Is it possible to understand a convoluted and complex situation such as the fighting in Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Sunni and Druze who have been described as pro-Western and pro-government (of Fouad Siniora) without exploring the relationship between the fighting in Lebanon and the strategic interests of Iran and Syria? Apparently, the New York Times thinks so; their article starts with a brief description of the renewed fighting:
Fierce Fighting Breaks Out East of Beirut
Fierce clashes broke out on Sunday in the mountains east of Beirut between supporters of the Western-backed government and followers of Hezbollah, the militant group backed by Iran.
The fighting, in the Shouf and Aley districts in the mountains overlooking the capital, Beirut, followed overnight clashes in the northern city of Tripoli that left at least two people dead and five wounded, according to security officials.
And here is their synopsis of the causation:
Hezbollah’s military dominance, and its continuing blockade of the main road to Beirut’s airport, have raised pressure on the governing coalition to accept a resolution of Lebanon’s 17-month political crisis on terms favorable to Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition.
...
Hezbollah had agreed Saturday evening to withdraw its militants from the streets after the government said it would reconsider a decision it made last week to challenge the group’s private telephone network.
The government and the Hezbollah-led opposition have been locked in a stalemate that has prevented the election of a president, leaving the country without one since November.
Hezbollah vowed to continue what it called a civil disobedience campaign, continuing to block the airport road, until the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora officially rescinded the decision on the telephone network and a solution to the political crisis was reached through dialogue.
This is, of course, how Hezbollah propaganda describes the fighting, as civil disobedience against an unjust regime. If this explanation of a crisis that directly and indirectly affects the stability of the Middle East and the strategic interests of all of the important players in the neighborhood is accepted, it generates a response from the West that can only lead to the worst of all outcomes for supporters of civil society.
For a more complete and more nuanced understanding of the fighting, one can read al Manar (the radical Shia/Iranian pov), al Jazeera (the dominant Sunni pov), and other publications as well as those reporters who are especially plugged into the area, such as Michael Totten:
Lee Smith at Michael Totten's blog believes that Beirut has essentially been ceded to Hezbollah and that when Hezbollah attempted to extend their hegemony to the Shouf (aka Chouf) region, they were rebuffed:
Jumblatt's Men Set Back Iran's Militia in Lebanon
Our friend and colleague in Lebanon Elie Fawaz writes in to remind us that The War for Lebanon has not even begun yet in earnest and Hezbollah's “victory” in Beirut is not all it seems:
“So, we know that Hezbollah's well-trained fighters are in control of most of west Beirut. The decision taken by Walid Jumblat and Saad al-Hariri not to fight back in Beirut, but rather hand most of their positions to the army ended any illusion regarding the sanctity of the “resistance” – that it would never turn its weapons inward, for now its hands are dripping with the blood of innocent Lebanese. But it's different in the Chouf where Jumblatt's forces bloodied Hezbollah.
“The Chouf is calm now after fighting over the weekend in which forces belonging to Talal Arslan, part of the Hezbollah-led opposition, jumped sides and joined alongside Jumblatt's men. As the Progressive Socialist Party website reports: 'The free people of the Shouf roll back an attack by the Iranian militias causing severe casualties in lives and equipment.'
On the other hand, Abu Muqawama suggest that Hezbollah has the upper hand and that our options are extremely limited:
Fighting Continues in Lebanon; Policy Options for the U.S.?
Overall, the March 14th forces have been taking one hell of a beating. Abu Muqawama has been searching for comment on the fighting from some of March 14th's strongest supporters in Washington, and he accordingly read David Schenker's piece for the Washington Institute. David has been a resolute supporter of March 14th, but he is intellectually honest, and his assessment of U.S. policy options seems, to this blogger, quite accurate:
Regardless of what drove the timing of the standoff, it appears the government miscalculated. Sadly, for Washington, there are few realistic policy options to reverse the Hizballah coup. It is highly unlikely that the UN -- which failed to even prevent the rearming of Hizballah -- would agree to more dangerous deployments in Lebanon.
What is clear from reading a great many reports from Lebanon is that the fighting has not yet approached the level of the last civil war and that the position of the United States and the West will be extremely significant, though it is also clear that our options are limited and the way forward muddled at best. One thing that is clear is that if America accepts Hezbollah propaganda as an accurate description of the situation, our response will be guaranteed to make things worse for those who support greater democratization and an enhanced civil society. Barry Rubin is quite clear on what the worst possible option for American policy would be and quite clear on who has bought the Hezbollah line:
The Lebanese logjam has broken at last as Hizbullah seized Beirut and inflicted a major defeat on the government. Hizbullah is pulling a more limited version of Hamas's Gaza strategy in Lebanon as the world stands by.
Iran and Syria back their friends with weapons and help; the West responds with words backed by nothing. Who can blame Hizbullah and Damascus and Teheran for laughing in contempt?
Why should the Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christian majority risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace, every American claiming Damascus might split from Teheran, and every European preaching appeasement is engaging in confidence-breaking measures.
At present, Hizbullah and its sponsors seek not the full conquest of Lebanon but to control the government by violence and intimidation. Unable to gain full victory themselves, they hope to win by the other side's surrender. They want veto power over the government to ensure it does nothing they dislike: no strong relations with the West, no ability to stop war against Israel, no disarming Hizbullah militias or challenging its control over much of the country, and certainly no investigation of Syrian involvement in internal terrorism there.
NOW THEY have a new, albeit unwitting, ally: Senator Barack Obama, who does not understand the damage he does. His May 10 statement on Lebanon tried to sound tough, talking of "Hizbullah's power grab in Beirut... This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hizbullah must press them to stand down immediately." Obama said he supports the Lebanese government, wants to "strengthen the Lebanese army," and "insist[s] on disarming Hizbullah."
How? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."
According to the Obama world view, it's a development problem. But he doesn't understand that bombs trump business. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri followed that economic strategy; the Syrians blew him up. The only way to gain social peace is to appease Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, whose disruption blocks prosperity.
The statement continues: "We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hizbullah, which is violated by Iran and Syria."
Great. But 1701 has already failed. Will you fight on this issue? Mobilize the passive "international community" for action? Threaten Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah with credible, tough action? There's no hint of that.
As for Lebanon's army, its commander is Syria's presidential candidate, its soldiers are mostly pro-Hizbullah, and its US-supplied equipment stood idle as Hizbullah seized more territory.
BUT HERE'S the worst part that few in America but all in Lebanon understand:
Obama writes: "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."
This is Hizbullah program: a new Lebanese consensus based on 51% of power for itself and its pro-Syrian allies. What's needed isn't consensus (equivalent to getting Fatah-Hamas cooperation or an Iraq coordinated with Iran and Syria) but winning a conflict. Instead, Obama is - whether he knows it or not - backing a Syrian-Iranian- and Hizbullah-dominated Lebanon. Such talk makes moderate Arabs despair.
When Obama says he'll make Syria and Iran partners in setting Iraq's future, he is signaling every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. His stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them, with Iran and Syria concluding they merely need stand defiant and wait a few months until existing pressure vanishes. This is how the US position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.
The important thing to note is that even when reading Hezbollah supporters, there is no question that their goal is to attain control over Lebanon. This is the goal of Syria and Iran, the major players supporting Hezbollah, as well. It is only Western dupes who imagine that they are fighting out of a sense of grievance designed to achieve equal rights. Equal rights has never been the goal of Hezbollah or its benefactors; to believe otherwise is to show oneself either a "useful idiot", a moral myopic, a lazy thinker with no memory who accepts the distilled wisdom of the liberal MSM consensus, or an enemy of freedom and democracy.
It is most likely that large parts of the left fit into the first three categories. Where do the New York Times and Barack Obama fit?
Recent Comments