Pressure continues to build in Lebanon in anticipation of indictments in the Hariri tribunal. Members of Hizballah are widely expected to be named in the case, which could ignite mounting tensions between the pro-West March 14 government and the Party of God.
The rhetoric coming out of south Beirut has been increasingly threatening. Last week, a Hizballah lawmaker reasoned that the tribunal is against Hizballah, it helps Israel, and therefore supporting it is tantamount to treason. Party leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened that any hand that attempts to arrest a Hizballah member would be “cut off”. There have been reports of Hizballah forces rehearsing a takeover of Beirut.
If indictments against Hizballah members are handed down, it will immediately put the power of the Lebanese state to the test. At times it seems as though the government of Lebanon functions at the discretion of Hizballah, which was exhibited in 2008, when The Party walked out on parliament and the government ground to a halt. The crisis came to a head that May, when the government attempted to dismantle Hizballah’s communication system and Party soldiers briefly overtook the capital.
A similar (or worse) situation is certainly possible today (the group has audaciously stated that they won’t allow themselves to be arrested), but all of this tough talk could backfire as they will be forced to back it up or risk losing their credibility. If Hizballah’s strategy is to make the tribunal think twice about issuing charges, so far they have been unsuccessful, as the prosecution has maintained that they cannot be intimidated. The Lebanese Armed Forces have shown no indication that they would be willing to brawl with Hizballah, and the Internal Security Forces have shown no indication that they are capable.
Complicating matters is the fact that the showdown represents the greater struggle between the United States (and its allies) and Iran. The Sunni Arab Gulf community, led by Saudi Arabia, is troubled by the rapid expansion of Persian Shiite influence in the region. The United States is trying to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East and Iran is perhaps the greatest threat to that status quo. Hizballah is the physical manifestation of creeping Iranian influence, so Lebanon has become (or remains) ground zero for the continued conflict between Iran and the West.
One part of Washington’s strategy has been to pry Syria out of the Syria-Iran-Hizballah alliance, but so far the plan has achieved very little . The Syrian’s are notorious for extracting as much as possible without giving up anything material in return, and this case is no exception. Since President Obama took office, he has attempted a rapprochement with Damascus, but over that time, Syria seems to have grown even closer to the two.
The patience of Washington and Riyadh may be wearing thin, but it’s unclear what their alternatives are. The reality is that they need Syria’s help, and not just in Lebanon, but Iraq as well. Syria, with its rusty and outdated military, would seem and ideal candidate for “regime change”, but what would you replace it with? There is no opposition government in Syria to speak of (see: Hama, 1982) and the US has no interest in empowering the country’s Sunni minority.
It’s interesting that Syria was once believed to be the prime suspect of the prosecution (for many, Syria still is the prime suspect), and now the West needs their help to manage the situation. But Syria has different goals for Lebanon. Many in Syria believe that Lebanon is just and extension of Syrian territory. If all hell breaks loose as a result of the tribunal, it would not be surprising to see Damascus “reluctantly” offer to send troops back into Lebanon to help establish order. That scenario would be utterly disappointing to the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who marched in 2005 to end the 30-year Syrian occupation of their country. Neither Iran and Hizballah nor Saudi Arabia and the United States would like see this happen.
The exact nature of the relationship between Hizballah and Syria has always been a murky one. Hizballah is rumored to take orders from Tehran, but it’s doubtful that Damascus has that level of influence with The Party. If Syria is requested to go back into Lebanon to establish order, and the source of the disorder is Hizballah, it will be interesting to see how the two proceed. The Syrian army would be a formidable match for Hizballah, but it is unlikely that they would fight head-to-head in the streets. If it came to blows, Syria has other options aside from direct combat, as it has more than one armed group in Lebanon that it controls.
If Hizballah does attempt to take over the country, and Syria chooses to stay out of it, the group runs the risk of stirring up Sunni Salafi jihadists, who view the Shia as apostates. The ensuing scenario might resemble what Iraq went through in the mid-2000s, and would be the ultimate nightmare for Lebanon.
To avoid this and other unpleasant possibilities, Prime Minister Saad Hariri has been trying desperately to shore up support for democracy in his tiny nation. Washington seems to be riding the fence, as the Obama administration is also trying to navigate its own near-crisis with Iran. So far, the United States has only pledged additional monetary support for the tribunal.
In the past, sectarian tensions seemed to percolate in perpetuity, but now Lebanon is on a crash course. The pressure is rising and we will witness the crescendo when the indictments are made public. Hizballah supporters will say that they will never give in to an Israeli or American plot to weaken The Party. Critics will say that Hizballah’s refusal to hand over its people proves once and for all that the Party of God views itself as superior to the state.
