President Barack Obama should awaken to the necessity of dealing with what is happening in Lebanon because this will affect several countries in the Arab region and may lead to the spark that brings the evils of regional and civil wars. Focusing on the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the right thing to do, especially as the mistakes made by the US have entangled this track of negotiations in the detail of settlement-building, dwarfing the issue instead of keeping it within the framework of ending the occupation. Yet this track must not blind the Obama Administration to what is taking place in Lebanon, because what is happening is very dangerous and will certainly reflect on Arab countries, big and small. It is unacceptable for the United States to implicate this country and then leave it to struggle between Hezbollah on one side and Israel on the other, especially if the US and the international community continue to ignore what is happening there. Part of what is happening is a kind of bazaar for trading in stability in Lebanon, one to which are participating Western countries such as France and Arab countries such as Syria, which is now behaving under the banner of Saudi-Syrian reconciliation and understandings. What is happening is that Hezbollah has turned the Special Tribunal to try those responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and 22 of his companions into an enemy, begun a campaign of scare-mongering and accusations of treason directed at all those who support this tribunal, and threatened to paralyze and take control of the whole country if Prime Minister Saad Hariri does not retract his support of the tribunal, of justice and of the search to find those who murdered his father. Saad Hariri walked in the footsteps traced for him by Damascus when he said that the accusation he had leveled at Syria of being implicated in the assassination of Hariri the father was a “political accusation”. Taking such a step did not bring him what he had wished, but rather the opposite. Indeed, Syrian diplomacy has taken Hariri's words to the United Nations, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem has demanded of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the tribunal be annulled, on the basis that Saad Hariri's words prove that the tribunal was politicized. Muallem laid on Ban Ki-moon the responsibility for the collapse of Lebanon's stability if he fails to take measures towards annulling the tribunal and undermining the credibility of General Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare. Ban Ki-moon answered him that he did not hold the keys to the tribunal and did not have the ability to annul it, but that he clings to the principle of justice. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who held the first meeting at this level with her counterpart Walid Muallem this week, put forward the headlines of what she wishes for Lebanese-Syrian relations, yet she seemed as if she was April Glasby, the US Ambassador to Iraq, during her meeting with then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait – i.e. as if carrying a floating message. In fact, there are sources that say that the Barack Obama Administration has entered the bazaar of the requirements of stability and wishes to avoid the Special Tribunal issuing formal accusations against members of Hezbollah or those who could follow them, from Syria or elsewhere. Indeed, the administration, as it seems, shows its understanding of the requirements of undermining justice instead of undermining stability in a nearly haphazard policy, as it holds no guarantees over the form stability will take after Hezbollah and Syria are victorious in annulling the tribunal, and has no idea of the meaning of subjugation and its consequences on the Lebanese and regional scene. The notion stating that the key to stability in Lebanon lies in returning Syrian influence to it, so that it may reduce that of Iran of Hezbollah, is one that ignores Syria's fundamental stance, which is based on the fact that, whatever may happen in terms of “pull and tug” or may seem like ill-feeling between Syria's leadership and Hezbollah, Syrian leadership at the highest levels views Hezbollah as “its army” in the formula with Israel, and will not abandon Hezbollah or Iran. This is why the tactic of splitting Syria away from Iran is a failed one at the core, as the strategic alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will remain regardless of what it may witness in terms of differences, some of them truly radical. The other flaw is assuming that the key to stability in Lebanon is restoring the Syrian role, which had dominated it before the withdrawal of Syrian troops in the wake of the assassination of Rafic Hariri. That is a stance that undermines Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, and seems as if giving Syria the right to control a neighboring country that rebelled against it not long ago. Moreover, Syrian government circles have started to speak to some Lebanese in a language demanding that they “improve their behavior”. And that is a language of fear-mongering aimed at subjugation. Thirdly, what is happening in Lebanon is an attempt at a de facto coup against the government, by what is at the end of the day a decision shared by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. This means, in case this coup were to succeed, that this alliance will be strengthened, even if its leaders disagree over a tactic here and there, or even sometimes over essentials, such as the disagreement over undermining the stability of Arab countries such as Bahrain or Kuwait. Making light of Lebanon's independence will therefore lead to the infection spreading to Gulf countries. Fear of Iran taking revenge on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which are implementing the sanctions imposed by the Security Council resolution, has nearly turned into panic for some Gulf leaderships. Furthermore, Tehran views the Saudi-Syrian reconciliation and its repercussions on Lebanon as an attempt to hijack one of its assets – that of military influence on the border with Israel. Indeed, Hezbollah is a very precious asset for Iran, and just as Syria considers it to be “its army”, Tehran considers itself most worthy of considering it its own army, knowing that it funds it and supplies it with weapons. The polarization taking place in Lebanon warns of it soon turning – perhaps immediately after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the Lebanese South – into an arena for direct and proxy wars. Indeed, there is not only fear of the explosion of sectarian strife that would use Lebanon as its arena. There is also fear of Israel engaging in military action against Lebanon, making use of internal developments, starting with Hezbollah with its missiles taking control of the country and turning it into an Iranian military base. A destructive war would thus erupt if Israel carries out its threats of not allowing its military failure in Lebanon to be repeated as in 2006. Some may imagine that an Israeli war in Lebanon would not spread to include the Arab region. However, under Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, what Israel wishes for is a pretext – through a slightly broadened war – for it to implement “cleansing” Israel from the Palestinians so that it may become a purely Jewish state. This would require communal expulsion, forced relocation and reviving Israel's original policy: that of considering Jordan to be the alternative homeland for the Palestinians. Moreover, the fact that Iran continues to work towards obtaining nuclear weapons may leave Israel and perhaps the United States as well with no choice but to undertake military action. This means that the Gulf region, which spends vast amounts of money on construction and on armament, will be caught between the two sides of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation, by proxy in Lebanon as well as in a direct war. The spark lies today in Lebanon. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman conveyed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations his concerns for the country's stability, and also tried to hold him morally responsible if he fails to annul the tribunal. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem held him morally responsible as well and told him that issuing a formal accusation against Hezbollah would undermine the country's stability, and that the international community should pay heed and bear its responsibilities. He said that Saad Hariri had cleared Syria and that this proves that the tribunal is a political instrument that must be annulled. He also said that Saudi-Syrian efforts aim at delaying the issuing of the formal accusation and that the international community should play its role to achieve this. Those who know Ban Ki-moon said that he felt “disappointed” upon hearing the demands for the tribunal to be annulled and justice leapt over because there are parties who have anticipated the formal accusation and decided that the Special Tribunal was the enemy. Ban Ki-moon told Walid Al-Muallem that all politicians should stop voicing such preemptive public stances and put a stop to their campaign against the tribunal's independence. He said that he did not have the power to judge in advance, nor to interfere in the affairs of the Special Tribunal – and that he certainly did not hold the power to annul it, it having been created at the UN Security Council by a binding resolution. He also said that UN support of the Special Tribunal was inevitable, as it had come by request from Lebanon and had been established by virtue of a Security Council resolution. He added that Daniel Bellemare was independent and that there was no need for him to shed doubt on his credibility. There is a surprising attack strategy which Hezbollah, along with Syria, is engaging in against the tribunal, to the extent of accusing of treason those who support it and considering them to be Israel's agents – according to Hezbollah. On the other hand, there is a US and French strategy that suggests submitting to the attack strategy, with all that this implies in terms of haphazard thinking, short-sightedness and grave danger looming over Lebanon faster than had been expected.
