America Will Lose the Battle for Lebanon

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

America found in the assassination of Rafic Hariri a powerful opportunity to bring Lebanon to its knees and to bring Syria to the ground. After the rise of Hezbollah, Lebanon turned into an Arab-Islamic launching pad toward liberation from the Western yoke and toward an effective future confrontation with Israel. Hezbollah has had a very tangible effect on the security balance in the region, even though no reversal in the military balance itself has occurred. The negotiating process that has been under way in the region since 1991 is now threatened with breakdown, and Israel occasionally swallows field humiliations it is not accustomed to. This threatens the Zionist-American project in the region, known as the Greater Middle East.

Hezbollah is the arrowhead whose shaft stretches all the way to Tehran. Syria is a strong backer of Hezbollah, and helped it, together with Iran, achieve a degree of independence in producing the means of combat on Lebanese soil, to guarantee its capacity to sustain military confrontation under the worst of conditions. Iran is a state with fangs, and it is not easy to inflict defeat on it, even were its nuclear sites struck. Tehran has pursued a path of military self-reliance and has taken care over doctrinal combat training that embraces calculated boldness without fear, and it is capable of inflicting harm on Israel without a field military advance. Syria pursues a negotiating approach that prolongs the negotiations, and Iran credits it for its attempts to buy time in the hope that the regional balance of power will shift. Both states are fully aware that the enemy — Israel and America — understands that Hezbollah’s threat is real and constitutes a strong deterrent against Israeli and American military provocations. And all parties understand that the equation has grown more complicated, and more bitter for America and Israel, given the achievements of the Iraqi resistance against American forces.

Accordingly, America has found that the policy of “strike them by their own hands” is the least costly and least risky option. Hariri’s assassination was the horse America mounted, riding it toward a new Dahis and Ghabra. It has thrown its international weight behind conducting an investigation, and has insisted on pursuing Syria, intervening forcibly in the course of the investigation. It is now sending elements of its intelligence and various security agencies into Lebanon to set the affairs of Syria’s opponents in order, in case internal Lebanese fighting becomes a necessity. America is now trying to break Syria’s will and blackmail it over the Palestinian file and negotiations with Israel, and over the Hezbollah file. If Syria meets both demands, America will trample over Hariri’s blood; if not, the shirt will remain a costly one, wept over still.

…on Syria and punish it economically, but this will greatly harm its friends in Lebanon because of the tightly sealed land border. It might also carry out military strikes against Syria, but in doing so it would risk military strikes against Israel by Hezbollah covering the northern third of its territory. As for the Iranian reaction, it would be governed by the force of the strike against Syria, and could well mean intervention through action against Israel, should the American strikes exceed Syria’s capacity to absorb them.

America might choose instead to return to Lebanon’s internal war, backing the parties hostile to Syria in waging a long war of attrition. I think this would prove complicated and would not achieve its aims, given the prevailing balances in Lebanon today. The Christians are now divided among themselves, and it would be difficult for America’s friends to mobilize Christian forces with the same cohesion achieved during the 1970s and 1980s. The Shia, by contrast, are united and constitute the principal military force in Lebanon. The Sunnis are fragmented and leaderless, and possess no military capacity worth mentioning. The Druze remain a small force even if they unite behind Walid Jumblatt. The Lebanese army would not remain cohesive should fighting break out, and each unit would revert to the shelter of its own religious sect. The Palestinians would ally themselves with Hezbollah, particularly Ansarallah, the Popular Front–General Command, Fatah al-Intifada, and part of the Fatah movement. Hezbollah’s alliance would remain the strongest, even as weapons flow toward the other side from America and Israel. Each side would receive outside support, but the upper hand would remain with experience and organization — both of which clearly favor America’s enemies.

If America proceeds to set the Lebanese against one another, it will be gambling with another card as well — the Iraqi card. At that point, Syria would no longer play the role of border guard preventing resistance fighters from crossing, and chaos would prevail in Lebanon, leading to the opening of the border through Syria for Arab fighters to flow into both Lebanon and Iraq; Iran, too, might open its borders and incite the Shia in Iraq against America. This is not to mention that the American domestic dimension does not work in the American administration’s favor at this stage.

This does not mean that Syria, Iran, and Lebanon will not suffer. The suffering will be severe for all parties, but America will not achieve what it wants. It is clear that the United States is not reading developments in the region well, and does not see that the age of Arab cowardice has receded in favor of people who no longer fear death.

The most important matter remains in Syria’s hands: will Syria hold firm against the pressure, the threats, and perhaps the bombardment? America will find itself in an awkward position if steadfastness prevails, and will gain much of what it desires if the Syrians falter. My own judgment is that Syria will hold firm.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “أمريكا ستخسر معركة لبنان” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.