America's Role In Lebanon

By Ahmed Noor

This comment was published in The Guardian on 21/11/2010

Josh Block – a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) – recently argued that President Obama ought to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to confront Iran. The objective, according to Block, is to arrest any threat to "US security and credibility around the world." He quotes Fred Hof, a deputy to the ineffective George Mitchell, who says: "Whether most of [Hezbollah's] members know it or not, and whether most Lebanese Shiites know it or not, [Nasrallah] and his inner circle do what they do first and foremost to defend and project the existence and power of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Hof's claim that he understands what motivates Nasrallah better than Hezbollah members and Lebanese citizens is grandiose and, at the very least, a gross oversimplification. But his article is published in the context of a concerted push for America to go to war – whether outright or attritional – with Iran. Only last week, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flew across the Atlantic to ask Vice President Joseph Biden to launch a war against Iran on Israel's behalf. Biden – keenly aware that his responsibility is to the American people – declined. What's surprising about this episode is that Netanyahu's entreaties were conducted in full view of the White House press corps.

The pro-Israel lobby is aware that America is too over-committed to attack Iran. But America is evidently capable of taking on Hezbollah, an Iranian ally – and those who hope for this scenario see US involvement in the inquiry into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri as a potential lever they can pull.

Hariri was assassinated in Beirut in 2005. The truck bomb that killed him claimed 21 other lives and caused hundreds of injuries. Syria – which was occupying Lebanon at the time – was quickly blamed for the murder. The resulting Lebanese and international pressure combined to end the Syrian occupation soon after.

The matter didn't end there, however. The United Nations commenced an investigation, culminating in the establishment of the Special Tribunal of Lebanon (STL). It's been more than five years and the tribunal's prosecutor now appears ready to issue indictments. According to reports and Hassan Nasrallah himself, the STL plans to indict members of Hezbollah organisation. 

Many in Lebanon are sceptical of the STL, which, for a variety of reasons, has little credibility in the country. The conventional understanding, and Block's argument bears this out, is that America and Israel seek to confront Iran and Syria on Lebanese territory. Lebanese suspect that the STL is foreign-sponsored attempt to undermine Hezbollah's democratic – it's a political party with elected parliamentary members – support among Lebanese citizens. One woman wryly put it to me this way: "Where's the special tribunal to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy?"

Many of us in Lebanon want to know the truth about Hariri's assassination. We want to see an end to the era of spasmodic political assassinations and international intrigues. But we're also aware that international players have an interest in manipulating the truth-yielding process to suit their geopolitical interests. More than anything, America's pursuit of indictments – Block notes that the administration just provided the tribunal with another $10m in funding – has tainted the STL's claim of independence. The question now is whether pursuing a discredited judicial process is worth sacrificing domestic stability.

Barack Obama's principal responsibility is to the American people. A war with Iran is not in America's best interest; neither is a confrontation with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a legitimate political party that reflects the aspirations of many Lebanese people. European leaders understand that and frequently meet with the party's representatives to discuss political differences. 

The best way for Obama to promote stability in Lebanon is by resisting calls for a policy of confrontation and, instead, engaging with its regional adversaries. But pursuing the fatally-flawed STL process is exactly the wrong thing to do right now. There's no doubt that the Lebanese deserve the truth – and they deserve stability. But the STL can provide neither.