contemplate.

In the Middle East, both nations realize the need for peace and stability - especially China who in a few years will surpass Japan as the second largest importer of oil behind the United States. Russia, with its restless Muslim minorities, also sees peace in the Middle East as a key to its future internal security. Both nations may temporarily profit by US missteps in the region. But ultimately, both realize that it is the United States and our special relationship with Israel that is the key to peace. Anything that reduces American influence in the region also potentially diminishes the chances for stability, something both countries can ill afford.

The bottom line is that as bad as things may seem to us, the fact that our enemies will be limited in taking advantage of our blunders due to consequences beyond their control should, if not make us feel better, at least lift the pall of gloom and doom that emanates from the punditocracy on a daily basis. And it should also remind us that we’re in this war for the long haul. Temporary set backs in Iraq or anywhere else should not deter us from continuing the fight to rid the world of Islamic extremists and the putrid ideology they wish to impose on the rest of us.

More selective leaking from our friends at the Central Intelligence Agency:

A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

“If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran,” Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Of course, the CIA might be wrong - or at least this analysis may be flawed. There are probably other assessments that are much less sanguine regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions but no one leaked those reports. They’re a secret.

And I suppose Iran’s known and verified relationship with Big Daddy A.Q. Khan - father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb - and his travelling nuclear arms bazaar was just a coincidence - a happenstance of fortunate circumstance. Besides, Khan wasn’t selling nukes, he was selling ice cream machines.

Except that this document discovered by the IAEA, proves that either Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons or those ice cream machines have one helluva kick:

A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The report was made available in full to The Associated Press.

First mention of the documents was made late last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that the papers showed how to cast “enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms.”

The agency refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have. But diplomats familiar with the probe into Iran’s nuclear program said then that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched grade uranium into the core of warheads.

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly that the 15-page document showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal was “related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components.”

Iran is probably claiming the document was accidentally stuck in between instructions on how to make a killer Rocky Road or maybe a sublime Moose Tracks.

Most of the rest of the planet believes that Iran’s heavy water reactors at Natanz and Arak serve no other purpose than to manufacture plutonium, a waste product of the nuclear reactions at the plants. Or perhaps the CIA believes that the heavy water will be used to create a particularly tasty variation of “Magilla Vanilla.”

And all of this secrecy and subterfuge surrounding their nuclear efforts is almost certainly not due to the fact that they wish to hide the development of a weapons program but rather because their recipe for “Black Cherry Surprise” promises to sweep the world.

All kidding aside, one point made by the assessment is probably correct; Iran is no where near having the capability to enrich uranium to the 85-90% necessary in order to build a bomb. And the heavy water reactors are years away from generating enough power to manufacture enough plutonium for a single weapon (although the 40 Megawatt facility at Arak promises to be a veritable plutonium assembly line once its fully operational and producing).

The key to the assessment is that the CIA has found no “firm” evidence of a secret Iranian nuke program. There is plenty of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that they are, in fact, working hard to build the bomb. But the fact remains that there is no documentary or photographic “smoking gun” that would confirm our suspicions one way or another.

To proceed on the assumption that they aren’t building a bomb would be stupid. To bomb them without some idea of what facilities to hit would be equally dumb. And while negotiations would almost certainly be a waste of time, protocol, tradition, and common sense demands that we talk directly to the Iranians at some point. For this reason - and because they are at least 3 and probably more years from even getting close to succeeding - it would seem politic of us to sit down with the Iranians and discuss nukes, Iraq, and other regional issues that impact our security.

Besides, maybe the CIA will discover Iran’s secret frozen custard capability. That would make talking to the mullahs worthwhile.

The leading Lebanese Arab language daily newspaper, An Nahar, is reporting that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah will send his supporters into the streets on Thursday in order to “bring down this unconstitutional and illegal government:”

Druze leader Walid Jumblat has warned that Lebanon was on the verge of a coup d’état as Hizbullah supporters were allegedly geared up for mass street protests on Thursday.

The leading daily An Nahar said Monday that the demonstrations would most likely take place on Thursday, the day Premier Fouad Saniora’s cabinet is to convene.

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah urged his followers and pro-Syrian allies to be “psychologically” ready for mass demonstrations to topple Saniora’s anti-Syrian government.

Jumblat, in turn, warned that “we are on the verge of a coup … through gradual street protests and possible collective resignations from (public) administrations and from parliament … then riots and civil disobedience.”

Nasrallah says that the protests will be peaceful and that even if government security forces seek to provoke a violent confrontation, Hizbullah will not fight back:

He also indicated that no matter what happened, even if security forces attacked the demonstrators, his militia would not be goaded into fighting a domestic battle.

“When we take to the streets we hope that they don’t mobilize their forces in front of ours,” he said. “If they insult us we will tell them, ‘God forgive you.’ If they beat us we will tell them, ‘God forgive you.’ ”

His speech was punctuated by chants from the crowd: “Labbeik ya Nasrallah” or “We follow you, O Nasrallah.”

Indeed, Nasrallah has no need to fight back or initiate a civil war. It is quite possible that he will get everything he desires without firing a shot or fomenting a single riot. This is because pressure is beginning to build on the March 14th Forces to come to some kind of agreement with Nasrallah on a reconstituted cabinet. Since Nasrallah begins from the premise that the cabinet must contain a sufficient number of Hizbullah allies so that he will have veto power over most cabinet decisions, any “national unity government” will, by definition, be the virtual end of the ruling coalition of democrats.

That pressure is taking many different forms, including regional diplomats offering competing compromise plans (all envision either a new cabinet or new elections) and the meddling by the United Nations who has been huddled with Hizbullah patrons Iran and Syria, basically plotting the downfall of Prime Minister Siniora’s government.

Nasrallah himself is playing his role as statesman to the hilt. He doesn’t want a coup, he claims, just “balance:”

Nasrallah rejected suggestions that Hezbollah was taking orders from Iran and denied that he intended to block the tribunal, but he implied that he saw formation of a new government as a way to counterbalance U.S. influence by giving a greater say to pro-Syrian groups.

“Let’s assume we do want to bring back the Syrians. We also accuse them [the government] of representing the Americans and other forces which I will not name,” he said. “If we form a national unity government, their presence will hold back the Syrians and we would keep the Americans at bay. We would achieve a balance.”

That kind of rhetoric resonates with many, many Lebanese from all sects and parties. There is much anger against the United States government for their decision last summer to delay a cease fire in the Israel-Hizbullah war in order to give the IDF more time to degrade Hizbullah’s ability to harm the Jewish state. Nasrallah has played upon US support for Siniora’s government skillfully while dismissing claims that his armed militia is beholden to Iran and Syria.

For their part, the government, besieged by both domestic and international forces, is standing firm. They maintain that while open to compromise, there are two non-negotiable items; the International Tribunal that will hear evidence of Syrian complicity in the murder of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri must go forward and the election returns of last year will not be overturned by giving Hizbullah the ability to paralyze the government:

Future TV quoted sources close to Saniora as saying the premier rejected Nasralla’s accusations, saying “they lead to more tension and strain.”

Jumblat, however, in a speech published by Lebanese newspapers on Monday, said the ruling March 14 coalition welcomes an “honorable compromise” that would break the political impasse paralyzing Lebanon.

“March 14 Forces are ready for an honorable compromise that would not affect the international tribunal,” Jumblat said at the general assembly meeting of his Progressive Socialist Party.

The ruling majority has viewed Nasrallah’s campaign to overthrow Saniora as a coup aimed at devastating the international tribunal.

Jumblat said that the “compromise should start by endorsing the international court” to prosecute the suspected killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The U.N. Security Council is expected to discuss the draft on Monday.

Saad Hariri, son of the slain Prime Minister and Parliamentary leader of the March 14th Forces, dismissed Nasrallah’s sincerity with a scathing insult:

“We approve of the formation of a national unity government, but the mentality required for its creation is missing.”

What does the future hold? Walid Jumblat offered this chilling scenario:

“The opposition groups are on the verge of announcing a coup in the country,” Mr. Jumblatt said Sunday at a televised news conference. “They will start with gradual street protests, then mass demonstrations, then riots and resignation from Parliament. We are until this moment still calling for a compromise.”

There is little doubt that Nasrallah has the ability to create such an outcome. The fact is, however, that a civil war would not be in his interest. He wants Lebanon intact, not destroyed by conflict. But once he sends his bully boys into the streets, all bets are off. This is because there may be counter demonstrations carried out by coalition parties that could lead to violent clashes. And the security services, thought to be loyal to the government, may lose control (or be goaded into violence) by Hizbullah rowdies.

There is also the very real possibility that Syria could foment violence as a way to destabilize the country. It has become apparent in this crisis that President Assad never viewed Syria’s exit from Lebanon as a permanent state of affairs, only a temporary set back. Infiltrating agent provocateurs into the demonstrations for the explicit purpose of fomenting civil strife is a very real possibility.

Nasrallah is about ready to ratchet up the tensions in Lebanon to unbearable levels. Whether the democrats can resist remains to be seen.

As if it’s not bad enough that every diplomat in the Middle East is taking turns trying to tell Prime Minister Siniora’s government how best to capitulate to Hizbullah’s demands that he resign and that a “Government of National Unity” be formed, the PM now has to deal with that special kind of groveling defeatism that only the United Nations can bring to the negotiating table.

A momentous initiative aimed at finding a settlement to end Lebanon’s critical political deadlock and would soon dispatch a delegate to “tranquilize” mounting tension.
Annan spoke on Saturday with Syrian President Bashar Assad and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the need for stability in Lebanon.

He “urged them to counsel the parties concerned to exercise patience and resolve their differences through dialogue,” said a statement issued by his spokesman.

Annan’s phone conversation with both leaders came a day after As Safir daily, citing Arab diplomatic sources in New York, said the U.N. chief has decided to “launch a political initiative aimed at tranquilizing the political situation in Lebanon.”

Since Annan won’t mention it and the chances that Assad or Ahmadinehjad will bring it up are just about as close to absolute zero you can get, one fact in this entire crisis engineered as a power grab by Hizbullah seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

To wit: In June, 2005 the Lebanese people went to the polls and overwhelmingly elected the March 14th Forces to represent them in Parliament. The democrats won nearly 3 times the number of MP’s as the next closest party. It was a slaughter. It wasn’t even close.

And now, less than 2 years later, most of the world has forgotten that one salient fact and are rushing to give Hizbullah what they want, all in the name of “stability.”

If the world backed Prime Minister Siniora’s government with half the enthusiasm with which they now wish to destroy it, I daresay that democracy would be on much firmer footing in Lebanon and Hassan Nasrallah and his bully boys would be retreating to southern Lebanon with their tail between their legs to take up commiserations with their French sympathizers in UNIFIL.

Instead, Nasrallah is biding his time, letting his patrons in Syria and Iran orchestrate a diplomatic dance that can only have one possible outcome; the ouster of Siniora and his cabinet followed by either the formation of a government with enough Shia ministers that would give Hizbullah veto power over major government decisions or early parliamentary elections that would give Nasrallah the opportunity to flex his muscles in the streets of Beirut and perhaps bring him to power.

That latter scenario is a longshot to be sure. But the leader of Lebanese Forces Samir Gaeges points out the value of political assassination and how it may be a path to power for Hizbullah:

Geagea told Reuters that the government now has 17 ministers, if 3 of these ministers were eliminated then the government will automatically fall.
Geagea did not rule out appointing Shiite ministers who are loyal to the March 14 the forces but preferred to continue all efforts to bring back the Amal and Hezbollah ministers.

He would not say who might try to kill ministers, but said Syria has some minor allies in Lebanon who may attempt the assassinations to prevent the international court from taking place.

The March 14th Forces are standing firm. Party leader Saad Hariri has made it absolutely clear that Hizbullah will not achieve with bluster and threats what it could not achieve at the ballot box:

Parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri has ruled out giving Hizbullah and its allies veto power in government, assuring that the return of the resigning Shiite ministers to the cabinet would be a first step toward a settlement.

“No one will activate the annulled one-third which is capable of toppling the government any time it decides,” Hariri said in an interview with the leading daily An Nahar published Saturday.
Hizbullah has been threatening to stage street protests to bring down Prime Minister Fouad Saniora’s government if its demands for the formation of a national unity cabinet that would give it and its allies veto power over key decisions were not met.

He said such resignations would “threaten vital decisions, topped by Resolution 1701 which calls on Israel to stop renewed assaults on Lebanon and, therefore, preserve Lebanon from going back into a destructive arena for regional interests.”

“Second of all, is the international tribunal which is going to be created and there is no doubt about that because it is the only guarantee for the Lebanese,” Hariri added.

Kofi Annan is dispatching a special negotiator to Lebanon this week. Since Hizbullah is starting from the premise that the government must go and that no compromise on that score is possible, the UN negotiator will try his best to come up with plans and formulations that will help Nasrallah achieve that goal - perhaps not right away - but too soon for the winners of that glorious election that capped the Cedar Revolution and which held such promise for the Lebanese people.

To watch the whole sickening process of betrayal unfold before our eyes may be too much to bear for those who care about democracy in Lebanon. One more reminder as the world careens toward crisis over Iranian nukes how truly useless the United Nations has proved itself to be.

Despite the frantic efforts of Middle East diplomats, it appears almost certain that the March 14th Forces and the opposition led by Hezb’allah are headed for some kind of confrontation - possibly in the streets of Beirut - over the continuing cabinet crisis brought about by the resignation of the Shiite bloc of ministers.

Compromise plans to head off the escalating crisis have come from a variety of sources including the Saudi Arabian ambassador who huddled with Iranian officials yesterday in order to draft a plan that would be acceptable to both the anti-Syrian majority in government led by Prime Minister Siniora and the opposition bloc made up of Hezb’allah, the Amal Party, and the mostly Christian Free Patriotic Movement led by ex-Prime Minister Michel Aoun.

Based on reports from local media, the Saudi plan, which would seem to have the blessing of the Iranians, would include a call for immediate resignation of pro-Syrian President Emil Lahoud and his replacement by a candidate not connected to either side. The next step would be a reform of the outdated electoral laws that tend to favor Christians and Sunnis at the expense of Shia representation in Parliament. This would be followed by a Presidential electoral contest and a pitch for early Parliamentary elections after that.

There have also been calls from western diplomats to restart the discussion for a unity government in the context of the National Dialogue. Breakdown in these talks is what precipitated the cabinet crisis in the first place.

But it appears almost certain that Hezb’allah has no intention of returning to the talks:

Resigned Labor Minister Tarrad Hamadeh ruled out any possibility Thursday of Hizbullah resuming national talks, saying “peaceful street protests” were likely. “This dialogue is a waste of time and does not yield any good results,” Hamadeh, one of two Hizbullah members who resigned from Cabinet, told The Daily Star.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt have called recently in separate statements for the opposition to resume the talks.

“The only way out of the crisis is to sit at the dialogue table and deal with our fears and worries,” Siniora said during a televised interview on Wednesday night

Indeed, one might wonder why Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah would consider any kind of compromise at this point; not when it is clear that he holds the whip hand both politically and psychologically.

Any compromise offered brings the March 14th Forces closer to total capitulation. And, like any good gambler, Nasrallah appears ready to double his bet as he ratchets up the fear and tension in Lebanon by threatening to practice “civil disobedience” in the streets:

[A] senior Hizbullah official warned that the Shiite group was “putting the final touches on its choice toward resorting to the streets.”

This solidified another statement by Hizbullah’s politburo member Ghaleb Abou Zebib who warned that “civil disobedience is a legitimate option.”

He assured that any attempt by the interior minister to refuse licensing demonstrations or sit-ins by Hizbullah and its allies “will not hamper our actions or activities.”

Acting Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat has stated that no group has asked for permission to protest yet. But he added that any such demonstration would be considered “an uprising against the government.”

Another compromise plan floated by the Siniora government itself would expand the cabinet to 30 ministers and grant Hezb’allah and its allies “at least” 10 seats according to Walid Jumblatt, an important member of the March 14th Forces. This would seem to give Nasrallah everything he wants. But the canny Siniora included a deal breaker in the compromise; the opposition would have to accept the formation of an International Tribunal to try the criminals who assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

The Tribunal in a very large sense is the root cause of this crisis. The United Nations Commission looking into the assassination has pointed the finger at high level Syrians (including President Assad’s brother in law Assef Shawkat, head of Syrian intelligence) as well as several prominent Lebanese. The revelations of Syrian involvement in the assassination of the beloved Hariri would have reprecussions both internationally and domestically for President Bashir Assad as well as harm those in Lebanon seen supporting him - namely Hez’ballah and Amal.

It appears that the UN is ready to authorize the Tribunal now that Siniora’s Shia-less government approved its formation on Monday. But President Lahoud has called the cabinet’s action “unconstitutional” given the resignations. And Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri who heads up the Amal party also has called the cabinet’s approval of the Tribunal illegitimate despite his statement last Monday that he believed that as long as 2/3 of sitting Ministers approved, the action by the cabinet was indeed constitutional:

“Any (cabinet) session held now is unconstitutional because it would be in breach of Lebanon’s national pact,” which guarantees a representation for the country’s different religious communities in the government, Berri said

The fact that Berri just returned from 4 days of talks with Iranian leaders probably had something to do with his abrupt about face.

The Iranians, for their part, are willing to bide their time, confident that Lebanon will fall into their lap like a ripe piece of fruit. And Nasrallah can continue to manipulate the fears of the populace over a renewal of the civil war, forcing the March 14th Forces into a political corner where they will either have to accede to his demands for cabinet control or face the fact that his thugs and bully boys will take to the streets. Tensions are high in the capitol and the people are apprehensive of the future.

The next act of the drama may play out in the Parliament as Siniora sends the enabling legislation for the Tribunal to Speaker Berri for action. It is thought that there will then be mass resignations of MP’s loyal to Nasrallah that will force Siniora to call for early elections.

If that happens, anything is possible - including a wave of political violence that would pull down the March 14th Forces and bring Hezb’allah to power. In the uncertainty fostered by Nasrallah, anything can happen.

UPDATE

I contacted Lebanese blogger Anton of the great blog Across the Bay and asked him to double check the translation of Hezb’allah’s proposed “civil disobedience.” I thought the term very western and not something Nasrallah would embrace. Here is his thoughtful response:

Hi Rick, and thanks for your email.

In other words, it’s supposed to sound “western”! Nasrallah openly said, that you (March 14) took to the streets to topple a government (and the West looked kindly on that), we could do the same. It’s obviously a distortion of reality and a perversion of democratic practice — a fig leaf — but there are enough gullible Third Worldist journalists and writers to buy it and support it.

Bookmark Tony’s blog. His perspectives on Lebanon (and Syria) are valuable additions to our understanding of what’s going on in that confusing part of the world. Also, he was just recently interviewed by Michael Totten for a podcast you can find at Pajamas Media. You can listen here.

The term “bi-partisan” is taking on a whole new meaning recently as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to seek cover behind the apron strings of the Iraq Study Group and its Old Wise Men who are desperately trying to find a way out of Iraq without making it appear that the US is “cutting and running.”

This, of course, is what James Baker’s group was set up specifically to do; provide safe political haven for Republicans and Democrats and take the sting out of partisan recriminations that would accompany any phased withdrawal of American troops that doesn’t take into account what is happening on the ground or in the halls of government in Iraq.

There are two choices in Iraq; win or lose. Those looking for nuance won’t find any. Those looking for a comfortable formula that would come up short in the “win” department but not exactly be a loss either are kidding themselves. There has never been a war that I can think of that didn’t have a winner and a loser. And trying to spin Iraq as a “draw” would be laughable - at least to our enemies who will dance long into the night the day that our “phased withdrawal” from Iraq is announced.

The ISG is just the latest in a long line of Commissions, Panels, and other appointed groups whose job it is to cover the political posteriors of politicians who either won’t or can’t decide tough political questions. Social Security reform, base closings, and budgetary reform are three recent examples of what amounts to Congress abdicating its responsibilities in the face of gridlock.

In the case of the ISG, the appointment of James Baker - the recognized Bush family Mr. Fix-it - was the tip off as to just what the Commission’s role would be. And the make up of the ISG - an array of foreign policy elites from both parties, most of whom are on record for getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible - was also indicative of its mission to extricate America from the Iraq morass before permanent harm could be done to our interests in the Middle East.

Even Mr. Bush, struggling to find a way to if not ignore then certainly minimize the role of Baker’s group, has softened his stance slightly on such things as “timetables” and “redeployment:”

Still, Mr. Bush’s tone has already changed to the point where he is now drawing fewer lines and sounding more welcoming to outside ideas.

Asked yesterday whether he would accept recommendations from the group that included timetables, Mr. Bush did not rule it out, instead saying he will not “prejudge” the report. At a press conference last week, he announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and nominated Robert M. Gates, who until Friday was a member of the study group, as a replacement.

Mr. Levin said the change in attitude was apparent.

“I didn’t hear anything about cutting and running,” he said. “I didn’t hear anything about if you are proposing that we begin a phased redeployment in four to six months, that somehow or other that will help the terrorists.”

Bush won’t say it but its hard to see how removing American troops can do anything but help the terrorists. And that is the great trap of any timetable that envisions a phased withdrawal. It is a trap that the insurgents, the death squads, and the militias (and the Democrats but obviously for much different reasons) are devoutly wishing the Administration fall into.

There seems to be abroad among war critics the notion that if we have a timed withdrawal of our forces that this will somehow light a fire under the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki to get busy tamping down sectarian violence, negotiating the sticky problem of oil revenue sharing, coming up with a national reconciliation plan, and a half dozen other Mission Impossible movie scenarios, all the result of the basic notion that the Iraqis just aren’t trying hard enough.

Bursting that bubble should be priority #1 of the Administration:

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

We can tie the withdrawal of American forces to all the “benchmarks” of progress by the Iraqi government you wish. We can grovel before Baby Assad and Ahmadinejad begging them to stop supporting the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq who are making life a living hell for Sunni and Shia alike. We could probably even temporarily increase the number of troops in Baghdad (10,000 max say the experts and that’s only if we don’t rotate our people home for a few months). But in the end, we’re stuck with the question of do we do what it takes to win by expending the resources, the men, and the time so that we can bring order out of chaos, freedom out of terror? Or do we give up and go home?

The Democrats feel that the American people have determined that the war is lost and that the troops should be brought home (arguable but lets run with the premise for a minute). Why bother with a “timetable” then? It blunts the “cut and run” criticism while springing a trap on the Administration and Republicans for 2008.

This timetable will be gussied up with all sorts of signposts and benchmarks of progress by the Iraqis. They will look and sound reasonable while also being impossible to achieve. And here’s where the political trap is sprung.

When it becomes clear that the Iraqis have not achieved the requisite progress that would allow a set number of American troops to come home, pressure will build to bring them home anyway regardless of whether the benchmarks have been achieved or not. The Democrat’s base will see to that. And of course, the question will be asked whose fault it is that the Iraqis are “behind schedule” in achieving those benchmarks? If you guessed President Bush, you win a cookie.

Such is the “bi-partisan” nature of the timeline.

I have little doubt that the Baker group will be able to spin their plan into some kind of blueprint for “victory.” The only people in the world who believe that will be dyed in the wool Republicans and the politicians who don’t have the political courage to come out and call our efforts in Iraq a defeat in the War on Terror. Our enemies will have no such difficulty in determining who won and who lost in Iraq. And neither will the rest of the world.

No timelines. No “phased withdrawal.” Get Maliki to sign off on US forces fighting and killing the militias. Instead of the half hearted attempt currently underway to reform his government, urge him to go much farther by cleaning out the vipers nest in his own Interior Ministry. Find some way to accelerate the training and deployment of the Iraqi army. Purge the police of militias and death squads.

And yes, engage the Syrians and Iranians in a dialogue on Iraq. About the only negotiating stick we have is the threat of our immediate and precipitous withdrawal. The resulting chaos would send refugees streaming toward Iran and Syria’s borders not to mention a bloodletting of their co-religionists that would upset the domestic applecart at home and might force them into becoming reluctant peace keepers or even active participants in a civil war.

There are a half dozen other “benchmarks” of Iraqi progress that would have meaning if victory was our goal. Most of all, it would take time. How long? Five years? A decade? Osama Bin Laden was right. We just don’t have the staying power when standing toe to toe with the terrorists who would gain the most from our withdrawal.

And I can think of nothing more alarming to the future of the War on Terror than giving the terrorists an easy victory that they didn’t win on the battlefield but rather in the hearts and minds of the American people.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey gives a pretty convincing argument for staying in Iraq, echoing some of my concerns and splashing some cold water on the “redeploy now” crowd:

The efforts by Democrats to shift into reverse are based on two arguments: that the US is creating the impetus for violence simply by being present, and that Nouri al-Maliki could solve the problem if we scared him into taking action on his own. Both Zinni and Batiste dispute these assumptions, and for good reason. The forces arrayed against the Iraqi government and Coalition forces consist primarily of native radicals who will not abide democratic institutions, but instead want dictatorships based on sect and ethnicity. A smaller but significant portion are foreign terrorists who have flocked to the al-Qaeda franchise, led now by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Zinni and Batiste know this. Both scoff at the notion that Maliki could stop the violence at his current strength levels, although both agree he could do more politically. Zinni and Batiste agree with John McCain that the US needs additional troops in Baghdad and a better strategy for weakening and destroying the militias. This week, American troops started going after Moqtada al-Sadr’s forces in the capital, reversing an earlier decision to abide by Maliki’s demand to leave them alone. More of that kind of thinking will help, and that will certainly put the kind of political pressure on Maliki that might some changes to his policies.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

With the resignation of 5 Hezb’allah and Amal cabinet ministers following the breakdown of the National Dialogue talks last weekend, the tiny nation of Lebanon may be on a downward spiral toward civil strife or worse - a wave of violence that would threaten the stability and safety of the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

It is impossible to overstate the danger to the fragile democratic coalition that took power with such high hopes in the summer of 2005 as a result of millions of ordinary Lebanese taking to the streets demanding and independent Lebanon free from Syrian control. But despite the removal of Syrian troops and the ouster of the hated Damascus controlled Secret Police, the March 14th Forces have been unable to deal effectively with Syria’s armed proxy Hezb’allah whose tentacles have now encircled the neck of the Lebanese government and have begun to squeeze.

Hezb’allah’s spiritual and political leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah seems to have played his cards perfectly. From making the decision to join the government rather than remain outside of it back in 2005 to his current power play against Siniora’s cabinet, Nasrallah has proved himself a canny politician with the instincts of a predator and the nerve of a riverboat gambler. And nowhere was his nerve on display more than last summer when he deliberately provoked the Israelis into a war that he guessed would do more to damage the fragile government of Lebanon than his own armed militia of fanatical followers.

He guessed correctly. While the Israelis tentatively attacked Hezb’allah positions on the border - positions long prepared to inflict maximum casualties on the Israeli Defense Forces - every day that Hezb’allah remained an effective fighting force was a victory for Nasrallah and his “resistance,” raising the level of popular support among ordinary Lebanese of all sects. Simply the act of starting the war made Nasrallah de facto head of government. His pronouncements during the conflict made it seem that he considered Prime Minister Siniora little more than an errand boy who, with his permission, could negotiate for prisoner exchanges but little else.

Siniora’s hands were tied. Faced with massive bombing of his country that was systematically destroying much of Lebanon’s infrastructure and given that the Lebanese army was virtually useless to resist Israeli forces, Siniora acquiesced in Nasrallah’s temporary ascendancy. The rest of the March 14th Forces were placed on the defensive as a result of the bombing and Israeli incursion. After some initial criticism of Nasrallah taking the country to war without the government’s approval, most coalition leaders remained relatively quiet, preferring to let events play themselves out.

Within weeks of the UN-brokered peace deal, Nasrallah began his play for power, starting with calls by his partner, ex-Prime Minister and head of the mostly Christian Free Patriotic Movement Michel Aoun for a “government of national unity.” He accused the Siniora government of corruption and incompetence while calling for more Shia representation in the cabinet. Aoun, whose naked ambition to replace Syrian puppet President Emile Lahoud has driven him into his unlikely alliance with the Shias, has proved himself a thorn in the side of the March 14th forces ever since his return from exile in the days following the Syrian exit from Lebanon.

Throughout the fall as tensions in the country rose, the March 14th Forces resisted calls for the National Dialogue to take up the issue of a unity government and Shia representation. In the end, it became apparent that the only way to head off civil strife was to convene the group of leaders from all parts of Lebanese society to determine if a compromise could be achieved. The group sat down last week for talks in what was described as a “tense and cold” atmosphere.

Of course, Nasrallah was not looking for compromise. He was looking not only to expand Shia representation in the cabinet so that he had absolute veto power over actions taken by the majority March 14 Forces but also head off cabinet discussion of the formation of an International Tribunal to try the perpetrators of the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. That Tribunal will probably indict high level members of the Syrian government as well as several prominent Syrian allies in Lebanon.

For the majority’s part, they no more wanted Hezb’allah in the driver’s seat than Nasrallah wanted a political settlement. By offering to grant Hezb’allah their expanded cabinet representation, the March 14th Forces added a poison pill to the deal; the new Shia ministers would be forced to sign off on approval of the Tribunal.

That ended the National Dialogue and caused the resignation of the Hezb’allah and Amal ministers (as well as the pro President Lahoud environmental minister). In a tactical move to buy time, Prime Minister Siniora has rejected the resignations out of hand and declared that the Shias were still members of the cabinet. Under Lebanese law, if one of the various sects removes themselves or is thrown out of the government, no major issues can be decided by the cabinet. By rejecting the Shia resignations, Siniora is gambling that another round of talks will produce a compromise more palatable to the majority while heading off a possible civil war. And yesterday, his cabinet approved the UN Tribunal despite the absence of the Shia ministers. It is unclear at this point whether the cabinet’s actions have the force of law or not.

Nasrallah could probably care less if the cabinet’s actions were legal or not. He’s got what he wants; a cabinet crisis and fears of renewed civil war. He holds the whip hand on both counts and now must decide his next move. Does he allow the ministers to rejoin the cabinet with the proviso that discussion of the Tribunal is off the table? Or does he force the issue through street demonstrations that will almost certainly devolve into confrontations with armed militias opposed to him?

The answer is perhaps both. In a statement released yesterday, Hezb’allah announced that there would indeed be “peaceful” street demonstrations but that the “timing of the action had not been decided.” Nasrallah may want the political pressure to build on the March 14th Forces to see if they can be convinced to give him what he wants with no strings attached. At the same time, his threat to send his highly trained, fanatical militia into the streets could be seen as a powerful sign that his patience has its limits.

In fact, Nasrallah seems confident that he will get what he wants soon - one way or another:

“This government will go and nothing associates us with it (government) after the resignations,” Nasrallah late Monday told a crowd of about 6,000 residents who lost their homes in Beirut’s southern suburbs during the destructive Israeli war on Lebanon over the summer.

He was referring to the resignation of the six ministers, five of them from Hizbullah and Amal, hours after the national dialogue collapsed on Saturday.

“This country is ours. We sacrificed tens of thousands of martyrs, wounded, prisoners and disabled for the sake of safeguarding it (Lebanon) as well as protecting its dignity and glory; and we will not give up (these sacrifices),” the daily As Safir quoted Nasrallah as saying.

A key figure emerging in the crisis is Speaker Nabih Berri. Surprising some observers, Berri has called the cabinet’s approval of the Tribunal “constitutional as long as more than two thirds (of the ministers) remain in the government.” Whether this leaves the door open for genuine compromise could become clearer once Nasrallah makes his next move.

Speculation on what that might be has centered on the Parliament where Nasrallah controls around 60 of the 128 member body. If, as some speculate, the next act in the crisis would be for Shia, Amal, and Free Patriotic Movement MP’s to resign from Parliament, the country would almost certainly be thrown into chaos. This would make it impossible for Siniora’s cabinet to maintain any semblance of legitimacy and calls for new elections would almost certainly be in the offing.

Mid-East expert Walid Phares plays out this scenario:

The next move is to have Hezbollah, Amal, and their allies in the Parliament also resign, thus creating “conditions” for what they will coin as new elections and a collapse of the cabinet. Most of these moves have already been accomplished or are on the eve of being implemented. The pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will declare the Government and the Parliament as “illegitimate,” and call for early legislative elections. The latter, if they take place will be under the smashing influence of Hezbollah’s weapons (a show of force was performed in the summer) and of the cohorts of militias and security agencies. Result: a pro-Syrian-Iranian majority in parliament, followed by the formation of an “axis” government in Lebanon. The rest is easy to predict: A terrorism victory.

What it comes down to is what has always been the greatest threat to Lebanon’s democracy; Hezb’allah and their guns. Faling to disarm the militia as they were required to do under UN Security Council resolution 1559, the March 14th Forces paid for their inability to rally enough popular support to suppress Hezb’allah first with the Israeli War and now with an existential threat to the existence of a free and independent Lebanon. Perhaps it was inevitable given the enormous difficulty in governing a country so riven with factional and sectarian divisions. But history’s judgement will be no less severe if the small group of brave democrats cannot find a way to stop Nasrallah from carrying through with his plans.

As for the United States, there is very little we can do to assist. Siniora is already battling charges that he is Washington’s stooge - charges that ring true with many ordinary Lebanese thanks to effective Hezb’allah propaganda spewed forth from Al-Manar, the terrorist media organ in Lebanon. And as Dr. Phares points out, Nasrallah’s push for power has not taken place in a political vacuum; both he and his patrons in Tehran and Syria know how to read US election results:

The perceived results of the midterm elections in the U.S. were read as positive by Tehran and its allies, in the sense that it froze vigorous reactions by the U.S. against any Iranian-Syrian move in Lebanon via Hezbollah. The feelings in Tehran and Damascus, have been that if in the next weeks and months a “thrust” takes place in Lebanon to the advantage of the pro-Syrian camp, Washington will be in no position to react or counter. Ahmedinijad and Assad believe (or have been advised to believe) that “lobbies” are moving in Washington and Brussels to restrain any strong deterrence by the U.S. against the “axis.” The theory is that the Bush Administration is too busy “negotiating” with the new leadership in Congress to “dare” a mass move in the Middle East. The analysis also predicts that strong lobbies within the Democratic Party are now positioned to block any serious response to a change in geopolitics in Lebanon. It is believed that the window of opportunity won’t be too long before the Administration and the upcoming Congress “understands” the Tehran-Damascus maneuver and create a unified response. Thus, the expectation is that Hezbollah and its allies were told to achieve their goals before the end of the year, and before the new Congress begin business on the Hill.

Lebanon is entering a period of enormous tension and trial, the results being difficult to predict at this point. What seems clear is that the forces for freedom and independence are facing their greatest challenge and that the next few days and weeks will determine their fate and the fate of their tiny country for many years to come.

UPDATE

Check out Michael Totten’s piece on the same subject. He quotes Charles Malik who says that Christians might sit out a civil war if one were to erupt, leaving the Shia and Sunnis to duke it out.

I don’t necessarily doubt Malik’s analysis but I wonder how he arrives at that conclusion given the statements recently by Gemayal’s Phalange and Gaeges Lebanese Forces militias. Both seem dead set against a Nasrallah dominated government. And here’s what Malik wrote:

There has been much discussion (including on this blog) about the divisions within the Christian community. Interestingly, this division might make the Christians safer. The Christians proved last year that they would not respond to violence with violence. With the Lebanese Forces in 14 March and Michel Aoun aligned with 8 March, the Christian community will not be at the center of any sectarian clashes for, perhaps, the first time in modern Lebanese history.

What would LF do if the FPM joins Hezb’allah in the streets?

With Lebanon and Lebanese politics, you just never know…

The chances for violence in Lebanon increased dramatically yesterday as talks broke down between the factions on a new power sharing arrangement that would have granted the Shiite block more political representation.

The impetus for the talks was the result of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah agitating for the resignation of the Lebanese cabinet to be replaced by a “government of national unity.” In effect, Nasrallah wanted a bloodless coup where Hizbollah, through an increased number of Shia ministers, would have absolute veto power over decisions made by Prime Minister Siniora’s government.

After the talks broke down, the democrats of the March 14th forces accused Damascus and Tehran of meddling in Lebanese affairs and seeking to re-establish Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, something that the United States warned about 2 weeks ago during a visit by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.

The timing of the Shia minister’s walkout is telling. The cabinet was about ready to take up discussion of a law that would have allowed Lebanese participation in the International Tribunal set up to try the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Hizbollah, doing the bidding of their Syrian patrons, is adamantly opposed to any tribunal, fearing that the real culprits in the Syrian government - leading to the highest levels - would be exposed. The walkout now prevents any substantiative action by the government on the tribunal or any other pressing matter. That’s because under the Taif Accords that ended the civil war, all sects must be represented in the cabinet. Without the Shia ministers, all Siniora’s government can do is handle the mundane, day to day operations of the country.

If the Shia ministers cannot be coaxed back into the government, Lebanon is in deep trouble. It isn’t likely that the March 14th forces would agree to new elections (the result of which probably wouldn’t change the parliamentary lineup very much) and Nasrallah cares little for democracy anyway. What Nasrallah wanted he got - a confrontation with the government that will now move to the streets. And that’s where his Iranian trained fighters, mostly absent from the war with Israel this past summer, will be used to great effectiveness. The other sectarian militias have no force comparable to the highly trained and motivated core of Hizbollah fanatics. Nor do they have much in the way of heavy weapons. Hizbollah has all the support they need from Syria and Iran in the form of money, weapons, and diplomatic cover. And if fighting does break out, Hizbollah may cruise to a quick victory.

A local observer, quoted in La Libnan, is optimistic:

One local observer told Ya Libnan, the main issue here is that ‘Siniora and his allies should not panic as a result of the resignation of the Shiite ministers. This is not the first time they resign and every time they returned to the government because it is the only venue where they can get the legitimacy they require. If they don’t return then Prime Minister Siniora should seriously consider replacing them with anti- Syrian Shiites, who are the silent Shiite majority’. He added ‘ Every time Hezbollah has to chose between support for Lebanon or Syria they always pick Syria. It is obvious that they quit because they don’t want to be part of the discussions of the Hariri tribunal which scares the Syrian regime.”

Twice before the Shia ministers have boycotted cabinet meetings only to return after concessions by Siniora’s government. But the concession they seek this time - veto power over government actions - is just unacceptable to the March 14th forces. They won outright control of Parliament in elections in the Summer of 2005 and besides, they are convinced that Hizbollah’s alternate agenda is to give Syria and Iran a say in Lebanese internal affairs.

An editorial in The Daily Star sums up the problems facing the government and the people of Lebanon:

So what do Lebanese politicians want? Hizbullah’s critics accuse it of planning to make Lebanon an Islamic republic whose government would answer to Tehran and Damascus. The resistance denies the allegation, but its deeds have subjected Lebanon to great peril in more ways than one, opening it up to all manner of suspicions. Do the March 14 Forces really want to make Lebanon a Finlandized statelet whose government sells its soul to the United States and Israel? The coalition denies the charge, but its members have made enough ill-timed trips and uttered enough questionable comments to set off alarms in many a mind.

If Hizbollah takes to the streets, look for the March 14th forces to organize counter protests. And unless cooler heads can prevail; unless Siniora can somehow reconstitute his government and do it quickly, clashes between the two sides may be inevitable and the possibility of a renewed civil war would be in the offing.

And waiting in the wings to once again come to Lebanon’s “rescue,” is Bashar Assad and the Syrian army - ready and willing to resume what they feel is their rightful role as Lebanon’s “protector.”

Trouble is brewing in this beautiful, tragic country. And at the moment, it is hard to see how any result could benefit the Lebanese people and the fragile coalition of men and women who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to give their country a chance at freedom.