Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Upcoming US-Iran Confrontation
By: *Dr. Joseph Hitti
April 11/2006
CNN's Wolf Blitzer today hosted Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine and
discussed with him a recent article published by Hersh. In the article, Hersh
quotes very highly reliable sources in the White House and the Pentagon as
saying that the US is contemplating the option of a nuclear attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities for two primary reasons:
1 - In 2004, the US had given the European Union 2 years to resolve the Iranian
nuclear impasse by diplomacy, on the insistence of the EU who was pontificating
about the United States' rush to war in Iraq. The Europeans have now given up on
that approach since it met with total failure, with Iran turning down all offers
for peaceful alternatives. The international consensus at this time is that Iran
is now determined to build a nuclear bomb, and intelligence estimates predict it
will get there in 8 - 10 years.
2 - Iran's nuclear facilities are spread out across the country, but the most
dangerous one, according to US intelligence, lies 75 feet underground below
solid rock. This means that no conventional weapon – not even the most advanced
deep-penetration type of missiles - can accomplish the complete destruction of
the facility in a reasonable operation. The purpose in this type of operation is
usually to maximize the ratio of impact over bomb capacity used, and US military
experts know that no conventional bomb in their arsenal can accomplish this
mission. Hence the nuclear option.
Seymour Hersh's main point is that the plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear
facilities are in their final stages, and only the US President's order is
required to launch an execution. However, in recent discussions between the
White House and the Pentagon, as the plans were being finalized, the JCS (Joint
Chiefs of Staff) requested that the nuclear option be eliminated from the menu
of options, but the White House refused and insisted that the nuclear option be
kept on the menu.
In recent speeches, both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have
maintained a very hard line against Iran's nuclear program, leaving no doubt
that the showdown between Iran and the international community is quickly headed
towards the military option. In addition, political observers have been
reporting that President Bush, who has close to 2 years in office remaining and
without any prospects for re-election, may see this moment of his term as an
opportune time to deal a deadly strike against Iran's nuclear program, thus
completing his record for history and posterity as the anti-terrorism president
par excellence.
If this is the landscape going forward, then where does that leave Lebanon, and
in particular Hezbollah? The comfort level for many in the American Lebanese
community is getting narrower and narrower, as the future of Hezbollah remains
mired in ambiguity in the ongoing national dialogue in Beirut. The support many
of us here give to a negotiated arrangement with Hezbollah for putting down its
weapons, integrating civil and political life, and severing its ties to Iran is
becoming harder and harder to justify to both ourselves and to the American
public. This is likely to become a virtually impossible task to do once, and if,
a violent confrontation erupts between the US and Iran. The nuclear option makes
that discomfort closer to a feeling of severe nausea, and the remedy is for
Hezbollah - either as part of the National Dialogue or unilaterally - to declare
the severance of its ties with Iran and its re-orienting of its identity to a
purely Lebanese platform that leaves everyone in Beirut and in the Lebanese
Diaspora worldwide reassured that Lebanon will not be drawn - yet again by
Hezbollah - into a maelstrom of regional conflicts, particularly not in a
conflict with the United States.
Iran is on a collision course with the United States and the international
community, with potentially disastrous consequences for the region. Those of the
Lebanese - both at home and abroad - who have supported giving Hezbollah a
decent exit strategy, by committing it to a negotiated and honorable mechanism
for implementing UN resolution 1559, should now be asking Hezbollah for clearer
and unambiguous language regarding distancing itself from Iran and disengaging
Lebanon from the Israeli-Arab conflict, both in line with the will of the
international community and, more importantly, the will of the Lebanese people
who have tired of fighting the wars of others at the expense of their own
welfare and the wellbeing of their country.
Dr. Joseph Hitti
*Joseph Hitti, President of New England Americans for Lebanon
*Political Commentator
*Active Lebanese Lobbyist in the USA
E.mail
joehittimass@yahoo.com
Boston, Massachusetts-USA