Who stands to profit from the Middle East war?

by Claude Salhani

Washington - Once again Lebanon finds itself propelled into a major conflict not of its choosing; and as in the past Lebanon is paying the price. In this one-sided battle it is worth asking who stands to profit from the latest violence. Certainly not the Lebanese who once again are seeing their country destroyed.

The Lebanese have still not forgotten the nightmarish 15-year civil war that devastated their country. Former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri helped rebuild the country. But after Syria, Lebanon's neighbour and only outlet to the rest of the Arab hinterland, was suspected of being implicated in the killing of the former prime minister, Israel, Lebanon's other neighbour is slowly killing Hariri's dream: the infrastructure he built after the war.

Israel wants to hold the Lebanese government accountable for Hezbollah's actions. Israel, however, is acting as though it is ignorant of the reality of Lebanese politics, insisting that the Lebanese government implements United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, calling for disarming Hezbollah. Arab leaders, on the other hand, appear somewhat more realistic. Several Arab leaders have criticized Hezbollah, blaming the Lebanese Shiite militia for the latest violence.

Saudi Arabia held Hezbollah "fully responsible" for what a statement released by the official Saudi Arabian news agency called "its irresponsible action", referring to the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border attack Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia said it believes in the right of peoples under occupation to resist by all possible means, and that the kingdom always stood by the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements against military occupation, "[b]ut the kingdom wants to draw a line between legitimate resistance and the uncalculated adventures carried out by members who are part of the state but act from behind it and without consulting with the legitimate authorities, creating as such an extremely dangerous situation and exposing all Arab countries and their achievements to destruction".

The Saudi statement said that the time has come for Hezbollah to "assume alone the full responsibility of their irresponsible acts".

Egypt's mass-circulation newspaper al-Ahram, known to reflect the government's views, said Hezbollah is to be blamed for the ongoing Israeli war on Lebanon. The paper added that this latest escalation with Israel "serves regional goals".

So what does all that mean? Let the paper itself explain:

"Many in Lebanon believe that there are parties who sacrifice Lebanon's security to serve regional calculations and the interests of other countries."

In Middle East parlance that means Syria and Iran may have a hand in the latest violence in so far that both countries support Hezbollah. In fact, Cairo is voicing out loud what many people in the Middle East believe but dare not say.

Why would Syria and Iran find it in their interest to raise the stakes in the Middle East? For numerous reasons. Syria, who was forced to pull its army out of Lebanon after it was unofficially blamed for the assassination of Hariri, never quite got over the humiliation of submitting to the pressure of both the Lebanese street and the international community.

At this point Syria could be saying: "See what happens when we leave? Maybe had we stayed this would have not happened."

Secondly, the new spate of violence in Lebanon will suspend -- if only temporarily -- the investigation into the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This is buying Damascus some serious time.

As for Iran, it allows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deflect the focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions. While world leaders remain pre-occupied with Lebanon, Iran can get ahead developing its nuclear program. So this is buying Tehran some precious time, too.

And while Lebanon gets bombed back to its civil war era, Damascus and Tehran remain -- at least for the moment -- outside the conflict, even though they, far more so than the Lebanese government, not only support, but arm and finance Hezbollah.

Of course, if Israel were to hit either Damascus or Tehran, it would spark a full-fledged regional war. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that his country would deal "a painful response" to Israel in case it attacked its Arab ally, Syria.

"If the entity which occupies Jerusalem commits a foolish act and carries out an aggression against Syria it will be tantamount to aggression against the Islamic world and will be confronted with a painful response", Ahmadinejad was quoted by the Iranian News Agency, IRNA.

A pertinent question might be why Iran deems it an act of aggression against the Islamic world if Syria were to be hit, but when Lebanon is being bombed back 20 years, as Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said Israel would do, the reaction is limited to verbal support. Although it's no great surprise, even Arab ministers meeting in Cairo failed to come up with an action plan to help Lebanon. Once again Lebanon finds itself a reluctant participant in a war in which it had no say -- and in which it holds no cards with which to negotiate.

_______________________________________

* Claude Salhani is international editor and a political analyst with United Press International in Washington. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 20, 2006

Visit the Common Ground News Service online: www.commongroundnews.org

Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.