Copyright © 2005 The Daily Star

Monday, April 25, 2005
Iran gives civil war warning to Lebanon opposition
Jumblatt meets with Khatami

By Mayssam Zaaroura
Daily Star staff



TEHRAN: Iranian President Mohammad Khatami warned Sunday Lebanon was susceptible to another civil war and said instability in Syria could lead to chaos in Lebanon.

During a meeting with visiting leading Lebanese opposition member Walid Jumblatt, Khatami said Lebanon was "vulnerable" and risked the return of civil war, the ISNA news agency reported.

"The possibility exists of an aggravation of divisions which could transform into a civil war," Khatami was quoted as telling Jumblatt, a leading figure in the campaign to end Syria's military and political dominance of the country.

Jumblatt traveled to Iran in a surprise visit Saturday. Iran is a key backer of the Lebanese resistance group Hizbullah and Syria's closest ally in the region. Tehran has been vigorously opposing international pressure on Damascus and the pressure to disarm Hizbullah in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

According to a leading member of Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party, Wael Bou Faour, the Druze leader had headed to Iran to discuss ways in which Hizbullah could be protected.

He said: "In our contacts with Khatami and the Europeans, we are trying to balance the U.S. pressure in an effort to protect Hizbullah."

Jumblatt was in Strasbourg, France last week to meet with members of the European Union Parliament also in an effort to keep the Lebanese resistance party's name off Europe's list of terrorist groups.

But confirmation was not available that Khatami and Jumblatt had discussed Hizbullah.

Khatami said forthcoming parliamentary elections in Lebanon "must not lead to differences between the influential groups," and also warned "instability in Syria would be a catastrophe for the region and have harmful effects on Lebanon."

Jumblatt was told by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi "the United States is seeking to create a crisis in Lebanon to reap benefits, while the problems in Lebanon should be solved by the Lebanese themselves."

Earlier Sunday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said: "Jumblatt is influential in Lebanon and this trip is important. Our policy in Lebanon is transparent and we have dialogue with all groups."

He added: "The Islamic Republic of Iran has pressed that [the Lebanese] must pay attention to unity and cooperation and beware of plots by the Zionist regime, which will use any opportunity to exploit disunity." - With agencies



Copyright © 2005 The Daily Star

Yes -- I would say that they are as transparent as can be.

Methinks they might even be too transparent for their own good, eh?

Blair Backs UN Intervention for Iran Guardian Unlimited

Lebanese Political Journal
http://lebop.blogspot.com/2005/05/bush-freed-lebanon.html
This site is intended to provide in-depth analysis in English on the political situation in Lebanon.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Bush freed Lebanon
Bush had nothing to do with the impetus for our protests in Lebanon.
He was the reason we went to bed afterward.

We came to the streets because one of our greatest leaders, the man who rebuilt our capital and brought Lebanon international prominence, was assassinated.
Former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri was gearing up for a political campaign that he would have won. That mortified the ensconced. The country was expecting Hariri to emerge out of the elections a massive victor taking the majority of Parliament and being able to make decisions that went against Syria. He was killed.
Some have argued that Hariri was willing to advance against Syria after the unconstitutional reappointment of Syria's favorite Lebanese Christian, President Emile Lahoud, because of America's invasion in Iraq.
This is not the case. The reappointment of Lahoud was a tragic event in the political history of Lebanon because Syria forced something on us that absolutely no one wanted. Hezbollah likes Lahoud and went along with it, but no one in Lebanon was suggesting that an extension of Lahoud's mandate was the best option, or even a good one.
Even before the extension, Hariri had met with French President Chirac and had liasons with Washington to make sure he still had their support. Hariri was like a son to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, and he has always been close to Western nations. Hariri wanted Syria to give him more control in the country, and they wouldn't do it. He felt the time had come for him to make the next big move.
He was killed.
We flocked to the streets because we revere the man, believe in Lebanese sovereignty, and want our country free of foreign troops.
We have marched on many occassions before this. Lebanon may be a corrupted democracy, but we still have the right to march and speak our minds to varying extents.
We would have marched no matter what.
We walked in front of soldiers with guns. We hugged them. And then we stomped through the barbed wire they placed. Our brothers and fathers in Lebanon's mandatory conscription Army would not fire on us no matter who gave the order.
We marched to honor the bravery of Hariri.
He was not thinking about Iraq when he went against Syria because he already knew he had American support. When we came to the streets we were not thinking about Iraq or America.
We came for our country alone.

Where Iraq was significant was in Syria's departure.
Bush's Iraq campaign may not have had an effect on us, but it sure had an effect on Syria.
Would Syria have exited Lebanon without American pressure and proof that Bush means what he says in the Middle East? Probably not.
Would Syria have left so quickly? Definitely not.
Would Syrian soldiers have moved into place to crack down on Lebanese citizens? Probably.
Would we have fought them? Definitely.
Would this have caused a war? Quite likely.

Bush, Chirac, and the example of the Iraq War saved us from disaster. We were saved from incredible pain and a return to constant calamity.
No doubt, Bush, the American Embassy, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, and State Department official and former US Ambassador to Lebanon Satterfield are responsible for saving Lebanese lives and gaining us our freedom.
I would like to say we are indebted to them, which we are for saving our lives and ridding us of the Syrian menace. But we are reminded of how we got into this situation in the first place.
We are indebted to the sons of America who lost their lives trying to bring peace to our country in 1982. They died trying to help us.
However, we remember 1990 when the US gave Syria the green light to enter our country with no assigned exit date. The US gave the Syrian military the go-ahead to take our sovereignty in order to gain Syria's support for the 1991.
Was it worth it for America to trade our freedom for Kuwait's? Yes, for America. But it left us doubly depressed 1) for realizing we are not worth as much as a backward, monarchic oil state; and 2) because it meant our enslavement to Syrian masters.
What I am now thankful for is America's post-Cold War strategy of reconciling its realist, realpolitik past. It started with Noriaga and will hopefully contine in Uzbekistan, North Korea, Togo, Equitorial Guinea, Tunisia, Molodova and the Transdniester, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, and on.
We give Bush credit for implementing our revolution, but he did not start it.
Bush's words and UN Resolutions would have meant nothing without Hariri starting and us continuing our own revolution.