Choices to make

By Paul Tate

There is one certainty surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister: no matter who is responsible, Damascus will pay the price.

Opposition figures inside Lebanon opposed to Syria's military presence are now openly pointing the finger of accusation at Syria and President Emile Lahoud's pro-Syrian government. For years, the Lebanese have blamed Syria for a string of political assassinations, but never before have they declared it publicly.

They now feel confident to oppose Damascus because they sense, quite rightly, that what is happening in Lebanon is part of a much wider game, involving an array of anti-Syrian forces. Lebanon, as was the case during the 16-year civil war, is once again finding itself in the unenviable position of becoming the theatre for a much wider international conflict.

Syria and its sole ally Iran are now firmly in the US spotlight for possible regime change, with the former being a much easier option. For months now, Washington has been turning the heat up on Syria, accusing it of aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq and of "interfering" in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process through its support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Sanctions have already been placed on Damascus, with more in the pipeline.

Seen in this context, Hariri's bombing and murder is a gift-horse to those in Washington gunning for regime change in Damascus and supports, rather conveniently, America's claim that Syria is a destabilising force, not just in Lebanon, but the whole region. The US wasted little time in recalling its ambassador and bolstering Lebanon's opposition forces by calling for Lebanon to be allowed to choose "a path of freedom and independence", in other words, for Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559 and withdraw its 14,000 forces from the country in accordance with the 1991 Taif accord that ended the 16-year civil war.

Since the end of the cold war and the loss of its Russian ally, Syria's strategic hand has steadily weakened. Now isolated and on the defensive, the regime in Damascus is desperately trying to retain the last card in its pack: its domination over Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria's last and most vital bargaining chip in a 37-year struggle to regain the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.

Through its support for Hizbollah and Palestinian resistance groups, the regime in Damascus has sought to persuade Israel to negotiate and make a deal. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have constantly sought to undermine Syria's hand, shut down the resistance and isolate both Syria and the Palestinians. The decision by Ehud Barak to end Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 can be viewed in this context.

Ironically, Lebanon is now being used by Syria's enemies as a platform from which to exploit it. The once strategic bargaining asset is fast becoming an Achilles' heel. The methods once employed by Syria to ensure domination in Lebanon, such as political manipulation and intimidation, are now backfiring against the regime with devastating effect.

Syria is steadily losing its grip, highlighted by its diktat to extend the constitutionally permitted presidential six-year term of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. The harder Syria pushes to hold on to her prized possession the more it inflames the opposition, backed by international powers.

Long-term Syrian allies, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, although remaining generally supportive of Syria, have been quick to sense the changing tide and, like others, has decided to swim with the current. Was Hariri about to jump on board with Jumblatt and back the opposition and drive another blow against Syria's bargaining chip in the Middle East?

One thing is for sure: no matter who was responsible, Hariri's murder has severely undermined Syria's already fragile position in the region, whilst strengthening the hand of its enemies. It now remains to be seen whether Syria will acquiesce to US designs in the region and trade in the Lebanese card in some kind of deal to assure its place in the new Middle East order, or whether Lebanon will once again become a battleground for a much larger international conflict.

This article was published in the Friday-Saturday, February 18-19, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.