This is part two of a two part column series.
As the situation in Lebanon is brought to a head with incredible international pressure on Syria to comply with UNSC Resolution 1559, massive demonstrations by the people and car bombs exploding in Beirut, one is compelled to imagine how all of this began. The obvious answer is that it began with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, but who is responsible for that? Though we may never know the truth, an exploration of alternative scenarios may shed some light on the issues.
Scenario #1: Syria Orders Hariri Assassination
Despite the odds that they may be able to successfully coerce voters and/or otherwise rig the upcoming elections in May or to render elected officials ineffective afterward, Syria decides to assassinate a popular political figure in one of the biggest covert-op blunders of all time.
Scenario #2: Israeli Government Responsible
The assassination is carried out to destabilize Syria’s grip on Lebanon, distracting Hezbollah from preoccupation with the Palestinian situation and creating chaos within Lebanon’s borders, simultaneously complicating matters for Syria and furthering Israel’s own national interests.
Scenario #3: U.S. Intelligence Responsible
U.S. intelligence and/or proxy forces (possibly also involving Israel) assassinate Hariri to illustrate exactly why UNSC Resolution 1559 needs to be enforced, punctuating “fundamental instability” in the region. Popular response is either a complete but pleasant surprise or the product of a carefully executed propaganda campaign.
The Iranian reaction calling the entire situation a ‘Zionist conspiracy’ was anticipated as elemental to further characterization of Iran as a dangerous state with a psychotic leadership bent on obtaining nuclear weapons technology.
Scenario #4: Hezbollah or Jihadists Responsible
Aware of the possible consequences of international pressures, Jihadists carry out the assassination in order to rid themselves of the worthy opponent Hariri. Also renewing tensions in the Palestinian/Israeli situation, thereby plowing through the diplomacy that has been crippling the goal of destroying the Zionist infidels completely and potentially expelling American influence through increased direct conflict in the region.
Regardless of who planned the attack, opportunists have gained influence over the situation by manipulating evidence and reporting, by invoking UNSC Resolution 1559 and by creating a martyr of Rafik Hariri. The advantaged are: the U.S., Israel, pro-independence Lebanese and possibly Jordan. The decidedly disadvantaged include Syria/Syrians in Lebanon, the Palestinians, Iran, the Hezbollah Party and any neutral parties residing within Lebanon’s borders.
A realistic course of action is to allow the Syrian forces to withdraw to the limit of what was outlined by Syria and Lebanon in the Taif Accord in 1989, which is a partial withdrawal retaining troops in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon. Instituting a partial or gradual withdrawal may allow Lebanon to work toward a higher degree of stabilization on their own.
But the terrible reality is that there must be some occupation force in Lebanon to maintain peace until such time that a sufficient domestic peacekeeping force is established, additionally with an effective governing body elected or appointed, whether it is Syria or otherwise.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice acknowledged this fact herself, stating that if there was a full and complete Syrian withdrawal that there “… would obviously have to be some kind of international peacekeeping force …” moving in to fill the vacuum. And although they are cautious to proclaim it outright, it does not take a genius to decipher just which “international peacekeeping force” the administration has in mind.
This arrangement will allow the U.S. to further regional interests by giving the administration a hands-on opportunity to shape Lebanese politics.
Bush’s insistence that Syria withdraw completely may stem from apprehension over Syria retaining control of the Bekaa Valley, which, according to U.S. intelligence, is brimming with terrorists and is the source of a counterfeiting ring which produces a U.S. ‘supernote’ that evades detection.
The U.S. presence in Lebanon could neutralize the Hebollah Party’s militant wing, limiting Syrian and Iranian influence over the Israeli-Palestinian situation and effectively isolating Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Israel from the rest of the Middle East. This is a significant strategic move.
The question is, though; will the Lebanese feel as though the “International Peacekeeping Force” merely replaces the current occupation with troops who understand neither their culture nor their language? The risk of alienating the population may put the security situation in Lebanon on par with the Iraq occupation. If that is the result, what will the Syrian response be? If, consequently, Syria moves to conflict with U.S. forces/the IPF, will we be catapulted into a much wider regional conflict?
The Bush Administration is about to remove the keystone in a house of cards. And I for one can’t wait to see what happens next.
T. James Hanaburgh was a Collegian columnist. Check out his blog at http://whatsparksaremadeof.blogspot.com/.
