Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Tehran Wins; the State Department Spins
Guest Column | By Joel Himelfarb | May 27, 2008
What
kind of fantasy world does the State Department live in? And do these
people ever talk with the White House in order to forge some kind of
coherent common position on Middle East policy? During his
just-concluded visit to the region, President Bush and members of his
senior staff did a commendable job of explaining the threat posed by
Iran and Syria and the need to stand firm against Jihadist terror. Mr.
Bush told the Israeli Knesset May 15th that a strategy of trying to
negotiate with "terrorists and radicals" was a "foolish delusion." The
president added: "We have an obligation to call this what it is: the
false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by
history." But just six days later, David Welch, the State Department's
senior Middle East diplomat, signaled U.S. acceptance of the Lebanese
government's surrender to Tehran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah - allowing
it to retain its military communications network in Lebanon and giving
the group enough cabinet seats to exercise veto power over government
policy.
Welch said that the deal brokered by the Arab League
after five days of negotiations in Qatar was "a necessary and positive
step" that will let Lebanon's political process move forward. But it's
difficult to see much of anything positive about the deal - unless
you're a supporter of Hezbollah or its backers in Tehran and Damascus.
Hezbollah, which recently saw its Iranian assistance more than triple,
launched a military blitzkrieg against Sunni Muslim and Druze political
opponents that left more than 80 people dead, while the Lebanese Army,
which has received close to $400 million in U.S. aid in the past two
years, stood by and did nothing.
The attacks came in response to
the Lebanese government's May 6th declaration that Hezbollah's covert
telecommunications network was a threat to Lebanese national security,
and the government's reassignment of a Hezbollah ally who directs
security at Beirut International Airport.
Under the Lebanese
Constitution, the government had every legal right to demand that
Hezbollah shut down the network - which enables it to mobilize its army
to take over the country in conjunction with Iran and Syria in the
event of a crisis. And the Lebanese government had every right to
reassign the employee: This is especially true in view of evidence that
forces under his command were conducting surveillance of flights in and
out of the airport. According to Lebanon scholar Walid Phares, the
Hezbollah communications network enables it to activate its massive
rocket and missile system across Lebanon without significant
interference from the West. This arsenal would be ideal for use against
an international force (such as the expanded United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon - the expanded peacekeeping force installed in
Southern Lebanon after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.)
So, when
the Lebanese government demanded that the telecommunications network be
shut down, Hezbollah reacted quickly and ferociously. Hezbollah leader
Hassan Nasrallah denounced the government's decision as a "declaration
of war." He called the phone network an essential part of the group's
weaponry, which it refuses to give up. "We have said before that we
will cut off the hand that targets the weapons of the resistance,"
Nasrallah said May 8th.
The following day, all-out warfare
broke out between Hezbollah and allied street gangs and Sunni gangs
loyal to Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's Lebanese government and
bankrolled by Saudi Arabia. In less than seven hours of all-out
fighting, Hezbollah forces routed the pro-government side, occupied
much of Western Beirut and plastered the walls with posters of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. (The irony was not lost on Lebanese: After the
February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, most
likely by Syrian government agents, the resulting international outcry
forced the Syrian dictator to withdraw his occupation troops - but not
his intelligence operatives - from Lebanon.) Lebanese newspapers were
filled with pictures of bound, blindfolded members of the defeated
pro-government forces who were captured by Hezbollah forces who
sauntered through Beirut boasting how they had forced members of the
losing side to beg for their lives.
Unfortunately, the Bush
administration has been spinning ever since May 9th, with officials
saying Washington believes Hezbollah has "bitten off a bit too much"
and now risks alienating the rest of Lebanon's population. "Hezbollah
has been politically damaged by what it did this week," an unnamed U.S.
official told Robin Wright of The Washington Post.
But
across the Middle East, America's friends and foes are more grounded in
reality. "The U.S. has failed in Lebanon," said Druze leader Walid
Jumblatt, whose private militia was also beaten by Hezbollah. "We have
to wait and see the new rules which Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will set.
They can do what they want." Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a Ramallah-based
Hamas political activist, saw Hezbollah's Lebanon coup as evidence that
Mideast radicals were gaining power at the expense of U.S. backed
regimes - just as Hamas did last June in seizing power in Gaza and
exiling Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the West Bank.
"What happened in Gaza in 2007 is an achievement; now it is happening
in 2008 in Lebanon. It's going to happen in 2009 in Jordan and it's
going to happen in 2010 in Egypt," Khader told The Washington Times.
Whether
this effort to redraw the map of the Middle East against the United
States will spread to Jordan and Egypt remains to be seen. But given
their recent successes in Gaza and Lebanon, no one can doubt that
Tehran's allies are emboldened and that they will try again soon.
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Joel Himelfarb is the assistant editor of the editorial page of the Washington Times.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
