Points of View
War in the Lebanon : arrangements amongst friends
Indeed it was Israel that launched the offensive against Lebanon, but the backer and sponsor of the war was certainly the United-States. Washington even took the precaution of informing certain allied Arab capitals of the Israeli project. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan gave their backing to a rapid Israeli intervention against Hezbollah in South-Lebanon. This war was desired by the United States for motives going beyond those stated by Ehud Olmert. For Washington, the situation is no longer bearable, with Iran acting in a haughty and aggressive manner, and Syria being considered disreputable. In order to change the regional balance of power, they must weaken Hezbollah, as well as Damascus and Tehran, by depriving them of their main asset: their ability to cause trouble in the Near-East.
To achieve such a goal would put Washington in a position of force with respect to Iran and Syria, two troublemakers in the diplomatic arm-wrestling regarding the nuclear issue. Amman, Cairo and Riyadh are relieved to see that the threatening «Shiite crescent» has been weakened. If Iran were to become a regional pole, it would be a threat to Saudi Arabia, who relentlessly silences its Shiite minority. The heavyweights of the Arab world have condemned the «adventurous action» of the «party of God». Saudi Arabia managed to obtain a fatwa from its national mufti condemning the Shiite movement and forbidding Muslims to support it. Saudi Arabia together with the other Gulf monarchies promised a three billion dollar donation to the central bank of the Lebanon, in the hope of dampening the predictable anger of the Arab populations at the time of the Israeli offensive. The European Union, whose action has little or no influence, now specialises in post-war reconstruction.
For Condoleezza Rice, the woman in charge of the Lebanese dossier, Hezbollah needs to be considerably weakened so that Damascus will take sides with Washington in the possible future talks. Too often this conflict has been pictured as inextricable. In fact there is a solution for the Lebanon. Everyone knows where it lies: in the deployment of a multinational task force, and in the negotiation of a deal for the two Shebaa farms occupied by the Israeli forces. It would also involve the liberation of a part of the Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, and the disarming of Hezbollah as part of its political integration process.
Hezbollah cannot be beaten on the military level; it can only be diminished. With its 30 deputies in Parliament and two ministers in the Lebanese government, the «party of God» may start a fight in the political arena after its encounters with Tsahal. On the other hand it has understood that it will not get any more votes unless it disarms. As for Syria, it cannot be ruled out that it will not help disarm Hezbollah in exchange for its rehabilitation on the international scene (this might start by the lifting the embargo). In view of the fragility of Bashar al-Assad's position, it is not certain that he would refuse any guarantees that Washington might offer him.
As for Iran, which constantly calls for Israel's destruction, one needs to put things into perspective. Despite its bellicose tone, Tehran has certainly no intention of attacking the Hebrew state. The Palestinian cause doesn't move the Persian masses. Iranian politicians are pragmatic and are, therefore, aware of the benefit they can expect from exploiting the Near-East crisis. Their alliance game in Iraq is a perfect illustration of this.
Finally, and contrary to what is currently believed, Israel does not live in a hostile environment. Syria is supposed to be its archenemy. Yet, not one shot was fired in the Golan during the latest war. As for Jordan and Egypt, they have lived in peace with their neighbour for a long period of time. The only border remaining active is the one shared with the Lebanon. For Tehran and Damascus, Hezbollah's aim is not to destroy Israel but to be a permanent nuisance. Israel has little to fear now, that is, as long as it is surrounded by authoritarian regimes and not by democracies.
The latest Lebanon war has put a stop to America's ambition of creating a « Big democratic Middle-East». Washington has finally come to understand that every time elections are organised in Arab countries, they have brought the Islamists closer to power. It has been the case recently in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt, and of course Palestine. All Condoleezza Rice talks about is how she pictures a «new [pacified] Middle-East», which means non hostile towards the United States or Israel.
-- Hasni Abidi
Director of CERMAM
Translated into English by Marguerite Cornu, Research Assistant
Permanent link to this entry (permalink)
- Origin CERMAM
- http://www.cermam.org/en/logs/vue/war_in_the_lebanon_arrangement/
- Publié le 12 December 2006