LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJUNE
04/2011
Biblical Event Of The
Day
James 5/1-6: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are
coming on you. 5:2 Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten.
5:3 Your gold and your silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be for a
testimony against you, and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up your
treasure in the last days. 5:4 Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your
fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of those who
reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Armies. 5:5 You have lived
delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure. You have nourished your hearts
as in a day of slaughter. 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the
righteous one. He doesn’t resist you.
Latest
analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases
from
miscellaneous
sources
For Arab despots, the
skies are limited/By: Michael Young/June 03/11
Rational and
dangerous/By Emily B. Landau/Haaretz/June 03/11
The Ayatollah will
overwhelm Ahmadinejad/By Mehdi Khalaji/June 03/11
The void in Beirut.
Who really gains?/By: Michael Young/June 03/11
The child who shook
Syria/By: Tariq Alhomayed/June 03/11
Will Outrage at the
Torture of a 13-Year-Old Help Syrians Overcome Their Fear of the
Regime/TIME/June 03/11
No such thing as
the better devil/By
ZALMAN SHOVAL/June 03/11
The reform ploy/Tony
Badran/June 03/11
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for June 03/11
Syria
security forces kill 27 at Hama protests, rights group says/By Reuters /Haaretz
Huge demonstration
rocks Syria’s Hama/Now Lebanon
Ex-Mossad Chief:
Attack on Tehran Will Drag Hizbullah, Syria into War/Naharnet
Pope Meets Abbas Amid
Mideast Tensions/Naharnet
LIVE: Change and
Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun speaks following his bloc's/Now Lebanon
Iran has secretly
stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs/DEBKAfile
Lebanese army bans
protests near Israel border/Now Lebanon
Fate of Central Bank
Governor Lies in Hand of Indecisive Stances/Naharnet
Report: Youssef Didn’t
Hand Over Telecom Building Keys to Qahwaji/Naharnet
Pro and Anti Assad
Rallies in Downtown Beirut/Naharnet
Jumblat Meets Gemayel
Amid Efforts to Expand Centrist Forces/Naharnet
ISF Seizes Documents,
PCs from ‘Muslims Without Borders’ in Bekaa/Naharnet
March 8
Forces are Highly Optimistic but Miqati Denies Deal/Naharnet
Rights group:
Dozens killed in latest clashes in Syria/CNN
Syria: Human Right
Watch warns "We've never seen such horror"/IBT
Evidence grows Iran
aiding Syria's Assad/UPI
Syria Continues
Attacks on Protesters While Calling for Dialogue/NYT
Clinton Faults
International Unity on Syria Crackdown/VOA
Crowley Pressures
Obama on Syria/US N&WR
Video: Human rights
abuses in Syria?Global Post
U.N. advisers
alarmed at "systematic" Syria violence/Reuters
Peres urges Russia
to cease sale of advanced weapons to Syria/Haaretz
Syrian runaways
arrested in Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Lebanon seals off
Israel border ahead of planned demonstrations/Haaretz
Syrians to March for
Young Martyrs/NYT
Syrians Protest Alone
as Army Loyalty, World's Inaction Leave Assad Free/Bloomberg
South Korean UNIFIL
contingent announces Tyre road project/Daily Star
Optimism for Cabinet
rekindled/Daily Star
Abandoned Nissan found
to contain weapons, second car booby trapped/Daily Star
Land ownership and
civil service posts top Maronite leaders' agenda/Daily Star
Beck: Hezbollah and
Hamas/Fox News
Saudi rulers aid
allies against Iran and popular uprisings/Daily Star
Huge
demonstration rocks Syria’s Hama
June 3, 2011 ظMore than 50,000
anti-regime demonstrators rallied in the Syrian city of Hama
on Friday, a rights group said, as activists called for
protests over the dozens of children reportedly killed in
anti-government demonstrations.
Near the southern protest hub of Daraa, security forces
opened fire to disperse a crowd in Jassem, a rights activist
told AFP, as protestors also gathered in nearby Dael and in
Kurdish towns of northern Syria.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said security forces
shot in the air as more than 50,000 demonstrators flooded
the streets of Hama, in central Syria.
Overnight, in several cities including Aleppo in the
north and Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria residents took to
rooftops to chant "God is Greatest," said the group's head,
Rami Abdel Rahman. A government
crackdown which is now focused on the flashpoint Homs region
has left at least 75 civilians and military personnel dead
since Sunday, according to Abdel Rahman.
Syrian state television on Friday broadcast the
testimonies of three suspected members of an "an armed
criminal group" who said they had "killed demonstrators and
security agents" in Homs.
Residents, meanwhile, said Internet lines were cut in
Damascus and the coastal city of Latakia on Friday, in a
repeat of a suspension of services at the start of April.
Syrian activists called the latest protests over the
dozens of children killed in anti-government protests such
as 13-year-old Hamza al-Khatib whom activists say was
tortured to death, a charge denied by the authorities.
More than 1,100 civilians have been killed and at
least 10,000 arrested in a brutal crackdown on almost daily
anti-regime demonstrations in Syria since March 15, human
rights organizations say.-AFP/NOW Lebanon
Syria security forces kill 27 at Hama protests, rights group
says
By Reuters /HaaretzظSyrian
security forces killed 27 protesters in the city of Hama
where tens of thousands had been demonstrating against
President Bashar Assad on Friday, the Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights said."There are also scores of wounded and the
death toll may rise," the Observatory's Rami Abdulrahman
told Reuters.
Three residents said that security forces, including
snipers, fired from automatic rifles at thousands of
demonstrators in the old quarter and in the nearby Assi
Square in some of the biggest protests the city has seen
since the uprising against President Bashar Assad erupted in
March.
Syrian anti-regime protesters carry national flags and
banners during a rally in Talbiseh, in the central province
of Homs, Syria, May 27, 2011.
Scores of casualties were taken to the Horani hospital in
the city, they added.
Hama, 300 km (186 miles) north of Damascus, was attacked in
the 1980s by troops to crush an Islamist-led uprising.
Syrian forces opened fire on to disperse demonstrators in
several parts of the country on Friday, residents said, and
protesters defied a widespread military crackdown to demand
that Assad must go. In a pattern seen every Friday since
mid-March, protesters have marched out of mosques after noon
prayers, to be met by security forces intent on crushing a
revolt against Assad, in power in Syria for the last 11
years. Activists and residents said thousands of people
marched in the northwestern province of Idlib, the Kurdish
northeast, several Damascus suburbs, the cities of Homs and
Hama and the town of Madaya and Zabadani, in the west.
Residents said security forces opened fire in the eastern
city of Deir al-Zor and in Damascus' Barzeh district. "Some
of the biggest demonstrations today are in Idlib and Hama.
There is also intense gunfire in Hama," said Rami
Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. In
the southern city of Daraa, where protests first broke out
11 weeks ago, hundreds defied a military curfew and held
protests, chanting "No dialogue with killers", two residents
in the city told Reuters. The protest later broke up.
Analysts say protests continue to spread despite the
military crackdown, but show no sign of reaching the scale
needed to topple Assad's rule. Rights groups say Syrian
security forces have killed more than 1,000 civilians in the
unrest, provoking international outrage at Assad's ruthless
handling of the demonstrators and leading U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton to say Assad's legitimacy "had nearly
run out". Syrian authorities blame the violence on armed
groups, backed by Islamists and foreign powers, and say the
groups have fired on civilians and security forces alike.
Authorities have prevented most international media from
operating, making it impossible to verify accounts of the
violence.
Assad has responded to what is the most sustained and
challenging rebellion against his rule by sending in tanks
to crush demonstrations in certain flashpoints and by making
some reformist gestures, such as issuing a general amnesty
to political prisoners and launching national dialogue.
World outrage grows
But protesters and opposition figures have largely dismissed
these measures. The cities of Daraa, Tel Kelakh, Banias and
the town of Rastan have all witnessed intense crackdowns by
the military. The international community has escalated its
condemnation of Assad as the unrest shows no signs of
abating and the death toll grows.
The United States, the European Union and Australia have all
imposed sanctions on Syria, but perhaps because of
reluctance to get entangled in another confrontation, such
as Libya, and wary of provoking more instability in a region
still in the midst of an "Arab Spring", their responses have
been less vehement.
But outrage has grown over the death of a 13-year-old boy,
Hamza al-Khatib, whom activists say was tortured and
mutilated, before being given back to his family. Syria
denies he was tortured. Khatib has emerged as a potent
symbol for protesters and in Dael, a town near Daraa, about
5,000 protesters raised pictures of him as they called for
freedom and the downfall of the regime. Two UN special
advisers said they were alarmed about the Syrian
authorities' "systematic and deliberate attacks" against
civilians, adding they appear to have been targeting
residential neighborhoods in their operations. Opposition
figures meeting in Turkey called on Assad to resign
immediately and hand power to the vice president until a
council is formed to transform the country to democracy
Nasrallah threatens Saudi Arabia
03/06/2011ظBy Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
How ironic! Hezbollah's leader threatened the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia and defended Syria's oppressive regime in
commemoration of Khomeini's death. Nasrallah sang the
praises of what he called the advantages the Wilayat Al
Faqih concept has done for Iran and the Iranians.
In his speech, Nasrallah said that if Syria gets divided,
Saudi Arabia will be next in line. This is an explicit
threat to Riyadh from Hezbollah's leader who is gradually
revealing his sectarian face, political ignorance and
selective memory. As we have said earlier, the more
Nasrallah speaks, the more he implicates himself and his
party. Nasrallah who today talks of a regional US-sponsored
division project targeting Syria pretends to have forgotten
what he himself said after Saudi Foreign Minister Prince
Saud al-Faisal announced that the Custodian of the Two Holy
Mosques had withdrawn from the Lebanese mediation issue.
Back then, Faisal warned about the dangers of dividing
Lebanon.
Afterwards, Nasrallah came out sarcastically commenting on
Faisal's statement. In a televised speech, Nasrallah stated
that "They say there is a danger of Lebanon getting
divided." Then he added: "What kind of talk is this? Lebanon
in its entirety is this small," while pointing to the palm
of his hand and smiling in scorn. Today Nasrallah steps
forth and warns against the dangers of dividing Lebanon. I
have never seen anything more naïve. Let us contemplate the
situation in more detail. Nasrallah supports Bahrain's Shiaa
who demand the establishment of an Islamic Bahraini republic
and does not fear the consequences of a division over there
or the US scheme. But in Syria's case, Nasrallah fears any
act of division because the people who have lived for
decades under the rule of a minority - which has governed
like monarchs - have finally risen to demand their rights
and dignity. How hypocritical of him! Could there be uglier
example of sectarianism?
Nasrallah's threat to Saudi Arabia is clear and so are his
targets. Hezbollah's leader is like the "Analysts" of the
Syrian regime on Arab satellite TV stations. However,
Nasrallah is considered Iran's "Analyst" on the ground and
their weapon of choice when it comes to abducting Lebanon.
But he is not a useful weapon especially when taking into
consideration something important in his latest speech in
which he threatened Saudi Arabia. Nasrallah disclosed a deep
sense of fear within him when he advocated the necessity of
developing the State concept in Lebanon. It was a plain
attempt on Nasrallah's part to forestall the anticipated
repercussions of the Syrian regime's toppling.
Even though Nasrallah projected confidence and jested with
his audience by saying that the Wilayat Al Faqih State has
no "Star Academy" youth in it, he must have definitely heard
the Syrian youth shouting out: "No Iran, no Hezbollah…We
want a Muslim who fears God." Nasrallah knows very well this
is not the "Star Academy" youth's chant in Syria, but the
chant of those who say it out loud: "We prefer death to
humiliation!"
Nasrallah's threats to Saudi Arabia are evident and so is
his support for Syria's suppressive regime. This attitude
unmasks his sectarian face and unveils the fix Hezbollah is
in today. Hezbollah knows that overthrowing the Damascus
regime would mean the collapse of Iran's foreign policy and
the end of Hezbollah itself. This is the story and today we
are watching the most exciting chapter of it. As for Saudi
Arabia, Nasrallah and Iran know very well that those who
have "Crossed the bridge" have nothing to fear.
Iran has secretly stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear
bombs
DEBKAfile Special Report June 3, 2011,
The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, American's
scientific watchdog on world nuclear weapons production,
estimates that by Dec. 2008, Iran had accumulated enough
U-235 to fuel one nuclear bomb; by 2009, enough for a
second, by August 2010 material for a third bomb and by
April 2011, enough enriched uranium for a fourth bomb.
These estimates presuppose an Iranian decision to further
process low-enriched material to weapons grade - a process
taking no more than a couple of months.
Iran, says the Wisconsin Project, is consolidating its
status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state – meaning it can
set about building a bomb whenever its rulers so decide.
In its twice-annual report published Thursday, June 2,
Wisconsin revealed three further developments in Iran's
nuclear drive:
1. Since November 2010, when Iran stopped enriching uranium
in all cascades at the Natanz plant for about a week (the
report does not give the reason for the stoppage – possibly
a Stuxnet virus invasion of its computer control system),
the enrichment rate has increased. The 5,000 centrifuges
spinning in February 2011 increased to nearly 6,000 in May
2011.
debkafile's Iranian sources add: Prof. Ferei-doon Abbasi
Davani has taken over as director of the enrichment complex
at Natanz. He was formerly in charge of combating the
Stuxflex worm. Last November, Prof. Abbasi Dayani escaped
with light injuries from an attack by a pair of
motorcyclists who attached a sticky bomb to his car. It
occurred near the Imam Hossein University in Tehran where
most of Iran's secret nuclear labs are located.
2. Wisconsin quotes the International Atomic Energy Agency's
May 2011 report that one of its seals was broken in the
"feed and withdrawal area" of the Natanz enrichment plant.
This means that Iran took action to conceal the real amount
of is enriched uranium stockpile from the nuclear watchdog
and the fact, as Wisconsin reports, that it has accumulated
enough material for building four nuclear bombs. Its steady
progress will go undetected until the next IAEA inventory in
October or November.
debkafile's intelligence sources point out that Tehran has
won a period of six to seven months for keeping its nuclear
activities hidden from oversight with no one in the West or
in Israel able to find out what is going on at the Natanz
enrichment plant.
3. Wisconsin goes on to state: "Uncertainties about the
number of centrifuges operated by Iran make it difficult to
draw a conclusion about the performance of individual
machines." More machines may be switched on when IAEA
inspectors are not present while less, more advanced
centrifuges, may take over after the inspection is over.
Our sources stress that these revelations are highly
pertinent to the controversy taking place in Israel over the
surprising comments by ex-Mossad Director Meir Dagan.
Dubbed "Mister Stop the Bomb" for reputedly directing covert
operations that held off Iran's nuclear threat for five or
six years – though this may an exaggeration - Dagan suddenly
began speaking out strongly against any Israeli attack on
Iran's nuclear program. Wednesday, June 1, he implicitly
warned that such an attack would precipitate a regional war
in which Israel would fare badly.
Israel's political and defense establishments have always
had their doves but Dagan is sounding one like for the first
time.
The controversy around his comments reflects a similar
argument afoot in US political and defense circles over
whether the time has come to smash Iran's nuclear capability
or stand by and let the Islamic Republic becomes a "virtual
nuclear weapon state."
In the last three years, the two schools of thought for and
against military action against Iran have been joined by a
third, which affirms that the US and Israel can live with an
Iran armed with one or two nuclear bombs because this number
would be dwarfed even by Israel's reputed stock let alone
the American arsenal. Therefore, until Iran stockpiles a
serous arsenal of weapons, it does not constitute an
existential threat to Israel.
The Wisconsin Project's latest report explodes this argument
because it exposes the steady accumulation of materials for
four bombs in two-and-a-half years and Iran's dogged advance
toward a serious arsenal unless it is stopped.
That is the reason why the military option is back on
the table in Jerusalem
Rational and dangerous
By Emily B. Landau/Haaretz
The real danger of Iran lies in its cold rationality; it
will no doubt pose severe challenges to the region and the
world, but will be very careful that no one action, by
itself, will be blatant or outrageous enough to elicit a
military response.
While popular uprisings in the Middle East have captured the
lion's share of media attention in recent months, Iran's
march to a military nuclear capability continues, as
reflected in the latest IAEA report on Iran, released last
week. As strange as this may sound, the foremost danger of
Iran ultimately crossing the threshold and becoming a
nuclear state is not the prospect that it will act
irrationally in this new status. Irrationality would imply
that Iran could at some point break the rules of mutual
deterrence by launching a nuclear strike without regard for
the anticipated reaction. In fact, the probability of this
happening is quite low. Rather, the more immediate danger of
a nuclear Iran lies in the extreme rationality that it is
most likely to display in its actions vis-a-vis the region.
While there is a tendency in common usage to equate
"rationality" with "reasonableness," the two are not
necessarily the same. What rationality implies is simply the
pursuit of one's goal in line with a logical cost-benefit
analysis. Rationality in and of itself remains agnostic
about the nature of the goal being pursued, and that goal
can be quite sinister. The real danger of a nuclear Iran is
that this state will continue to act as rationally as it has
since the current nuclear crisis began - in this case, using
its image as a nuclear state as a cover to enhance its
regional hegemonic goals, and advance its revisionist
approach to the Middle East.
Consider how Iran has played the game of moving toward a
nuclear bomb over the past decade. If there's one lesson
that can be gleaned from observing Iran's behavior on the
nuclear front in this period, it is that it has proceeded
very carefully. While many may perceive Tehran as a rash and
reckless regime rushing toward its goal of a military
nuclear capability, closer scrutiny reveals a different
picture. One can easily identify a pattern whereby Iran
tests the international waters after almost every step it
takes. Indeed, it has until now employed a simple
cost-benefit analysis as its guide: moving forward on its
nuclear program at maximum speed, but with minimal cost to
itself - in economic, and certainly military, terms. This is
what led the Islamic regime at times to swallow the pill of
assuming a more cooperative approach, as a tactic to ward
off the harshest pressure.
As a non-nuclear state member of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has had to carry out its work
toward military capability clandestinely. It had to be
constantly vigilant - getting caught red-handed would have
exacted a high price. While Tehran concluded that it could
endure a measure of economic hardship as a result of the
suspicions that its activities aroused, it has been much
more cautious about the prospect of being attacked
militarily. Iran, however, has gradually been reassured that
the risk of such action is minimal. In good part due to
statements by high-level U.S. officials openly rejecting the
military option for fear of the dire consequences of opening
an additional front, Iran has come to discount the threat,
even as both the United States and Israel repeat the
familiar refrain that all options remain on the table.
There is little reason to believe that once it has achieved
nuclear status, the current regime in Iran will be any less
rational in its cost-benefit analysis, or any less averse to
the prospect of being a target of military force than it was
while en route to the bomb.
And as a nuclear state, Iran will most likely conclude that
the deterrent threats by the United States and Israel will
be much more credible than past warnings, due to the
immediate and devastating effects of an actual nuclear
attack by Iran. Therefore, it will most likely be deterred
from carrying out such action.
But the point is that Iran doesn't need to attack with
nuclear weapons in order to enhance and entrench its
regional prominence and hegemony. In fact, such an attack
would be counterproductive. For achieving this goal, there
is a much more rational route to take: namely, steady and
controlled action under the nuclear threshold. What this
means is that while the Islamic regime will no doubt try to
push the envelope in its pursuit of greater power and
influence in the Middle East - such as by continuing to arm
its proxies and perhaps being less vigilant about hiding
these efforts - it will nevertheless make sure that any such
moves remain well below the threshold that could elicit a
nuclear or other military response.
The real danger of Iran thus lies in its cold rationality.
It will no doubt pose severe challenges to the region and
the world, but will be very careful that no one action, by
itself, will be blatant or outrageous enough to elicit a
military response. Moreover, assuming it does not act in a
truly extreme manner, it will most likely enjoy enhanced
immunity to counterattack for most of the actions it takes,
exploiting the fact that all states will be even more wary
than before of attacking Iran - once it is a nuclear state.
**Emily B. Landau is director of the Arms Control and
Regional Security program at the Institute for National
Security Studies, Tel Aviv University.
For Arab despots, the skies are limited
Michael Young, June 3, 2011
Imagine, for a thrilling moment, that you are an Arab
autocrat. Your regime has just crumbled all around you and
there you are, standing alone on the tarmac of the airport
with slabs of bullion being loaded onto your private jet.
Where on earth, literally, do you fly to?
It’s some relief to know that the expansion of international
justice and accountability during the past decade makes an
answer increasingly difficult to come by. At one moment
there was speculation that the Libyan leader, Moammar
al-Qaddafi, would bolt to Venezuela. But honestly,
Venezuela?! Tunisia’s Zine al-Abedine bin Ali made his way
to Saudi Arabia. Yet who readily wants to end his days in
Wahhabi austerity? And while Hosni Mubarak announced that he
would die in Egypt, then flew to Sharm al-Sheikh to prove
it, this only guaranteed that he would become a pawn in a
post-revolution power struggle between the armed forces and
youths who overthrew his regime.
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, perhaps one or two other outposts
in the Gulf, even in Central Asia – the choices are thinning
fast for the dictator on the run. Qaddafi and bin Ali were
once received with full honors in European capitals, rather
like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, but it’s very unlikely that
any of the three will be able to shop in Paris, London and
Rome again, at least without facing arrest or legal action.
This is a useful message to ponder days after the discovery
of the Bosnian Serb general, Ratko Mladic, 16 years after he
masterminded the butchery of some 8,000 Muslims caught in
the vise of Srebrenica. Mladic was among the first to learn
that in this era of televised and videotaped atrocities,
you’re only as good as your last movie. It takes a bold
leader to order his soldiers and security forces to massacre
unarmed opponents; but also one who has trouble
understanding that the world is changing, so that you can
suddenly find yourself crushed by the terrible power of
international embarrassment.
Take Bashar al-Assad. He was feted for so long, his wife
admired so fawningly, that it is understandably difficult
for the Syrian leader to grasp that he may soon conceivably
become an international fugitive.
In retrospect, what a foul crew of rulers the Middle East
has thrown forth in recent decades. Omar al-Bachir of Sudan,
along with Qaddafi, are wrestling with indictments issued by
the International Criminal Court. Mubarak may yet stand
trial at home. Saddam Hussein faced an Iraqi court and was
executed in a parody of justice, but no one would seriously
argue that he didn’t deserve what he got. Yemen’s Ali
Abdullah Saleh is close to starting a civil war in order to
stay in power. Bin Ali, his wife and her family sucked
Tunisia dry, arresting even modest dissenters at will. And
Assad and his brother and cousin have been personally
sanctioned by the United States and the European Union, even
as they continue to command the slaughter of civilians.
Mladic’s fate is a good illustration of the advantages and
occasional pitfalls of broadening the implementation of
justice and human rights norms worldwide. Serbian
nationalists have defended the general, but in the end his
arrest will prove even less troublesome than that of the
former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, who was
indicted while in office by the tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia. Serbia can now look forward to entering the
European Union, and with time Mladic will become a
forgotten, if uncomfortable, interlude.
But there are downsides. Bosnia is not near true
reconciliation more than a decade and a half after the end
of its war. The Dayton Accords created a federation
including a Bosnian Serb entity and a Muslim-Croat
federation, and much of the discord that Mladic embodied in
the most brutal of ways has yet to be resolved. Advancing
justice and human rights is laudable, even necessary, in
post-conflict societies, or in those moving away from
authoritarianism. Yet it hardly resolves all the outstanding
issues that spawned conflict in the first place. In fact,
pushing for justice frequently widens the fractures in
societies.
It’s a good thing, indeed a historic transformation, that
Arab societies are finally feeling, and expressing, the
outrage that they were obliged to suppress for so long. And
it’s a good thing, too, that this outrage is based primarily
on a heightened sense of the need to implement the rule of
law. That reality is why Arab despots are realizing, to
their horror, that the future may hold little different for
them than what it held for Ratko Mladic. Will this alter the
behavior of leaders in the Middle East? It should, but the
road to justice can be a rocky one.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star
newspaper in Beirut and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs
Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle,
which the Wall Street Journal listed as one of its 10
standout books for 2010. He tweets @BeirutCalling.
Lebanese army bans protests near Israel
border
June 3, 2011 ظLebanon has banned
all demonstrations near the Israeli border as the
Palestinians gear up to mark 44 years since the seizure of
the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Six Day War, a security
official told AFP on Friday."The army has taken the decision
to ban any demonstration south of the Litani and
particularly at the border," the official said, speaking on
condition of anonymity. "The army
will not allow anyone to approach the border."
Palestinians in Lebanon and other Arab states neighboring
Israel had said that they planned to march on the Jewish
state's borders on Sunday to mark the anniversary, known in
Arabic as the "Naqsa" or "setback."
Ahead of Sunday's anniversary, the Israeli army
deployed extra troops along the Lebanese border as well as
along the ceasefire lines in the occupied Golan Heights.
On Thursday, an AFP correspondent in south Lebanon
saw Israeli troops putting up new barbed wire along the
border, although the Israeli military refused to comment on
the reports. Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had ordered the army to
act firmly but to avoid any bloodshed during any border
protests.
"My instructions are clear: to act with restraint but with
the determination necessary to protect our borders... and
our citizens," he said.
Thousands of protesters in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza protested
at the borders of Israel on May 15 of this year to mark the
anniversary of the Jewish State's 1948 creation, known in
Arabic as the "nakba" or "catastrophe.” Israeli troops
opened fire, killing four along the Syrian lines, and
another 10 along the border with Lebanon. In northern Gaza,
more than 120 people were injured during a similar protest
-AFP/NOW Lebanon
The Ayatollah will overwhelm Ahmadinejad
Editor's Note: Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the
Washington Institute. For more from Khalaji, visit Project
Syndicate and check it out on Facebook and Twitter.
By Mehdi Khalaji
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now made the mistake that all
Iranian presidents make: he has challenged the authority of
the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is
doomed to fail.
The challenge posed by Ahmadinejad is such a predictable
part of Iranian politics that it has come to be known as
“the president’s symptom.” It emerges from a president’s
confidence that, as a popularly elected leader, he should
not be constrained by the Supreme Leader’s oversight. But
the Islamic Republic’s history is littered with its
presidents’ failed attempts to consolidate an independent
power center. Ultimately, divine authority trumps political
authority.
This dual authority is embedded in the Islamic Republic’s
constitution, and inevitably tilts toward the divine,
particularly in a president’s second term. Ahmadinejad is
not an exception to this rule. In fact, because he has
pushed harder than his predecessors, his star is falling
faster. Moreover, the controversial presidential election of
June 2009, and the political crisis that ensued, irreparably
damaged Ahmadinejad’s democratic legitimacy.
Khamenei was forced to use his authority to support the
president, and has since repeatedly condemned the “Green
Movement” that opposed Ahmadinejad’s re-election. As a
result, Ahmadinejad has been the most costly president for
Khamenei to date, because he forced the Supreme Leader to
deplete his power in the face of a common enemy – a move
that called into question his own judgment and tarnished his
reputation.
Ahmadinejad himself, however, has generally ignored the
post-election crisis in his public statements, and evidently
believed that Khamenei’s post-election support meant that
the Supreme Leader would remain passive in the face of
encroachments on his traditional powers and prerogatives.
Indeed, for the last two years, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly
undermined parliament, and abruptly dismissed ministers tied
to Khamenei, like Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and
Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi.
Since becoming Supreme Leader 22 years ago, Khamenei has
been relatively weak, but has adapted by seeking to
encourage weakness in the Islamic Republic’s other high
offices. He has supported factionalization in the
government, and, when necessary, has weakened factions that
he previously supported. Most importantly, he has ensured
that Iran’s presidents remain weak, regardless of their
agenda or popularity.
So, now that the threat posed by the Green Movement has
diminished – at least in Khamenei’s eyes – the time has come
to call Ahmadinejad to account. Both men are hard at work
preparing for the March 2012 parliamentary election, as well
as the 2013 presidential election, and Khamenei has taken
off the gloves. He has given official propagandists the
green light to attack Ahmadinejad and his cronies
explicitly, portraying them as people who do not believe in
the principle of the guardianship of the Shia jurist, the
key concept bequeathed by the Islamic Republic’s founder,
Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
In the official view, Ahmadinejad and his circle lack
rationality and wisdom; indeed, they are said to be in the
grip of superstition. There are even rumors that some of
them have resorted to witchcraft to summon spirits from
beyond the grave, and that Ahmadinejad has had direct
contact with the hidden Imam (the Shia messiah).
Likewise, the judiciary, under Khamenei’s control, has
accused the vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, of leading
an economic mafia, and many of Ahmadinejad’s allies have
been arrested or are under investigation.
It is likely that the Guardian Council, which can veto
legislation and bar candidates from standing in elections,
will use its power to shift the balance in favor of
Ahmadinejad’s conservative critics. The anti-Ahmadinejad
camp’s leaders, the brothers Ali and Sadeq Larijani, who
head the parliament and judiciary, respectively, will help
Khamenei to push the president from the center of power.
But, since Khamenei cannot accept a single, united political
faction, it is extremely unlikely that he will let the
Larijani camp (which includes Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer
Qalibaf and former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati)
become powerful enough to win the next presidential
election.
Khamenei will likely create a new faction to compete with
traditional conservatives after Ahmadinejad’s decline. This
might force him to pick a new face for the next presidential
election, someone with little domestic-policy experience and
little influence on ordinary people’s lives. One possible
candidate is Said Jalili, Iran’s current nuclear negotiator,
or someone like him. Only those with a strong background in
intelligence or the Revolutionary Guards, and a low profile
in domestic politics, need apply.
Having full control over the judiciary, the intelligence
apparatus, and the military makes Khamenei seem invincible
against all political factions or elected officials. This
will lead the regime down an increasingly autocratic path,
applying more aggression at home and defying the West with
greater self-confidence.
But the concentration of power in the Supreme Leader’s hands
poses risks for the Islamic Republic. When Khamenei dies,
there is no strong and obvious successor. And, since he has
systematically weakened Iran’s political institutions so
that the Islamic Republic itself has come to be identified
with his person, his absence will create a vacuum. His
strength today foreshadows greater uncertainty in Iran’s
future.
**The views expressed in this article are solely those of
Mehdi Khalaji. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. For more
from Khalaji, visit Project Syndicate.
Land ownership and civil service posts top Maronite leaders’ agenda
June 03,
2011 02:21 AM By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Rival Maronite leaders and lawmakers wound up their one-day talks in
Bkirki Thursday with a call to safeguard Lebanese land, preserve Lebanon’s
special identity and its diversified society, and achieve an equal division of
civil service posts between Christians and Muslims.
Thursday’s meeting was the second to be sponsored by Maronite Patriarch Beshara
Rai in less than two months in an attempt to end political divisions within the
Maronite community.
On April 19, Rai sponsored a high-profile and ice-breaking meeting at the seat
of the Maronite patriarchate in Bkirki, north of Beirut, of the country’s top
Maronite leaders: Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, Kataeb Party
leader Amin Gemayel, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and Marada Movement
chief Suleiman Franjieh.
The four Christian leaders were among the 37 Maronite lawmakers and figures who
attended the meeting chaired by Rai.
Lebanon’s leading Maronite parties are divided between the March 14 coalition
led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri and the Hezbollah-led March 8
alliance. Rai described Thursday’s meeting as “excellent.” Speaking to reporters
at the end of the meeting, Rai said, “How beautiful they are when they meet.
There are no longer divisive issues.”
Opening the meeting, Rai stressed the need for the Christians to strengthen
their links of partnership and unity and their commitment to the Bible’s
teachings.
A statement issued at the end of the meeting said the participants examined
three major topics: 1) Commitment to the principle of partnership among the
Maronites as a first step toward reviving this partnership with all Lebanese
spiritual sects and cooperation to build the state and develop the Lebanese
society. 2) Preservation of the Lebanese land as a means to consolidate
existence and identity and preserve Lebanon’s special plurality and its
diversified society within unity. 3) Restoration of balance to public
administrations through an effective participation of Christians in serving the
state and citizens on the basis of the respect of the principles of competence
and an equal division [of civil service posts].
During the meeting, the Maronite Documentation and Research Center presented a
summary of its survey on the issue of land sales and foreign ownership of land,
according to the statement.
The participants reviewed a study by a private company on the imbalance in
Christian participation in the public sector. Everyone joined in the discussions
and proposed practical solutions for this problem.
“The participants agreed on the need to follow up the discussion of all issues
that concern the Lebanese homeland and the Christians’ effective role in
preserving it and its special identity as a message and a model of plurality,
democracy and freedom through their commitment to exercising their right and
duty as good citizens,” the statement said. It added that the participants
formed a coordinating committee to follow up the issues that have been
discussed.
Bishop Samir Mazloum, who read the statement to reporters, described the
atmosphere at the meeting as “very good and calm,” saying it was dominated by
mutual respect and love among all the participants. He said more meetings of
Maronite leaders and MPs will be held later and the committee will set dates for
those meetings.
Issues of mutual concern among Lebanon’s Christian factions include high
emigration rates among Christians, the inclusion of Christians in state
administrative positions, as well as large-scale property and land sales to
non-Christians.
Property sales and high emigration rates have raised fears over organized
efforts to alter the country’s demographic balance, as Lebanon’s Christian
community has fallen to almost 40 percent, threatening the continued viability
of a power-sharing system based on equality between Muslims and Christians.
In his opening speech, Rai called on the participants to seek unity through
commitment to the Bible’s teachings and adopt recommendations to improve the
conditions of Christians in Lebanon regardless of their different political
options.
“We, as Christians and Maronites, are committed to the Bible’s principles and
the Church’s ideological and moral teachings when we exercise our spiritual and
pastoral activities. Partnership and unity among Christians regardless of their
various positions, responsibilities and activities, cannot be attained without
this commitment,” Rai said.
He stressed that the Christians’ effective presence can be attained through
their participation in state administrative posts. “The Lebanese common
coexistence formula is based on an equal [division of civil service posts]
between Christians and Muslims and on competence in technical jobs and the
distribution of public responsibilities equally among all the sects with the aim
of ensuring the country’s stability, achieving democracy and prosperity of the
economy,” he said.
Rai called on the Christians to preserve the land, to the point of “martyrdom.”
“The land is the pillar of the cultural, social and political identity.
Preserving it, protecting its environment, benefiting from its crops and not
selling it to foreigners are a sacred duty,” he said.
He called for the separation of religion from the state and politics, on the
condition of upholding “moral principles and national constants,” and work for
the good of the citizens and the state.
A number of participants praised the meeting, voicing optimism about the work of
the coordinating committee. Former President Amin Gemayel sounded optimistic
about the coordinating committee which, he said, will address a number of issues
that were not discussed at Thursday’s meeting.
Geagea praised the meeting as “positive and useful,” saying two important
proposals were presented on the issues of land sales, public administrations and
state institutions. He said a committee was formed to follow up the discussion
of matters that were debated during the meeting.
Geagea scoffed at the theory that Christians in Lebanon were in danger. “No
doubt, there are matters that need to be addressed. But I don’t agree for a
minute that the Christians are in danger,” he said. “The Christians in Lebanon
have been through 30 difficult years. They have all the components of presence
and interaction in Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole.”
Caretaker Labor Minister Butros Harb from the March 14 coalition said “the aim
of this meeting was to adjust the path in Lebanon in favor of preserving its
unity. It can help defuse tension in Lebanon so that we can draw up a joint
concept [to cope with] challenges facing Lebanon in the future.”
Metn MP Ibrahim Kenaan from Aoun’s parliamentary Change and Reform bloc said
what matters is cooperation between Christian ministers and MPs in the Cabinet
and Parliament.
Saudi rulers aid allies against Iran and popular uprisings
June 03, 2011 02:18 AM
By Ulf Laessing, Jason Benham Reuters
KUWAIT CITY/RIYADH: Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia is using its political clout
and financial power to draw regional allies into a united front against
perceived threats from Iran and popular discontent with Arab autocrats.
Saudi rulers, alarmed by shifts in U.S. policy in response to the toppling of
long-time ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and protests roiling Bahrain,
Oman and Yemen in the kingdom’s own backyard, are vigorously pushing back.
“Saudi Arabia is using its excess budget wealth to silence the revolutions or
shape their outcomes,” said London-based Saudi researcher and author Madawi al-Rasheed.
Riyadh has pledged $4 billion in aid to Egypt, throwing a lifeline to new rulers
struggling with the economic impact of the anti-Mubarak unrest. It was also
instrumental in a $20 billion handout to Bahrain and Oman for job-creating
projects.
Saudi Arabia shares U.S. fears that Iran wants nuclear arms and has struggled to
adjust to rising Iranian regional influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq produced a Shiite-led government in Baghdad. It also worries about popular
unrest.
“The kingdom is very concerned about the revolutionary wave. They don’t want the
waves to reach the shores of the Gulf,” said Saudi political analyst Khalid al-Dakhil.
The Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council, grouping six Sunni-ruled oil producers,
is considering letting Jordan and Morocco join, adding two more monarchies to a
bloc that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The invitation to the two non-oil countries was motivated by defense needs, not
economic logic, analysts say.
The GCC, which sent troops to Bahrain in March to help quell protests by
majority Shiites there, wants extra muscle to counter perceived military and
security threats from Iran.
“It doesn’t make any sense from an economic perspective. Morocco has nothing to
do with the Gulf and is far away. The Saudis want to support two allies,” said
an analyst in Riyadh.
Despite their often tense ties with Syria, a friend of Iran, Saudi rulers are
worried about the fallout of demonstrations against President Bashar Assad,
which they fear could destabilize neighbors such as Jordan, also the scene of
some protests.
“They want to support Jordan. I think they could use Jordan as a buffer against
Syria which is unstable,” said Rasheed.
Riyadh has tried to wean Syria from Iran, offering economic cooperation after
King Abdullah visited Damascus in 2009.
But no Saudi firm made big investments in Syria, which kept its alliance with
Iran. U.S. officials have even accused Iran of helping Syria quash protests, a
charge both countries deny.
Saudi financial aid to Egypt aimed to prevent instability in the Arab world’s
most populous nation, and to discourage Cairo’s new rulers from mending fences
with Tehran. “Their biggest worry is that Egypt restores ties with Iran,” said
Rasheed.
The kingdom, home to the holiest Muslim sites, sees itself as bastion of Sunni
Islam and had relied on Mubarak to contain Shiite Iran. King Abdullah initially
backed Mubarak when Egyptians rose up against their leader. Saudi Arabia also
gave refuge to ousted Tunisian leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.
Days after the Saudi aid package, Egypt briefly detained and questioned an
Iranian diplomat for spying.
“It’s interesting how immediately after Saudi Arabia announced the financial
package, Egypt arrested the diplomat,” said Mohammed al-Qahtani, a prominent
pro-democracy activist.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Egypt Wednesday to rebuild diplomatic
relations with the Islamic Republic, saying that the resulting emergence of a
new “great power” would force “Zionists” to leave the region.
Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, is also looking inward. After returning from
a prolonged medical absence in February, King Abdullah pledged $130 billion in
handouts to create jobs and provide housing for a rapidly-growing population.
Dakhil said the quest for security in the kingdom, which enforces strict Islamic
rules, would be advanced by allowing more freedom and pursuing reform at home,
rather than by seeking friends abroad.
Hizb ut-Tahrir to show support for Syrian
Wassim Mroueh/ The Daily Star BEIRUT:
A pan-Islamist party will hold a sit-in in support of the uprising in Syria in a
mosque in Downtown Beirut Friday.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which considers all rulers of Arab states “illegitimate” because
they are “pro-Western,” will hold the sit-in in the courtyard of the Omari
Mosque following Friday prayers. Last month, the party staged a demonstration in
the northern city of Tripoli in support of Syrian protesters.
Ahmad Qasas, media official for Hizb ut-Tahrir, told The Daily Star that
protesters would stay inside the mosque in order to prevent security problems.
Asked whether participants would come from Tripoli, where the party usually
holds demonstrations, Qasas said that all of the people of Lebanon were invited.
As for expected attendance, Qasas said the turnout would depend on measures
taken by security personnel. He said the police and security personnel took very strict measures when the
party staged its recent demonstration in Tripoli, which prevented many people
from joining the protests.
The child who shook Syria
02/06/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
In fact, Hamza al-Khatib not only shook Syria, but also the conscience of the
entire world. After several days of denial campaigns in the official Syrian
media, the Syrian regime broke its silence and declared that an investigation
would be conducted with regards to the brutal torture suffered by the child.
Hamza's story was then investigated, and according to the Syrian regime and its
statements, the child had not been tortured, but forensic evidence instead
proved that he had received three bullet wounds which led to his death! This
excuse is worse than the crime, because how is it [any more justifiable] to kill
a child with three bullets? In fact, what about the 30 children altogether who
have been killed by gunfire in the uprising, according to UNICEF? The whole
story from beginning to end is depressing and disgusting, and its details
justify the condemnation that the Syrian regime and its media are receiving. The
latter has become something of a joke in Syria: Rather than Syrians telling
their children that those who lie go to hell, they now say those who lie go to
the Syrian media. We are witnessing the emergence of a new provocative media,
which is strangely tolerated by the wider Arab media. This is the phenomenon of
Syrian "analysts" who defend the regime. I doubt whether they even believe
themselves, and they are what I call the "new al-Sahafis", with reference to the
former Iraqi Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
Interestingly, these "analysts" talked about the Salafis and armed groups, only
for the President to come out and acknowledge the legitimate demands of the
protestors, hence undermining what the analysts said. Then they said the
Lebanese were responsible for supporting the Syrian demonstrations, and referred
to cheques paid to fund the uprising in an attempt to prove this, which then
turned out to be fake. Then one analyst came out and described the Syrian
protestors as "scum", whilst the Syrian President came out and announced an
amnesty! Respected Arab news outlets in our region should not accept the
emergence of this phenomenon, and if the Syrian regime wants to defend itself,
it should do so through an allocated official spokesperson, or through the
regime's Minister of Information. It could even do so through a security
spokesman, as long as the security forces hold the upper hand in Damascus today.
Yet it must not use these "analysts" who the media stations know, more than
anyone else, are not credible. As an aside, there is a video on "YouTube"
showing a demonstration in a Syrian town, where the demonstrators are chanting
the names of these "analysts" affiliated with the Syrian regime, and after each
one loudly shouting: Liar!
Therefore, at a time when the Syrian President has offered his condolences to
the family of the child victim, we should remember that Hamza has become a
symbol for the shaken Syrians, just like Bouazizi was for the Tunisians, even
after former Tunisian President Ben Ali visited him in hospital before he died,
and then stepped down from power. Hamza is also a symbol like the Egyptian
Khaled Saeed.
The whole world heard the cry of injustice coming from the child's family, and
it struck their conscience. Even the U.S. station "CNN" displayed selected
images of Hamza's body, which were first broadcast by "al-Jazeera", where the
news anchor Anderson Cooper said: "we have found it necessary to display these
images so the world can see the brutality of the Syrian regime". Indeed,
everyone saw the brutal image, except the Arab League it seems!
MP Mashnouq: AmendingTaif a call for civil war
June 03, 2011 ظThe Daily Star BEIRUT: Beirut MP Mohammad Mashnouq said Thursday that proposals
to amend the Taif Accord weren’t an attempt to solve the country’s problems, but
instead represented a call for civil war.
“Amending the Taif agreement, before implementing it fully … is a call for a new
civil war and not a solution,” said Mashnouq during a conference organized by
the Future Movements’ legal experts.
Mashnouq also blamed the Doha agreement of 2008, which ended several weeks of
civil strife in May of that year, for Lebanon’s current problems.
The void in Beirut. Who really gains?
June By Michael Young/The Daily Star
What did Walid Jumblatt mean when he told the daily Al-Akhbar this week that
Hezbollah did not want to form a government?
And when the Druze leader went on to say that a government was necessary for the
party and Syria as well, was that a discreet way of saying that it was Damascus
that was holding up the government-formation process – a thought that Jumblatt,
of course, immediately perished by refusing to link the Syrian tension to the
Lebanese government crisis?
There can be no serious doubt that the situation in Syria weighs heavily on the
stalemate in Beirut. The explanations are many for why Najib Mikati has been
unable to form a government, and quite a few happen to be true; but perhaps the
most significant is that Syria has been lukewarm in pushing for a new team. The
prime minister-designate is not about to embark on fashioning a Cabinet without
strong Syrian backing, especially a partisan Cabinet in which he would have to
stand his ground against Hezbollah and Michel Aoun.
Which returns us to the implications of Jumblatt’s remarks. The regime of
President Bashar Assad evidently has no real interest in a Mikati government,
because it has no interest in filling a Lebanese political vacuum that it seeks
to exploit in order to survive at home. Through Lebanon, Damascus can send, and
has sent, warning shots regionally and internationally, to the effect that it
must either be the Assads and their Makhlouf cousins in power, or else chaos
will ensue. That was the essence of what Rami Makhlouf, the financial pillar of
the Syrian regime, told The New York Times in a recent interview.
Since that interview was published, two things have happened in Lebanon to bring
home Makhlouf’s message. Hezbollah, with perceptible Syrian approval, and in a
move coordinated with similar measures on the Golan Heights, helped mobilize
demonstrators along the Lebanese-Israeli border to commemorate Nakba Day. This
was a pinprick, destined to echo Makhlouf’s comments that “If there is no
stability [in Syria], there’s no way there will be stability in Israel.”
And last Friday, an Italian UNIFIL unit was the target of a bomb attack in
Rmeileh. It’s unclear who planted the device, but the attack came at the very
moment when foreign embassies were indicating that Makhlouf had pointedly
mentioned, in an off-the-record aside during his New York Times interview, that
United Nations forces in Lebanon might be assaulted. If there were any doubts,
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem had earlier dispelled them when declaring,
after the European Union imposed sanctions on Bashar Assad, “I say this measure,
just as it will harm Syria’s interests, it will harm Europe’s interest. And
Syria won’t remain silent about this measure.”
Although Hezbollah is siding with the Syrian regime against Syrian protesters,
as its secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, made clear last week, you
have to wonder whether the party and Syria share the desire to maintain a void
in Lebanon. In strict terms Jumblatt may again be right that Hezbollah doesn’t
want a government, but is this a matter of choice, or is the party obligated to
follow the Syrian lead?
Only a few months ago Hezbollah was willing to take the hazardous step of
barring Saad Hariri’s return to office, in the hope that it could follow this up
by swiftly forming a favorable government that would face supposedly imminent
indictments issued by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Today, we must believe
that Hezbollah’s sense of urgency has evaporated and that the party is no longer
concerned with the likelihood that the tribunal will formally accuse party
members of involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. There is a
disconnect here, one suggesting that Syria’s objectives and Hezbollah’s may not
be as closely aligned as some assume over delaying a Cabinet.
It is a matter of anxiety in Beirut how Hezbollah might react if the situation
in Syria were to deteriorate further and the Assad regime’s hold on power were
loosened further. In that event the existence of a Lebanese government would
help Hezbollah, because if the party has to watch one of its principal allies
collapsing, it would prefer to do so after having anchored itself in the
legitimacy of Lebanese state institutions. In other words the party needs a
government in place that it can dominate, both to bless its weapons and help it
absorb the aftershocks of a tribunal indictment and radical change in Syria.
The assessment of some foreign observers is that if the Assads are ousted,
Hezbollah will respond by striking a harsh blow domestically to reaffirm its
authority. Perhaps, but this, more reasonably, would be an act of desperation.
In the Lebanese context it might lead to civil conflict, particularly if the
party were to take such a step minus its valuable Syrian partner, in the
presence of a new order in Damascus bound to be hostile to Hezbollah. Another
May 2008 would fail, even more so when we recall that Hezbollah was hard-pressed
to end its military operations quickly at the time, after the triumph in western
Beirut. Seizing territory is easier than controlling it. Hezbollah would be
reckless in assuming that it can successfully overcome all of Lebanon.
The deadlock will persist in Beirut, with Najib Mikati remaining unable to form
a government. However, it’s still an open question whether Hezbollah truly gains
from this state of affairs, even if Syria does. Assad wants an open Lebanese
playing field to manipulate. Yet at some stage Nasrallah needs the state to be
credible, as it may become the last bastion between Hezbollah and regional and
international demands that the party surrender its arms.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of
Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon &
Schuster), listed as one of the 10 notable books of 2010 by The Wall Street
Journal. He tweets @BeirutCalling