The topic of Lebanese arms is in the news once again. Externally, the United States has put on hold $100 million in military aid for fear that the weapons may fall into the hands of Hizballah. Internally, Prime Minister Hariri is talking up elevated arms control in the wake of a sectarian altercation in Beirut that resulted in three deaths. The combination of a weak military and a heavily armed public provides a healthy environment for instability.
—
The United States congress, an advocate of a empowering the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to the point where it could one day overpower Hizballah, has changed its course and put on hold $100 million in military aid to Lebanon. Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, halted the grant out of fear that the arms could fall into the hands of Hizballah and be used against Israel. Earlier this week, US congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (also on the Foreign Affairs Committee) sternly urged France not to sell Lebanon anti-tank missiles.
The United States has contributed over $700 million to Lebanon since 2006. What Washington hoped to buy with that money was an LAF that was loyal to a pro-Western Lebanese government. The plan was to empower the LAF to the point where they could control and disarm Hizballah so that the Shiite resistance were not a threat to Israel, America’s “staunchest ally”. Since then however, the LAF has not kept up with Hizballah in terms of military capabilities, which was exemplified in the May 2008 fighting, where Hizballah quickly and easily overwhelmed Beirut after the government attempted to disable its communications network.
The US congress’ approach towards military aid for Lebanon took a dramatic turn earlier this month when the LAF fired upon Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers attempting to cut down a tree near the Lebanon-Israel border. The ensuing battle, though brief, claimed several lives, including and IDF battalion commander. Shortly thereafter, Washington’s opinion of the LAF shifted, and critics began to claim that the Lebanese army was now under control of Hizballah. Congress quickly suspended military aid to Lebanon.
Predictably, Iran came in with an offer to help out Lebanon with military aid if the government would only ask for it. The result of Washington’s short sightedness is that Lebanon’s pro-Western Prime Minister Saad Hariri is pushed closer to Iran. This is completely against the other US strategy of limiting Iranian influence in Lebanon. By cutting off aid, Washington has weakened the LAF and strengthened Hizballah and Iran in the process. In this way, Iran really has the United States over a barrel. If they cut off aid to the LAF, it strengthens Hizballah. If America increases aid to the LAF, Hizballah is strengthened (if you perceive that the LAF is under heavy Hizballah influence).
It is also worth noting the irony of cutting off military aide to Lebanon out of fear that the weapons could be used against Israel, a country that has invaded and occupied Lebanon twice in the last thirty years. This indicates that perhaps the money was not meant to help bolster Lebanon’s sovereignty, but to strengthen Israel’s. (Along the same line, America also gives billions of dollars in military aid each year to Pakistan, whose security forces are known to be working with the Taliban.)
While the United States may be unwittingly pushing Hariri into the arms of Iran, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will go that route. Hariri, a Sunni Muslim backed by Saudi Arabia, strongly objects to Persian influence in Lebanon, and it would be a major shift in policy to request such a favor from Tehran. Perhaps the US is counting on this, but it is a dangerous game to be playing, as Hizballah grows stronger by the day.
All of this is in the context of escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. In the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, it is likely that they will have to deal with the wrath of Hizballah. In this case, it is in Israel’s interest to see that as few arms as possible get to Lebanon until the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is resolved.
—
Internally, the Prime Minister is calling for stricter domestic arms control after a sectarian dispute in Beirut turned violent and spun out of control. A number of homes, cars, and mosques were burned, and three people were killed in a confrontation between members of Hizballah and the Sunni pro-Syrian group Al-Ahbash. As of yesterday, no arrests had been made in the case.
The incident once again brought to the surface the issue of arms control in Lebanon, specifically Beirut. Hariri has pledged to make Beirut “weapons free”, but the challenge is great. Hariri proclaimed that there were too many armed groups in Lebanon (aside from Hizballah and the LAF) and that more must be done to contain the problem.
Depending on the group, the process of disarmament will be extremely challenging. People with guns seldom give them up without a fight, and this is doubly true in Lebanon where years of civil strife have reinforced the need for protection. The Shia have their militia and protector in Hizballah, but the rest are reluctant to put their trust in the LAF.
Disarming the Syrian-backed militias, such as the PFLP-GC, would be particularly tricky. Syria is once again very powerful in Lebanon and they would likely object to any effort aimed as weakening one of their allies, as keeping Lebanon from reaching complete stability and sovereignty is a core goal of Damascus. And while Syria gives substantial support to Hizballah, it is unlikely that Damascus would want to put all it eggs in one militia-basket.
—-
The topic of arms proliferation has been a grave concern for Lebanon since the Civil War ended in 1990. Inside Lebanon, there are too many groups backed by too many foreign interests that operate with no government control or oversight. The result is a heavily armed population of Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees who remain a constant threat to the stability of Lebanon.
From outside, Lebanon is coming under fire for the perception that its army is too heavily influenced by Hizballah. Hizballah threatens the security and regional hegemony of Israel, which worries the United States. As a result, Washington is reconsidering its policy of military aid. Iran has offered to step in to fill the gap, which puts Washington in the position of either giving weapons to Lebanon that could end up in the hands of Hizballah, or ceding influence in Lebanon to Tehran, neither of which are very attractive. All of this must be seen in the context of the Israel-Iran conflict.
