Syria, Iran: Lack of police making, and the open gates of Lebanon
By Dr : Riad Awwad
February 16/08

With the debut of the year 2008 and after the speeches of French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who announced the ending of contacts with Damascus in order to reach an agreement on the situation on Lebanon, the international community could believe that Syria’s role in the matter has ended, appreciating that the Damascus regime interprets today’s international evolutions not in 2008`s language but in the one of the `70s which has become obsolete, passing in the pages of history.
The Syrian regime wished, very probably, to demonstrate to Paris that Lebanon’s situation could not be solved in Beirut, but only in Damascus who wants but a settlement based on the ruins of this poor and peaceful country. If Lebanon had been a great producer of oil, probably the world would have been a lot more interested in what is going on there and of Damascus’s behavior that wishes a copy of former president Emile Lahoud to be installed in Beirut. A wish to which the internationally agreed upon candidate, Michel Slemaine, does not come close to.

Far from wanting to have a positive role, congruent to the way the international community thinks, Damascus does nothing more than playing a negative rapture, arranged by Iran who, in it’s turn, is confronted with serious problems generated by the nuclear arms file which preoccupies the whole world through the perspective that one day it could be put in the hands of Islamic extremists.

The world crosses today an unstable period in which America, the sole international cop, seams to lack time to analyze the dictatorial regimes that obstruct the realization of Iraqi – Iraqi harmony or who dictate the dissemination on death and destruction in Israel, or sabotage any good intentions of the international community in Lebanon. This can explain France’s refusal to continue diplomatic contacts with the Iranian backed up Damascus, although Paris had proposed a basketful of rational measures for electing a consensual president, and the constitution of a national unity government, with proportional representation for all parliamentary parties, and the elaboration of a new democratic election law. The leader of the Lebanese majority stated, in Ryad that: “Syria wants a solution to the situation in line with its clients wishes, not with the needs of Lebanon”, adding that Damascus is convinced that a solution can only be reached in Syria. Syrian minister of external affairs, Walid Al-Moallem declares that the solution depends on General Michel Aoun and he, in his turn, says that the deciding factor is Hezbollah, which if expressed differently, means that the solution lies in the hands of Teheran. The pro Syrian opposition accuses the parliamentary majority of obedience to the Occident and America, forgetting though that it is itself obeying Syria and Iran. Taking sides and making favors cannot be divided; it’s an act of betrayal, whatever the identity of the protector is.

This time Hezbollah will use force to impose, whatever the cost, the orders of Teheran and Damascus. In the 2006 war this faction used to bring salutations to the parliamentary majority, only to undermine its authority afterwards, only because it was ordered to do so by the Iranian and Syrian regimes, forgetting or faking to forget its terrorist character, worldwide known. Who pays more gets served first.

In the Declaration of Constitution from 1985, it was stated clearly: “We (Hezbollah) are the sons of the nation named Hezbollah who first saw the light of day in Iran as main nucleus of the world Islamic state. We are obedient to the fair ruling of the sole supreme leader, inheritor of the teachings of the eternal imam Ruhollah Khomeini”. In his turn, the former leader of Hezbollah, Sobhi Tofaili, agreed textually: “He who states that Iran has no interest in Lebanon is a liar. The decision does not lie in Beirut, but in Teheran. Ibrahim Al Amim, responsible of the leadership of Hezbollah stated recently: “We are not a part of Iran. We are Iran in Lebanon itself!” On 4 august 2006, general secretary of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah declared for an Islamic Iranian publication: “Our parties dream is to constitute one day the Islamic Lebanese Republic, the only way to secure the future and peace of this society”. About what kind of stability Nasrallah speak, we shall find out soon enough.

In no other part of the world the government can not be elected before the president. In Lebanon though, it’s a glance of external intrusions. After all the diplomatic efforts made by America, France and the Arab community , Damascus an Teheran began to fight over the inexistent ministerial chairs in Beirut. None of the sides takes in consideration that the representation in the government has to be proportional with the one in the legislative body. The pro Syrian and pro Iranian opposition wishes not less than 11 ministries, next to the 14 that should reach the majority, to which another 5 ministers would add named by the president who, in his turn, is supposed to answer to Teheran and Damascus.

Today the solution depends on the actions of the peace and democracy loving forces who have the duty of closing Lebanon’s gates in front of the forces of evil and terrorist extremism to take to justice the killers of ex prime minister Rafik Hariri and to make harder the measures against Iran who, with its actions, threats the whole international community.