Looks Like Lebanon Is Setting Up For A Down The Tube Ride

Pity the Lebanon--and those who live in that unfortunate geographic expression.  No country equals Lebanon's sorry record of recurrent fits of energetic disassembly.  Part of the reason for the Lebanese proclivity is attributable to its religious demographics--split between Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and smaller sects.  Another part of the package is its relationship with Syria, which has never gotten over the idea that Lebanon is a sort of lost province of something called "Greater Syria."  And, in recent years, great responsibility for Lebanon's fits of falling apart can be assigned to non-Lebanese actors ranging from the PLO in the days following the terrorist group being ejected from Jordan to the tool of Tehran, Hezbollah.

During the period of the French Mandate, the government of Lebanon was distributed among the three major religious confessions on the basis of membership numbers as determined by the snapshot of a census.  The distribution remained unchanged for decades regardless of the demographic changes which occurred.  The result was a dangerous combination of alienation and resentment.  The explosive mix would have detonated in 1957 had it not been for a very well executed American intervention, which served to keep the lid on the pot for another fifteen years.

In the wake of the salutary and short-lived American presence, Lebanon enjoyed a prolonged period of internal peace and economic development.  In the late Sixties Beirut was an island of Western style high life and sophistication in the otherwise dreary Arab Mideast.  It well merited the sobriquet, Paris of the Levant.  The city was glitzy and the nearby countryside beautiful.  It was a safe and fun place for tourists, businessmen, and spies alike.

The Lebanese party came to an end when Jordan got its military and political acts together so as to expel the gunslingers of Fatah and others of the PLO combine.  As these troublemakers and their rabble rousing chairman, Yassar Arafat, were PNG in Syria and Iraq, the only alternative was Lebanon.  Unfortunately, both the army and government of Lebanon were too weak to resist the demands for "Islamic" hospitality which were issued by Fatah and the rest.

In a manner both quick and bloody the trigger pulling thugs of the PLO, who enjoyed the diplomatic and financial support of distant Arab states, established their own state inside a state within Lebanon.  From these enclaves, the Arafat terrorists (and others of those long gone days, the days when terror was secular in goal and motive conducted by groups hiding behind a bewildering welter of alphabet soup initials) launched attacks against Israel and Israelis.  As is their custom the Israelis struck back.

One thing led to another with the result that Lebanon toppled along the edge of the cliff, finally falling into the vast and deep crevice of internal, multi-party war.  The years of war invited outsiders.  Israel invaded.  The US, France, and the UK intervened.  Finally, the Syrians moved in.  Alone among the outsiders, the Syrians remained.

Even though the waves of war and intervention served to eject much of the Fatah/PLO apparatus from Lebanon, and Syria in pursuit of its own interests brought others of the terror networks firmly to heel, this did not mean that Lebanon was cleansed of all who sought to use terror for political purposes.  A new organization, the Party of God or Hezbollah, had formed in the chaos called Lebanon.  It may have started small but it would grow as its leadership brought religion self-consciously into the terror racket.

It does not do disservice to Hezbollah to say it successfully combined the secular nationalism of previous terrorist entities such as Fatah with the violent political Islam which had propelled the Iranian Islamic Revolution.  Protected by the Syrian government whose bidding it did--most of the time--Hezbollah had the time necessary to develop its message, methods, and organization.  With Syrian assistance Hezbollah demonstrated it had the ability and will not only to attack Israeli targets but to provide a reasonable facsimile of effective government in portions of Lebanon.

Israeli hostility, particularly during the debacle of 2006, was second only to Syrian patronage in establishing the political legitimacy and military capacity of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The relative failure of the Israeli Defense Forces in that campaign validated the decisions made in Tehran and Damascus a year or two earlier to make Hezbollah a full fledged proxy of the new strategic axis connecting Iran and Syria.

The killing of Lebanese former prime minister Saad al-Hariri in 2005 proved to be a fulcrum event.  At the time the massive VBIED killed al-Hariri, it was no doubt believed in both Tehran and Damascus that the assassination would pass unmarked by the larger world.  In this both governments were wrong but neither could be blamed for having assumed that one more noisy killing of an anti-Syrian politician in the blood soaked Levant would raise no eyebrows.

In the event the Lebanese government not only howled, it went to the UN.  Specifically, the government requested that the busy bodies on the Hudson launch an independent international investigation and determine who was culpable.  Almost simultaneously the Bush/Cheney administration in a fit of rushing to premature judgement unilaterally determined that the Syrian government was responsible and recalled its ambassador.

The UN tribunal started off with a credible imitation of Inspector Clouseau and ran off sniffing Syrians under every bed and behind every bomb.  The investigation belatedly got on a less inaccurate track two years ago.  With the grudging cooperation of the Syrian government in which Hezbollah now had a major presence, the investigators apparently focused on the Iranian-Hezbollah linkage with a nod to some peripheral Syrian involvement.

With this the situation in Lebanon took a severe and negative turn.  Reduced to its essentials Hezbollah demanded that the government headed by Hariri's son withdraw its cooperation and support from the tribunal and its investigators.  To his credit Hariri fils declined the demand.  Then Hezbollah sought to bring the government down by withdrawing its ministers from the cabinet.

New elections are scheduled for March.  Hariri has declared his candidacy much to the displeasure of Hezbollah which denounced the action as unacceptable.  Reinforcing their displeasure, Hezbollah has conducted a "drill" preparing it would appear for a coup.  This has done nothing to enhance the tranquility of the Lebanese population.

The sealed report of the investigators is now in the hands of the pre-trial judge who will announce his decision on whether or not to proceed with arrest warrants in the next six to ten weeks.  Assuming the pre-trial judge does not wimp out, there is a high probability that high ranking members of both Hezbollah and the Iranian government, including the Supreme Guardian of the Revolution himself, will find their names on international arrest orders.

In effect this would constitute a declaration of war on both Hezbollah and its Iranian masters.  Certainly the position of Hezbollah that the tribunal is a tool of the American-Israeli conspiracy hints broadly at this conclusion.  At the least Hezbollah will stage the expected coup.  Given the relative weakness of the Lebanese National Forces, there is no probability of a determined resistance to any Hezbollah takeover.

Should the UN tribunal (or at least the pre-trial judge) be so bold as to aver Iranian complicity, particularly that of the Ayatollah Khemenei, Tehran will go ballistic (metaphorically at least.)  As the pre-trial judge is no doubt cognisant of this eventuality it is probable that he will demand more investigation before putting the Supreme Guardian of the Revolution on the Interpol arrest list.  Indeed, a gentle regard for the probable violent reaction of Hezbollah to any accusation of involvement may stay the man's hand completely.

Should the pre-trial judge show the white feather this will mean that Hezbollah has won.  It will take over the government without the messy necessity of a coup and its undoubtedly bloody aftermath.  A demonstration of international cowardice will also give Iran a free pass to engage in further acts of proxy conducted assassination.

Whichever way it goes, the UN tribunal is in a no-win situation.  If the indictments go forward, Lebanon will dissolve into one more internal multi-party war which will not end until either Syria alone or Hezbollah with Syrian support imposes a simulacrum of peace.  If the indictments do not happen, if more investigation is demanded, the result will be a loss of credibility for the UN, a peaceful takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, and a boost to Iranian clandestine and proxy efforts.

Whichever way the situation progresses the US will not be able to keep the hands-off policy set forth by Secretary Clinton today.  In either event Israel will be put at greater hazard.  In either event the Mideast "peace process" will be derailed even more than is currently the case.  In either event Iran will become more rather than less intransigent in its dealings with the US and the West generally.

The Lebanon crisis is deep and will get much deeper.  The prospect for the long suffering Lebanese population is poor at best and disastrous at its realistic worst.  And, lost somewhere in the shuffle of political agendas, is the notion of justice.  There will be no justice.  Not for Saad al-Hariri.  Not for his son.  Not for the region.  And, certainly not for the people of Lebanon.

Ayatollah Khamenei Warps Reality--Again

One of the features of the First Cold War which the Geek has missed is the high quality, inventive invective that formerly poured from Moscow and, to an even more delightful extent, Beijing. The Geek still gets a frisson of delight when he remembers that at one time he and others like him were characterised as "running dog lackeys of the Wall Street imperialist claque."

Those were the days, my friends (to borrow a song lyric) when US presidents were routinely abused as "fascists," or "Hitlerites." The Good Old Days when the Soviet capo could promise "to bury" the US and all of us. It's enough to make you sigh with nostalgia for the way-back-when, the time when we Americans were "the oppressors of the legitimate aspirations of the toiling masses."

Praise be to the All-Highest (under whatever name you prefer.) The mullahocracy in Tehran has volunteered to take up the rhetorical slack.

Not that the Iranian theocrats have ever been bashful when it comes to insults and threats. Recently the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards naval component promised to make the Persian Gulf a "hell" should the US navy get uppity. The warning was expanded to include the states of the Gulf littoral.

The Geek supposes that the USN is quaking in its seaboots.

The emir of the IRGC navy was backed by his commander,who shortly before he was transferred to the post of security and military advisor to the president,promised to "punch" the US should it be so bold as to list the IRGC as a terrorist organ. Oh, boy, that was scary, right?

Perhaps the same man in his new role as presidential advisor wrote the speech given by Iran's Cleric-in-Chief, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As the crowd in the mosque cheered him on with rhapsodic cries of, "Death to America," (a favorite Iranian oldie-but-goodie), the Ayatollah compared George W. Bush unfavorably with Adolph Hitler.

Wait one, Ayatollah!

The Geek was thunderstruck when George H.W. Bush compared Saddam Hussein with Hitler sixteen years ago. The Geek said then and he writes now, the comparison was unfair to both Saddam and Hitler if for no other reason than Saddam didn't even make the top ten in genocide practitioners.

The Supreme Mullah is even more wrong. But the line was a crowd pleaser. So was its follow-on. The Man of Allah predicted that W. Bush would stand trial as a war criminal just like Hitler and Saddam.

Flag on the play, Ayatollah.

Hitler, in case your theological education overlooked recent history, committed suicide in his bunker while Red Army shells exploded outside. In case you were too busy praying or cranking out fatwas to notice what was happening next door, Saddam Hussein was tried, convicted, and executed by a pure Iraqi team. It wasn't an international tribunal as in Nuremberg after World War II or a constituted international court such as heard the cases of more recent perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

That didn't matter to the mass in the mosque. It was time for more delirious cheers of "Death to America." Seems the worshipers didn't know anymore about the recent past than the preacher--or didn't care about such trivialities as reality or truth.

On a roll now, Khamenei accused the US of manipulating Saddam Hussein so he kicked off the Gulf War. (The one between Iraq and Iran, not the US led operation to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait.) This piece of oratorical flourish committed an assault on historical reality akin to charging that Franklin Roosevelt manipulated Hitler to attack the Soviet Union in June 1941.

(Whoops! Maybe the Geek shouldn't have written that. There might be some academics of the Blame-America-First school of history who feel that must have been the case.)

Similar violations of historical fact dotted the balance of the "sermon." The US made sure that Hamas won the elections in the Palestinian Authority. The US egged Israel into last year's disastrous invasion of Lebanon. And so on. And so on.

The crowd ate it all up.

Can't say it surprises me. How about you?

We all understand political rhetoric for hometeam consumption. It's what we're going through right now. W. Bush slings his I-Was-Right-and-We're Winning! brand. The Surrender Now! crowd in Congress heaves its. Both distort truth, ignore history, chuck rationality into the pottie and pander to emotions.

Politics as usual, right?

Sure. The Geek has no problem with the concept although he is amused by the Tehran version and irritated by the Made in America sort.

There is, however, something in play here far more important than rhetorical distortions for domestic consumption.

Iran has a credibility problem. A major one. It is very hard to believe Teheran's protestations that all the Islamic Republic wants is it's own Atoms For Peace and Prosperity program.

It's also very hard to believe the mullahocracy's protestations as delivered by the Foreign Minister the other day that if the US would just leave the region, Iran along with its good friends and peace-loving allies Syria and Saudi Arabia would provide fraternal assistance to the Iraqis. Even harder to accept is the oft repeated denials of providing material, munitions, training, and other assistance to some insurgent groups in Iraq.

While the Ayatollah's spewing of high-quality invective was enjoyable for his audience (and the Geek), while it was intended for domestic consumption only, it was dangerous. Dangerous to Iran. Dangerous to all the rest of us.

It was dangerous to Iran because it served to widen the credibility gap yawning between mullah driven blathering and the suspicions of Iran's intents growing in the US and much of Europe.

It is dangerous for the rest of us because while rhetoric may not be reality, rhetoric has the potential to drive perceptions both within and outside Iran. Perceptions rapidly and readily become the bases of action.

So reads the book of history.

A final piece of advice to the ayatollah's speech writers. Take a look at some of the old communist declarations. They were both more amusing and far less likely to be taken seriously. Also, retire the "Death to America" slogan--it's been overdone.