Israel’s 34-day war on Lebanon crystallized Washington’s position in the Middle East conflict. The Bush administration’s unequivocal support of Israel’s actions has further alienated US from the Arab world and even succeeding in distancing traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis – like the Jordanians and the Egyptians – secretly wished for a quick war that would cut Hizbullah down to size, but as the conflict dragged, these leaders had no option but to call for a ceasefire. It was to no avail: the US only succeeded in losing more hearts and minds in the region, giving birth to a new generation of anti-US resentment.
Burning issues
Given the circumstances, Washington can hardly pretend to be an objective broker to a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute. That is, if the issue of peace talks ever were to surface again in the little time – less than two years now – that George W. Bush has left as the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The president’s remaining months in the White House will be taken up by the following burning issues:
- The November elections: With the Democrats attempting to retake the House and Senate from the Republican Party in preparation for the 2008 presidential elections, Bush has already begun campaigning for the Republicans. Much of his time between now and November will be spent flying around the country trying to garner support for the Republican Party.
- The ongoing war in Iraq: That conflict alone must be responsible for more than a few of the president’s grey hairs. Despite the White House spin, Bush’s hopes of a quick victory in Iraq sputtered and died, amid growing sectarian violence with hundreds of Iraqis dying on a daily basis. In fact, Bush will be lucky if the all-out civil war that threatens to rip Iraq apart does not break out on his watch – if it already hasn’t, that is. It would be a terrible legacy for any president to leave behind. Then there is the ever-increasing casualty rate – the body count – among both US military personnel and the civilian Iraqi population. And finally, with no visible face-saving exit strategy in sight for the administration, that US forces are expected to remain in Iraq well beyond the end of the Bush presidency.
- The war in Afghanistan: the resurgence of the Taliban in recent months is a clear indication that the war in Afghanistan is far from over. Armed opposition to the pro-American government of Hamid Karzai – which was limited until recently to the southern part of the country – is slowly creeping into the capital, Kabul. Car bombings, suicide bombings and targeted shootings of government officials are becoming more and more common.
- The war on terrorism: this is a war being fought in the shadows, and it is giving the president a tough time, even with members of his own Republican party over such issues as the rights of suspects to be tried and convicted based on evidence kept secret even from the accused.
- The Iranian nuclear dossier: of all the urgent dossiers piling up on the president’s desk, the Iran nuclear file must be one of the most burning issues. The Bush administration is faced with one of its toughest decisions yet: what to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
Beltway gossip
This this is where Lebanon – and Hizbullah – and Syria enter the scene. There is much talk inside the Washington Beltway of a possible strike on Iran, should the Islamic Republic refuse to abide by the international community’s request that it stop its nuclear program. Iran claims its nuclear program is intended for purely civilian use, but the United States and its Western allies are not convinced. If the US and/or Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, what are the counter-measures Iran is likely to take? A good probability is that it would have Hizbullah unleash its rockets on Israel, as it did during the 34-day conflict with the Jewish state.
Such action would push Israel to retaliate against Hizbullah – and in turn against Lebanon, as it did during the July/August war. So is it all gloom and doom for the Lebanese, barely out of one crisis, before an even greater catastrophe befalls the country?
Not necessarily so. Here is an optimist’s view from Washington, DC.
The arrival of several thousand blue-helmeted peacekeepers from Italy, Spain and France, along with several thousand Arab and Muslim soldiers can be seen as a sign that the international community very much supports a stable and independent Lebanon. But what the Western powers want is a “demilitarized” zone in south Lebanon where the 15,000 Lebanese Army troops dispatched to the area can, with the support of the 15,000 foreign soldiers backing up the Lebanese Army, act as a deterrent and keep armed militias at bay.
The western powers want a demilitarized zone where armed militias can be kept at bay
Facilitating integration
For that to happen – for South Lebanon to become demilitarized – there would be a need for Hizbullah to transform itself from what it currently is – a political party with a lot of muscle – into purely a political grouping. That in turn would facilitate its integration into Lebanese political life. It has been done before in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, those are rarely the ways of the Middle East; for one, it is far too logical. And despite two United Nations resolutions (1559 and 1701) calling for the disarmament of all militias and groups in Lebanon with the exception of the Lebanese Army, don’t expect Hizbullah to start handing in its weaponry any time soon.
The most likely scenario is the one practiced many times over the years in Lebanon whenever a particular militia found it had to give up its guns. Most of the weaponry disappears underground while a token number of old machine guns along with some faulty rocket launchers are ceremoniously handed over in front of the world’s media. All sides look good, everyone goes away happy until the next time.
But what of Syria’s role in all this? So far it has remained unmentioned. Syria is edging to get back into mainstream Lebanese politics and is betting on its supporters in Lebanon (today, Hizbullah and Gen. Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement) to open the door for them.
