Aspin Institute 2009

August 10, 2009

Where the Middle East Fights Its Wars

The Middle East is riven with fault lines. Conflicts between Israelis and Arabs, Persians and Israelis, Arabs and Persians, Sunnis and Shias, Islamists and liberals, and democrats and Khomeinists are all stuck in a holding pattern that isn't sustainable. The region is in a deadlock and will likely remain so until something big and probably violent unjams it.

Because of its extraordinary diversity, almost every major political current in the Middle East echoes in Lebanon. In the past, Arab Nationalism and Palestinian "resistance" blew through the place and left swaths of wreckage before passions cooled. Thanks to Hezbollah, the country is still a front line in the Arab-Israeli conflict -- and that's because the Iranian-backed militia is the tip of the spear in the Persian-Israeli conflict. Lebanon is also where mutually antagonistic Sunnis and Shias are more or less numerically matched and where the Syrian-Iranian axis directly confronts its resilient political opposites. Beirut, like Tehran, is where some of the Middle East's most liberal modernizers face off against committed radicals in thrall to Ayatollah Khomeini's totalitarian vision of Velayat-e Faqih.

A divided country with a weak central government can't indefinitely withstand this kind of pressure any more than geological faults can forever keep still while continental plates slowly but relentlessly collide with each other. And so Lebanon is a place where the Middle East fights itself. It is also where the East meets the West and, at times, where the East fights the West. Everyone with a dog in a Middle East fight has a dog in Lebanon's fights.

Beirut may be the best place of all to observe that part of the world. It has its own local problems, of course, but its most serious local problems are regional problems. The Syrians are there, the Iranians are there, and the Saudis are there. France and the United States sent soldiers there more than once. United Nations peacekeepers have been there since the 1970s. The Israelis barge in and out. Yasser Arafat and the PLO used the country as a terrorist base and set up their own parallel state after their violent eviction from Jordan. When Ariel Sharon drove Arafat and his gang to Tunisia, Hezbollah set up an Iranian-sponsored parallel state in the PLO's place.

By Michael J. Totten; Aspen Institute 13, August 2009- Gemmayze, East Beirut

I visited Lebanon after wrapping up my last trip to Iraq, and was pleasantly surprised all over again by how much nicer Beirut is than Baghdad despite all its troubles. It's still a mess, of course, but that's because the region it reflects is a mess.

Salim al-Sayegh, the Kataeb (Phalangist) Party's vice president, agreed to sit down with me and discuss Lebanon's -- and therefore the region's -- endlessly dysfunctional and occasionally explosive political problems. Like most parties in Lebanon, the Kataeb has a dark past, had a militia that behaved terribly during the long civil war, and has since mellowed and turned mainstream. It's a part of the anti-Syrian "March 14" coalition, and one of its members of parliament -- Pierre Gemayel, son of former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel -- was assassinated by gunmen in 2006. Tens of thousands of Christians, Sunnis, and Druze attended his funeral in downtown Beirut.

Pierre Gemayel, assassinated Kataeb Party Member of Parliament and son of former President Amin Gemayel

The party's vice president and I spoke before the election this summer when "March 14" beat Hezbollah. He started off by telling me just how important he thought that election was, not just for Lebanon, but for the whole Middle East.

-

MJT: Tell me about the upcoming election.

Salim al-Sayegh: We are fighting to preserve human rights in this country and the state of freedom despite all the terror that has been organized against us. The project of "March 14" is very simple. It is the building up of a modern democratic humanistic society in this country. An attack against "March 14" is not an attack from a loyal opposition. The state has to be sovereign, has to be independent. On the other side we have the negation of the state.

Of course we did not achieve all our objectives even though we still have a majority in parliament. Despite this majority, with the use of weapons of terror, and of the ideological opposition to the West and to Israel, Hezbollah is impeding the majority from exerting its strength. But still we are here. We are not letting Hezbollah impose its will on the country. We have succeeded in putting the international tribunal [to indict the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri] where it is. Sooner or later, it will come to a conclusion and justice will be made.

If we do not win the elections, it is not a collapse of a party. It is the collapse of a sovereign, free, independent Lebanon. This is the problem. And this is why I consider these elections essential. The international community, the United Nations, have so far tried everything possible to preserve Lebanon. If the majority fails, it means Hezbollah will be in power in Lebanon. It would mean another Gaza.

Kataeb Vice President Salim al-Sayegh

We have pluralism in Lebanon. The Christians will still be here, but the Christians have no weapons, no funding, no backing. The only party with foreign backing, Syria’s backing, is Hezbollah. Hezbollah has Iranian and Syrian backing. It's the strongest force within the country. The build-up in this country for the last 20 years has enabled Hezbollah to take over the state. To take over the state.

This is an ideological party. For Hezbollah, anti-Americanism is ideological. Anti-Westernism is ideological. But our identity in Lebanon is a complex identity. We all speak foreign languages. We are all inheritors not only of the Persian Empire and the Arab world. We are also children of the Roman Empire, of the Western tradition. All of this mixes in Lebanon. And therefore we will never accept an identity change. We do not accept any community that is saying it’s anti-Western, that it's against Western values, that it's against the Western way of life. For them, democracy is relative. Human rights are something that is a Western concept, an imported concept.

Shia mosque, Baalbek, Bekaa Valley

Roman Empire city of Baalbek, Bekaa Valley

So all of this will be threatened in Lebanon regardless of the constitution. These guys do not respect the constitution. They do not respect the institutions.

For all your readers who think democracy is only letting the population vote, that it means majority rule: Democracy is voting, but it’s something else, as well. It’s a respect of human rights. Let’s not forget that Hitler came to power after elections. Fascism rose at the same time in Italy. Hamas took over Palestine after elections, okay, but what about respect for human rights? Those people do not have any track record of respecting human rights. They bluntly and publicly reject human rights values. They think there are other values they want to promote, and this is something I’m not going to accept here.

Le Rouge, Gemmayze, East Beirut

If we rule, if we reach power, we’ll be preserving these values, not imposing them. Preserving them. Because these are constitutional. If the others reach power, there will be nobody guaranteeing the respect of these values.

Lebanon provides a real chance for dialogue between civilizations and cultures. If there is a collapse of "March 14" in the next elections, this collapse will inevitably lead to a clash of cultures in Lebanon. This will not be between Islam and Christians. It will be between communities.

It means -- and this is a threat -- not only the collapse of our formula for co-existence, which should be preserved for the sake of humanity. It will mean a threat to stability and security in the whole Middle East. Again. And this will be the last time we will ever dare speak about democracy and human rights in the Middle East. It will be finished. It will mean the American model, the Western model -- which has become a universal model now which people aspire to all over the world -- all of this will be pushed aside for another model, which was exported by the Ayatollahs in Iran.

Hezbollah rejects all of this. They say “no, we know our limitations in Lebanon, that there is diversity in Lebanon, and we cannot go beyond that diversity.” This is what they say. The practice is something different. When they faced powerful political forces, they used their weapons. They are programmed for resistance, to impose their will over others.

This means civil war. Do we want to go back to that? The solution is the disarmament of Hezbollah. For Hezbollah, no defense strategy can be discussed if, as an end result, Hezbollah is asked to hand in its weapons.

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea (left) and Future Movement leader Saad Hariri (right) comfort former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel at his son Pierre's funeral

MJT: Do you think it will ever be possible to convince Hezbollah to give up its weapons? I don’t see any way of talking them into it.

Salim al-Sayegh: The problem of Hezbollah is the same as the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. It is the same impossible question. You’re asking Lebanese: "How are you going to handle the Palestinian refugees?" Palestinians are about ten percent of the population of Lebanon. Ten percent of the population lives at a very low standard, very low. The international community has a major responsibility in solving the issue of the Palestinian refugees.

Hezbollah's weapons are not Lebanese weapons. These are Iranian weapons in Lebanon. Hezbollah, an Iranian base in Lebanon, controls large parts of the country. Containing or engaging Iran can't only be done from the Persian Gulf, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. Containing Iran must happen in Lebanon, as well. This is a shared responsibility with the international community.

MJT: How do you think the international community should deal with Iran?

Salim al-Sayegh: There is a roadmap for this. The first thing is to delegitimize Hezbollah. The first issue is the issue of the Shebaa Farms villages. The United Nations and the United States under the Obama Administration should courageously pressure Israel to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms. And engage Syria, to get from Syria the necessary documents so that Shebaa Farms can be put under the authority of the United Nations or handed over to Lebanon.

MJT: If I remember correctly, when the Israelis left South Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah agreed that Israel had completely withdrawn to its side of the Blue Line. Only after the United Nations certified the Israeli withdrawal did Hezbollah claim Shebaa Farms was Lebanese territory under Israeli occupation. If this were true, why wouldn't Hezbollah say so in 2000 when they were negotiating with Israel over the troop withdrawal?

Salim al-Sayegh: The Israelis took Shebaa Farms from the Syrians, not from the Lebanese. The Israelis are saying they can give it to Syria. And the Syrians are saying Shebaa Farms is Lebanese. The United Nations says, according to our cards, Shebaa Farms is Syrian, not Lebanese.

MJT: It looks to me like Syria is being difficult on Shebaa Farms because Assad wants the issue to remain unresolved.

Salim al-Sayegh: Yes. Because if Syria cooperates, the next day Israel will put the Shebaa Farms under United Nations control. The next day. This would mean the end of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon because they would have no more territory to liberate.

Achrafieh, East Beirut

MJT: Would it really be the end, though? They would still have their weapons.

Salim al-Sayegh: They would have no more justification. They would lose their legitimacy. They’re using this as a pretext. They’re afraid Israel will do this and withdraw. The Syrians are promising Hezbollah they won't let them down.

If the Shebaa Farms is handed over from Syria through Israel to Lebanon, or through the United Nations to Lebanon, Lebanon will have no problem with Israel.

MJT: So why doesn't Lebanon just negotiate this directly with the Israelis?

Salim al-Sayegh: If I said publicly that we should negotiate with Israel...

MJT: You’d get in trouble.

Salim al-Sayegh: I would not make it home tonight. I would be considered an agent of Zionism.

Political message scratched into the walls of a Starbucks restroom in Hamra, West Beirut

MJT: I understand that. But why doesn’t the whole government just say "this is stupid, we’re not going to do this anymore."

Salim al-Sayegh: We have called for indirect negotiations with Israel.

MJT: I don’t mean your party, I mean the government.

Salim al-Sayegh: The party has called, President Amin Gemayel, has called for indirect negotiations many times.

MJT: Your party has a history of working with the Israelis.

Salim al-Sayegh: Yes. And we even said publicly a month ago, weeks ago, that we should have indirect negotiations with Israel to get back the Shebaa Farms.

MJT: What would happen if [Prime Minister Fouad] Seniora said this? Would he lose his support from the Sunnis?

Salim al-Sayegh: No, it’s not a question of support.

Hamra, West Beirut

MJT: Or is it dangerous because Hezbollah and the Syrians would come after him?

Salim al-Sayegh: The idea of negotiations with Israel right now is taboo in Lebanon.

MJT: I know. I’m just trying to figure out why it's a taboo. Is it because the overwhelming majority of people in Lebanon don’t want to have negotiations with Israel? Or is it because the Syrians, Hezbollah, and the Iranians have a gun to your head?

Salim al-Sayegh: It is both. There is not an overwhelming majority against this, but there is...Israel did a very stupid thing in 2006. It succeeded in pitting all Lebanese people against her. But now the hatred against Hezbollah is so high that half of Lebanon will be with and the other half would be against. So we don’t have an overwhelming majority. But we don't even need to negotiate this. If Syria gives the Shebaa Farms document to the United Nations, the United Nations will take the case to Israel and Israel will make it happen. We don't have anything to negotiate.

Negotiation means transaction. There is no transaction here. I have the land, you give it back to me, and that’s it. Israel, if it’s going to negotiate, might need something in return. What am I going to give Israel in return? Peace? I’m not ready to make peace with Israel. Because if I decide to make peace with Israel, there will be civil war in Lebanon tomorrow. Hezbollah will say I’m selling out the resistance or whatever.

Posters of Syrian President Bashar Assad were burned at Pierre Gemayel's funeral

Our country is so porous. We have all these infiltrations from the area who influence us. We should be immune. We should be thickly protected from any intervention from Syria and the other extremists. This is why it is in our interest to see Syria negotiate with Israel first.

MJT: You do want Syria to do that?

Salim al-Sayegh: The sooner, the better.

MJT: There’s a lot of skepticism in the U.S. about negotiations between Syria and Israel. Lots of people in the U.S. think the only reason Assad is even discussing this is because Syria has been isolated in the international community after what happened here in Lebanon. Peace talks with Israel make Syria look more legitimate in the eyes of the international community, but Assad has no intention of forging any kind of agreement with Israel whatsoever. It just makes him look like less of a bad guy.

Salim al-Sayegh: Yes. We cannot continue like this. We have to decide what to do. If I am in Washington and thinking about the future of the Near East, I have to make a decision. Do I want to give Syria incentives to change? It cannot remain like this. In Jordan, they have a rather open system. In Iraq, as well. Despite all the problems in Iraq, Iraq is moving toward normalization. Israel is a democracy. Turkey is rather open. Lebanon is a democracy.

We cannot tolerate a Soviet-style regime like this in Syria. The United States should push for a transformation of regime behavior in Syria. Israel does not want a regime-change.

Roadster, Achrafieh, East Beirut

MJT: They don’t. Israelis are afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Salim al-Sayegh: Yes, they are afraid of the Muslim Brothers. I think they’re wrong.

MJT: Why?

Salim al-Sayegh: In Saudi Arabia they have a regime that is even stricter than the Muslim Brothers. Yet we are coordinating ourselves very well with Saudi Arabia and with the oligarchy of the Emirates.

We should let the regime in Syria evolve. I’m not talking about ousting the regime with a coup. This would cause instability, and nobody knows where it would lead. But you should give that regime incentives to change. What the Syrian regime is doing is the worst case scenario for Israel. Israel, the most important power in the Middle East, is on its knees because of the missiles of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh

I've met many scholars in Europe. We are in symposia here and there. We see Israel’s discourse. We see how they are afraid of Hezbollah, and how they say Syria doesn't make war with Israel.

But Syria exported all this to Lebanon. This is the scenario. And Hezbollah trains Hamas, colludes with Hamas, coordinates with Hamas, and even with the Palestinian camps in Lebanon.

I mean, what is the use of this regime? Will Washington agree one day that the Syrians should come to Lebanon to tame Hezbollah? This is a real concern of ours.

MJT: There are some people who want that. Most don't.

Salim al-Sayegh: But it means, again, we are repeating the errors of the past. Syria might take care of Hezbollah for one year, but we don’t know what would happen a year later. They take cash and they pay back in credit. Nobody in the Middle East knows what will happen in the long term. There is nothing that has to be delivered immediately. I’m not sure Hezbollah would let Syria come into Lebanon to control Lebanon.

MJT: What would they do about it if Syria came in? If they fight Syria, they can’t win. Eventually they'd be too weak because all their weapons come from Iran through Syria.

Salim al-Sayegh: Hezbollah hates the Syrians.

MJT: But on March 8, 2005, Hezbollah had a big demonstration in downtown Beirut asking the Syrians to stay in Lebanon.

Saifi, downtown Beirut

Salim al-Sayegh: Of course, but they hate Syria. This is not analysis, we know they don’t want Syria to come back. They want Syria to be out. We still have discussions with their people. They act in solidarity with Syria, provided that Syria remains over there.

MJT: Because Syria would be the boss?

Salim al-Sayegh: Syria would be controlling Lebanon for the profit of Syria. Syria is not so stupid to come here and say "I’m going to control Hezbollah." What Syria would do is say "I’m coming to control terror in Lebanon." Fatah al Islam, al Qaeda, all of this. "Listen guys, you have Sunni extremists over there and we are gonna uproot them."

The least expensive way to do it, really, is to solve the Shebaa Farms issue and continue exerting pressure on Syria. We have to continue exerting pressure on Syria. This is very important. Continue containing Syria very strongly to consolidate Israel’s negotiation position.

Because Israelis turn around on themselves. They have no strategic views. They’ve got the worst of the western democracy's problems. They're working for the next elections, with no long term view, so they are only achieving immediate goals.

Iran is the main show. Would Israel accept Iranian nuclear capacity? How do you engage Iran? If you cut the hand of Iran through an Israeli operation, you won’t cut the head of Iran. You need to cut the head. So the containment of Iran should continue, but at the same time there should be no idea like what the French are stupidly thinking right now, that can Iran get the bomb, that we know how to use deterrence.

We're not talking about deterrence here. We talk about deterrence when people think in terms of a balance of power. Those people do not evaluate power the same way you do. They're willing to lose a million people in a war against Iraq. They attacked Iraqi tanks with Kalashnikovs. Okay? Nobody ever imagined that they could resist an Iraqi attack. They reversed the tide. They countered it.

If Iran has a nuclear bomb in a year or two, Iran will say to the Islamic world "I have five bombs, guys. I have five missiles. Now I have the capacity to destroy Israel. Now I have the capacity to say justice should be made. So far the corrupt West has used us, abused us, and defended the existence of Israel with hundreds of nuclear bombs."

I don't care about repercussions for Israel. It isn't my problem. My problem is that the center of gravity in the Islamic world will shift from Saudi Arabia and Cairo to Tehran. Imagine after two years what paradigm we might have in front of us.

Tell the French we are not talking about realpolitik here. We’re not talking about a balance of power. Look at what is behind the bomb. Iran is not the Soviet Union. It is not China. We are talking about the Koran, Velayat-e Faqih, and the umma.

Iranian tyrants and Hezbollah patrons Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

These guys will really be using their muscles everywhere. And I don't mean the military. They don’t need the military. They will just say "Listen, guys. We have the initiative. And everybody will bow before the Iranians." You see our problem.

The most urgent thing is that Hezbollah is a threat now. It should be treated now. We should not wait. The Iranian nuclear bomb should be dealt with this year.

MJT: How? The United States is not going to go to war with Iran over nuclear weapons.

Salim al-Sayegh: No? [Sigh.]

MJT: That’s the reality. After Iraq, after years of fighting in Iraq, nobody wants more of that. So unless Israel does something...

Salim al-Sayegh: No. If the Israelis do something, it will be catastrophic.

MJT: If Israel attacks Iran and Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel is going to attack Lebanon.

Hamra, West Beirut

Salim al-Sayegh: This is why Israel should not be left alone. It is a global issue. We are talking here about a global issue. We have religion in this part of the world. It’s not like Korea. Here, every square meter has meaning. We have the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah. Miami and New York will be shaken if Israel is threatened. If Iran is threatened, people from Morocco to Pakistan will be in the streets threatening.

This is why we need a sophisticated approach to Iran and its capacity to damage Israel. I don't care about the security of Israel. What I care about is the stability of the region and creating a just peace in the region.

I would not like to be Obama. His options are very limited. And de-linking Syria from Iran is not one of them. It’s just a temporary solution. Syria is not going to be against Iran. And Hezbollah will always side with Iran.

How can we get rid of Hezbollah politically? They will not unilaterally disarm. If we absorb them into the state, the state will become Hezbollah. I’ll be taking from my right pocket and putting in my left pocket. It’s the same. The state that would disarm Hezbollah is the same state that Hezbollah partly controls. It’s absurd. It’s not a Lebanese problem. It's an international community problem.

Hezbollah is a kind of a safety net for Tehran. "If you touch me, I will destroy Israel with missiles." Syria might cooperate today, but in a year or two Assad will side with Hezbollah if the politics change. And I’m not sure Syria wants to come in to fight Hezbollah, to really control Hezbollah. So the threat will remain. The options really are limited.

The French believe that the Iranian problem is not serious because Iran can be tamed with deterrence. But I believe, and I would love Americans to believe, that Iran with the bomb is very dangerous. And any de-linking without taking into consideration the bomb is illusionary.

I know what the international community should not do. They should not be soft with Syria. They should push Syria to combine negotiations with Israel with a change of conduct of the regime.

We are in a deadlock. If you have any idea how we can break the deadlock, that would be great. But so far we are trying to do it gradually, politically. We are not able to protect ourselves in the long term. If Washington is not, how can we?

We need to win these elections. Because then we can say to Iran and Syria "you are in a deadlock, as well."

Hezbollah is discussing these issues very seriously. We know it. Inside there is a real clash over this because they cannot stay like this.

Saifi, downtown Beirut

MJT: What are the two sides inside Hezbollah?

Salim al-Sayegh: Hezbollah is very anxious about negotiations between Israel and Syria. One side is saying they have assurances from Syria, but at the same time they have forbidden their leaders from going to Iran through Syria. When they go to Iran, they don’t go through Syria anymore. They don’t take the flights through Syria. There is mistrust of Syria.

We think, unfortunately, that Hezbollah is not engaging in dialogue with us. We would like to tell them that we have many things in common.

MJT: What? What do you have in common?

Salim al-Sayegh: Many interests in common as Lebanese. For example, if we support the re-integration of their soldiers within the Lebanese state in one way or another, they'll need us. What if Syria turns against them one day or another? They will need us. They will need us for their safety one day. We want to work on the larger concept of security other than just false security. They will need us to bridge gaps with different communities here. They will need employment. They will need to have real access to the economy. I don’t know whether Iran will continue endlessly to pay half a billion dollars a year for the sweet eyes of Hassan Nasrallah.

MJT: They’re losing money in Iran right now. The price of oil is down.

Salim al-Sayegh: They will need us in the future when we discuss the modernization of the regime. They will need us for the Palestinian refugee camps. Now, in their mind, it's a zero-sum game. We advance and they retreat, and inversely.

We are not afraid of their weapons as Lebanese. We are not afraid of the Katyusha rockets they have or the missiles. They are not going to bomb Beirut or villages. The missiles are a threat against Israel.

Part of Hezbollah's gigantic outdoor "resistance" museum in South Lebanon

What we don’t like is that they forbid state and army access to the areas they control. We are going to live in this country. We are not going to annihilate each other. So we have to reach a compromise one day, one way or another.

I’m not sure time works in their favor. They can only have so many more babies. They can work against us with demography, but the system protects us from being overtaken with demography. We have the 50 percent Christian and 50 percent Muslim rule in the parliament. One day they might tell us they are more numerous, that we have to re-negotiate that formula, but we can just tell them "no."

We are not monolithic. We are diverse. This is why we have to engage them, talk to them, and at the same time be firm with our principles. This is all we can do.

If Syria makes peace with Israel, Lebanon will be put on the same track. The international community would force Lebanon to join with Syria in negotiating with Israel. And by so doing, Hezbollah will be de-facto disarmed. But Syria, in order to do this, has to have strong guarantees from the international community that there will be no push toward an immediate regime change. There should be a gradual regime change.

What worries me is that investment is going into Syria. Syria is benefiting from stabilization but without any political return. Syria has the mentality of a hostage taker. They took Palestinians hostages, they took Hezbollah hostages, they took Lebanon hostage. The international community tells Syria "Leave Lebanese alone, please. Let them live." And they say "Okay, I’ll leave Lebanon alone for a while. Pay me some money."

So this is a negative achievement, actually. There’s no positive achievement with Syria. It should be transformed.

We’ll try to engage Hezbollah here internally. But we are talking about a timetable of twelve months to a year and a half. All the intelligence coming from Iran says that by 2010 they might have the bomb.

Post-script: You tip waiters in restaurants, right? I can’t go all the way to the Middle East and write these dispatches for free. Travel costs money, and I have to pay my own way. If you haven’t donated in the past, please consider contributing now.

You can make a one-time donation through Pay Pal:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Alternatively, you can make recurring monthly payments. Please consider choosing this option and help me stabilize my expense account.

$10 monthly subscription:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

$25 monthly subscription:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

$50 monthly subscription:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

$100 monthly subscription:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

If you would like to donate for travel and equipment expenses and you don't want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:

Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312

Many thanks in advance.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 10, 2009 12:51 AM

Comments

"West has to do this", and "Israel has to do that", and ...

Every time I hear these guys speak I get pissed off. Why the hell they think I owe them anything at all?

Lebanese allowed to turn their country into big dump and not expect somebody else to clean it up.

"Hezbollah got weapons, blah-blah-blah". And what have you got, nothing? You got weapons, you need determination, bunch of whiners.

If Hezbollah is willing to die for their ideals and Valentinos are not then why would they even hope to have any kind of success?

Posted by: leo at August 10, 2009 9:01 AM

"now expect" that is.

Posted by: leo at August 10, 2009 10:21 AM

Smart and interesting.

The way to crack Syria, in my opinion, is consistent economic, political, and military posturing combined with persistent negotiations.

In addition, I'm less afraid of bombing Syria than I am of bombing Iran. Syria has less money, less ideological loyalty, and an even more fragile popular base than Iran. They have altogether fewer cards.

The problem we have right now with Syria is that their price is too steep. As the guy says, they want to be Libya. They want to be paid for lifting their foot off the throat while continuing to hold it over the throat. They're extortionists (not that this makes them in any way unusual).
We shouldn't be trying to change the regime all at once - although a replacement of the Alawites with Sunnis would give the country at least the potential for a long-run slow democratization. Right now, the system is controlled by a small and hated ethnic minority. Letting go will give them severe problems.

Nevertheless, if we didn't have so many problems on our hands, I'd say that we should be stepping up the pressure on them, notch after notch after notch, until they agree to the various behaviors we want from them. Then we pay them, and then we start to reapply the pressure notch by notch until we get the next agreement. And when they backslide, you hit them at the mid levels of their security instruments and gradually weaken their internal enforcement capabilities.

Translating that into operations is hard, but that's the strategy. Unfortunately, we have all the stuff on our hands with iraq and afghanistan that we can handle. Osama Bin Laden and George Bush have cost us the kind of freedom of action needed to turn the important people in the ME for three decades.

Posted by: glasnost at August 10, 2009 10:52 AM

The comments section was broken earlier, but seems to be fixed now. The formatting for this post was also screwed up, and is also fixed.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 10, 2009 8:09 PM

Jeez, I feel like I've been taken on a tour of the Gordian Knot. Made me seasick, getting sloshed from one curb to the other and back. I'm with Leo.

I know it feels much the same talking with Israelis these days, in terms of urgent directionless desperation, but they don't demand of the Western world 'wave your magic wand, froggy.' They have a pretty cold read on who's going to be picking up the tab, one way or another.

Posted by: AZZenny at August 10, 2009 10:13 PM

Great interview (and pictures). I was in Baalbeck this time last year - I missed the photo of the mosque because I was too busy taking a shot of the one camel I'd seen in Lebanon.

Al-Sayegh says:

In Saudi Arabia they have a regime that is even stricter than the Muslim Brothers. Yet we are coordinating ourselves very well with Saudi Arabia and with the oligarchy of the Emirates.

then he says:

What Syria would do is say "I’m coming to control terror in Lebanon." Fatah al Islam, al Qaeda, all of this. "Listen guys, you have Sunni extremists over there and we are gonna uproot them."

Since these Sunni extremists are supported by Saudi Arabia and the oligarchy of the Emirates, I'd guess that Lebanon may not always be coordinating itself very well with the Saudis and the UAE.

Lebanon is being held hostage by a number of terrorist states, including (but probably not limited to) Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Syria. By allying with the Saudis and by reinforcing the idea that the center of gravity in the Middle East should be located in the hub of worldwide terrorism, Saudi Arabia, the US is not really helping the situation.

In part, we support the Saudis because our alliance with them helps us (indirectly) intimidate economic and political competitors like the Russians. The Russians ally with Iran because this alliance helps them intimidate us. The best way to deal with the Iran/nukes issue is to ignore the gangster regimes in Iran and Syria, and to deal directly with Russia. If a Russian-built Iranian bomb falls on Tel Aviv, we could promise to hit Moscow in response. In that way, MAD could work. The Russians, who are comparatively rational actors, are pretty good at controlling their flunkies.

During the golden age of piracy, the leaders of nations used pirate proxies to (indirectly) fight their wars. They abandoned the tactic when well-armed pirates began to threaten the careers, security and the lives of their leader/benefactors. I think we're all at that point with our proxies now.

Posted by: maryatexitzero at August 11, 2009 9:37 AM

Mary, I love your comments.

Posted by: AZZenny at August 11, 2009 2:09 PM

""West has to do this", and "Israel has to do that", and ...

Every time I hear these guys speak I get pissed off. Why the hell they think I owe them anything at all?"

....I agree with leo's thought I copied here.

The Celt in me reveals my blue tattoos which appear when the tide of media blather rises with yet more emphasis on the places where the United States must send yet more of our precious lives to temporarily alter many centuries of butchery.
I've mentioned before that Arab/Persian Asia should be contained much the same way we contained the vast area of the Soviet Empire. We can't say that the area threatened by radical/ primitive Islam is too widespread.
[Our present use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles shows great potential. This last thought comes from from a former USAF Radar Intercept Controller.]

Posted by: Morningside at August 11, 2009 5:45 PM

Interesting interview. leo, your sentiment is shared some of the time by a lot of people. Then we wake up in the morning ;-)

Why can't the March 14th coalition, peal off Amal from Hezbollah? Wouldn't that be the best way to contain Hezbollah?

maryatexitzero, Russia's policy is be an ally of both Israel and Iran. Russia wants to use Israel to obtain military technology and hardware; as well as cooperate on technology collaboration and trade.

Russia sees Iran as natural allies with it against Takfiri extremism, Chechnya, the Taliban, and AQ linked networks. Both countries are also publicly self proclaimed strong backers of the Afghan government.

Posted by: anand at August 11, 2009 5:56 PM

....hasty correction...delete one of those "from"'s in my next to last line.

Posted by: Morningside at August 11, 2009 5:58 PM

Have others looked at this poll:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/264.pdf

52% of Palestinians have a favorable view of Osama Bin Laden. Palestinians are by far the most anti American people on earth, even more so than Pakistanis. However, Palestinians don't like the UN, China or EU either.

Why are Lebanese Sunni Arabs so much more pro American and pro Obama and Lebanese Christians?

Why are Lebanese Shia less pro American than Iraqi, Indian, Afghan, Pakistani or Iranian Shia?

In pages 20-21, I noticed broad support for the war on terror, including for one's own country playing a larger part in the war on terrorism.

Posted by: anand at August 11, 2009 6:08 PM

MJT, why can't the US use all its influence to get Syria to give the Shebaa farms to Lebanon? For that matter, couldn't Russia, China, EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, Turkey and other countries help bring this about? Many countries have close ties with Israel, and have a vested interest in solving this situation.

On another note, I suggest looking at this poll:
http:/
/pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/264.pdf

52% of Palestinians have a favorable view of Osama Bin Laden. Palestinians are by far the most anti American people on earth, even more so than Pakistanis. However, Palestinians don't like the UN, China or EU either.

Why are Lebanese Sunni Arabs so much more pro American and pro Obama and Lebanese Christians?

Why are Lebanese Shia less pro American than Iraqi, Indian, Afghan, Pakistani or Iranian Shia?

Off topic:

In pages 20-21, I noticed broad support for the war on terror, including for one's own country playing a larger part in the war on terrorism. One exception to the rule is Lebanon, where by 62% to 32% they oppose playing a larger role in the war on terror. I guess Lebanese enjoy free riding off the sacrifices of others?

Posted by: anand at August 11, 2009 6:55 PM

anand: "leo, your sentiment is shared some of the time by a lot of people. Then we wake up in the morning ;-)"

I do not particularly care about Lebanese or Palestinians. I have no reason to love either. But I have selfish reasons. I wish well for Israel and as result I believe that happy neighbor is good neighbor or at very least neighbor who got something to lose. Therefore I do not mind Israel helping them. But I expect to see genuine and tangible effort on Lebanese side first and foremost. So far I only see them sitting on their asses, honing their complaining skills and waiting for grants.

As to tearing Amal off Hezbollah. First, they are not that close to begin with. Second, they will never go against Shia public opinion, which is currently with HA. It would be easier to tear off sizable number of Aounies from Aoun instead.

Posted by: leo at August 11, 2009 7:37 PM

"I guess Lebanese enjoy free riding off the sacrifices of others?"
...quoting < anand > just above...

...that, anand, is a whopping, wonderful, big leading comment which should be carved into each of the lintels at the UN. I love it. And, it ain't just the Lebanese...I'm veering off of the M.E., but it's only such a slight detour that our host won't mind.... because it (...and that UN membership) leads right back into our area under discussion here. All of the factions and nationalities who've been pushing and shoving in Lebanon since its borders were drawn have an eye cocked toward America to see what's in it for them from America.
I'm wondering how long we can last at this pace.

Posted by: Morningside at August 11, 2009 7:43 PM

"why can't the US use all its influence to get Syria to give the Shebaa farms to Lebanon?"

It may sound as a surprise to many, but Lebanon never requested Syria and/or UN for SF being recognized as Lebanese. My bet, Syrians do not let them to and never will. Syria needs status of SF stay ambiguous. They still hope to get it back along with Golans and it helps to maintain reasons for harassing Israel via proxy into agreeing. I say, fat chance.

Posted by: leo at August 11, 2009 7:44 PM

Leo, what do you make of the Russian help to unmask Israeli spies in Lebanon using advanced equipment? Do you think this is a major escalation coupled with actions in Georgia and threats to Ukraine? I guess Russia won't be getting those Israeli drones anytime soon. (if anyone wants a laugh, google Russia and new space defense missile. Putin seems to think Obama is planning missiles to rain down on Russia by 2030, hense the need for their new Star Wars program).

hxxp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/11/the_new_iran_sanctions_worse_than_the_old_ones

I don't agree with everything from FP, but I think Hizb'Allah, Syria and Iran are hoping to find some daylight by 2010. Meanwhile advanced weapons from Iran appear to be pouring ton Lebanon.

Some might find this interesting when review the prospects for peace:

"DEBKAfile's analysts note that while fervently promoting the "right of return" for the 1948 refugees, the 2,300 delegates to the Fatah conference elected only one overseas member out of the 18 Central Committee seats up for election; Fatah delegates from Jordan, Syria, the Persian Gulf, Yemen, North Africa - and even the Gaza Strip absentees - did not get a look in past the solid phalanx of West Bankers.

A Fatah source in Gaza bemoaned the fact that not a single Central Committee seat was reserved for members whom Hamas barred from attending the convention.

The event has consequently deepened the West Bank-Gaza Strip divide and perpetuated the Fatah-Hamas feud, another major obstacle for President Barack Obama's Middle East peace program.

As for outside Palestinian communities, the only delegate elected to the ruling body was Sultan Abu al-Einen, Fatah commander in Lebanon. The Palestinians of Jordan, Syria who outnumber the West Bank population are not represented.

After days of vicious infighting and factional horse trading, the convention confirmed Mahmoud Abbas, 74, as leader and awarded the hardliner Abu Maher Ghneim, 71, his chosen first lieutenant and successor as chairman of the Palestinian Authority, the highest number of votes to the new Central Committee. The transition will take place over a period of time.

The Netanyahu government allowed Abu Ghneim to enter the country from Tunis at Abbas' urgent request (channeled through Cairo and Washington) and is therefore responsible for an opponent of the Oslo partial peace accords and advocate of armed resistance, who denounces the two-state concept, taking the reins of government in Ramallah.

Once in the saddle, he will present a major obstacle to any peace-making initiatives.

The resident West Bankers filling the other seats include Jibril Rajoub from Hebron, Mohammad Dahlan, strongman of the Gaza Strip during the terrorist uprising order by Yasser Arafat, who is now accused of losing the enclave to Hamas, Hussein al-Sheikh, Marwan Barghouti, who is serving a life sentence in Israel for multiple terrorist attacks, and Tawfiq Tirawi, another engineer of suicide attacks on Israel as a key member of the Arafat regime.

DEBKAfile"s Palestinian sources report that, outside any other considerations, the rise of Dahlan, Hamas' sworn enemy, puts the lid on any imminent burying of the hatchet between Fatah and Hamas or the reunification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

None of the new leaders argued in favor of abandoning Fatah's traditional support for "resistance," amending its charter which like that of Hamas calls for Israel's destruction, or relinquishing any part of Jerusalem.

Final results of the Central Committee vote are expected Wednesday and of the 129-seat Revolutionary Council by the end of the week."

Posted by: maxtrue at August 12, 2009 11:57 AM

It is very telling that the whole gist of this interview is that Israel has the whole obligation to solve Lebanon's own unresolveable problems for it, by disregarding Israel's own security concerns - which Salim al-Sayegh frankly confesses he does not care about at all - and conceding all rights and claims, handing victory to Syria and Hezbollah. Effectively, he wants the victim to help out by committing hari-kiri, and for his part refuses to accept any obligation on his party to resist Syria, reform his own society, or even to make peace with Israel even after Israeli concessions for peace. That is irrational rubbish, pure scapegoating side-stepping.

And of course it will not happen. So the whole interview shows yet again what a crazy, self-harming and hateful place the Arab Middle East is, if we are to accept Totten's view that Lebanon is the Middle East in miniature.

Posted by: Tempered at August 13, 2009 2:31 AM

Good grief, Tempered. Try to read between the lines a little. He said explicitly that if he publicly called for negotiations with Israel that he wouldn't make it home that night, acknowledged that his party is a former ally of Israel, has the same list of enemies as Israel, and says Syria and Iran and Hezbollah has a gun to his head.

I assure you that Hezbollah and Syria knows how to interpret all this correctly. Why do you think his colleague and former MP Pierre Gemayel was gunned down in the street?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 13, 2009 10:20 AM

Tempered's opinions arn't very tempered...

Posted by: A-Squared at August 13, 2009 4:35 PM

maxtrue,

Regarding your question about Russia's involvement in those spies case. I do not think we have enough information to draw reliable conclusion. I hope, Israelis know how to deal with Russians. They were doing it successfully for at least 4 decades and at times when Russia was much more formidable opponent than today. About drones, spy business will not be a deal breaker simply for the reason that when it comes to spying all sides tend to keep their mouths shut and are acting like nothing happened. Think of it this way, there are usually number of spies caught from both sides and it is always embarrassing to all - to be caught and to be duped. Besides, Mossad might catch few Russians elsewhere just for the heck of it and then run quiet exchange.

Regarding, Fatah conference and Fatah big talk. I think it is too early to tell. It is in their job description to talk tough, plus they would risk being accused of being Zionist stooges otherwise. Let's wait and see whether its real McCoy or just a show.

Posted by: leo at August 13, 2009 6:56 PM

Thanks Leo, hopefully Israeli spies in Iran have learned some lessons. I suppose Israel can present some problems for Putin in other places of the world and there has been a rumor circulating for some time that the IDF has cracked the S-300 air defense system and will sell the solution should Russia deploy them to Iran or Syria. On another deffense related note the ABL successfully tested all systems in flight on August 10th against a live missile. Boeing deployed a lesser laser in this test which hit the missile. Although a full test is to be run later this year, Obama has planned to end the program which would cost less than his new helicopters he promised to cut from the budget when debating McCain during the primaries. Sorry for the information conflation.

Michael, you are certainly correct about "tempered". At the moment, a car bomb is in the back of everyone's mind. I think Fatah and Hamas present more intractable problems as two newly appointed Palestinian leaders are either terrorists in exile or in an Israeli jail. I do expect a tad more moderation from Palestinians as they know the international community is impatient for signs of a credible peace partner before offering more economic aid. Obviously may Palestinians are looking over their shoulder too.

It was surprising to read that the King of Saudi Arabia told the Palestinian Conference that Palestinians "leadership" has done more harm to their community in the last several months than Israel has caused since 1948. Now that is one angry and powerful statement. I suspect many in Lebanon feel the same about Hizb'Allah and Syria over the last few years in regard to the national aspirations and security of the Lebanese.

Posted by: maxtrue at August 13, 2009 9:40 PM

Anand, recent polls in Pakistan indicate that 59% of men and 61% of women there think the US is the greatest threat to Pakistan. That is, the US is a greater threat than the Taliban or OBL. I suspect the same sentiment exists in Afghanistan.

Presently, there is a fight between Western Intel and Pakistan regarding attacks which happened near or on facilities storing Pakistani nuclear weapons. Counterterrorism.org has a recent article that probes the dangers of nuclear programs in States with terror proxies such as Pakistan. It is a very interesting topic because many assume that proxies working for Pakistan or Iran will never get their hands on nuclear materials. The last known attack in Pakistan happened almost a year ago as one Democratic candidate here declared he would bomb Pakistan as President and was rebuffed by another candidate for telegraphing strategic policies. The former candidate responded by declaring it was his top priority in the name of honesty (suggesting the other candidate was less than honest) to tell Americans what our tactics and policies are so they can decide our course of action. In regard to Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, I am still waiting for this candidate, now President, to deliver on that frank discussion to a much greater extent than he has so far. I rather doubt that will be forthcoming any time soon.

Of course our policies regarding Iran, Syria, Israel and Gaza/West Bank play a role in how events in Lebanon play out.

Posted by: maxtrue at August 13, 2009 10:11 PM

MaxTrue, Pakistanis have been deeply anti American for many decades. The US embassy was torn down by a Pakistani mob in 1979.

Afghan public opinion is very different. In the Feb 9, 2009 public opinion poll:
-91% had an unfavorable view of the Taliban
-92% had an unfavorable view of the Osama Bin Laden
-91% had an unfavorable view of Pakistan.

In fact, the single greatest cause of anti American sentiment among Afghans is a fear that America secretly backs the Taliban, Al Qaeda linked networks and, or Pakistan against them. Many Afghans really believe this.

It is important to remember, maxtrue, that tension between Afghans and Pakistanis are more intense than tensions between Pakistanis and Indians. Maybe not more intense than tensions between Israel and Palestine though, since that seems to be scientifically impossible ;-)