Snow Warns Syria and Iran
Hariri’s widow
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that the White House believes that Hizbullah, Iran and Syria are trying to ‘topple’ the democratically elected government of Lebanon.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States is “increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon’s democratically elected government.”
Snow warned that any attempt to destabilize Lebanon through “manufactured demonstrations” or “physically threatening its leaders” would constitute clear violations of U.N. resolutions. He singled out Syria, charging that it has devised a plan “to prevent” the Lebanese government from approving a U.N. tribunal to try the killers of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, who was assassinated in February 2005.
Anyone who actually takes the time to read up on Lebanon / watches the news etc. suspects this as well of course. It is something the West cannot allow to happen.
The question is, of course, whether they – if true (which seems to be quite likely to me – are willing to use force or not:
White House and State Department spokesmen declined to characterize the evidence used to support the claim, implying that it was based on classified information. And some U.S. intelligence officials and U.N. diplomats said privately that there was no sign that an armed overthrow of the government is in the works.
So, there does not seem to be any good evidence for that, but there are other ways of toppling a government for instance:
The announcement came just one day after Hezbollah’s leader, Hasan Nasrallah, said in a television interview that he is prepared to organize protests if his movement is not given a larger say in Lebanon’s affairs. It followed the report of a new diplomatic initiative by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sent a senior adviser, Nigel Sheinwald, to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Next week, Lebanon’s leading political figures will discuss a demand by a political alliance, headed by Hezbollah, that it be granted 30 percent of the Lebanese cabinet seats in a new national unity government, U.N. diplomats said. That would give them the power to veto any major decision by the government.
Simply demand more and more power until one has arrived at the point that one can take over without using force. Note that the only thing that – seemingly – is “not in the works” is an “armed overthrow”. That does not rule out the possibility of a somewhat peaceful overthrow (if necessary threatening to use violence, throw the country into chaos, withdrawing all possible support for the government, etc.).
Intelligence officials said they think the White House statement was referring to Nasrallah’s threat of widespread protests if Lebanese leaders fail to create a unity government. One official said that although U.S. intelligence officials think Nasrallah would like more power and Syria would like a friendlier Lebanese government, there are no signs of an impending coup.
Again, it’s all about how one defines a coup. A coup could also, mostly, be ‘peaceful’.
Although, of course, it’s quite difficult to call the murder of Hariri ‘peaceful’ huh?
22 Responses to “Snow Warns Syria and Iran”
Yet another artificially constructed country coming apart? If I wanted to change the political picture in Lebanon now would be the time, the US is too preoccupied with Iraq and Israel is still suffering from the political fallout of the last go round. Iran will want to position itself better for the future, as well as Hezzbolla. I’m still not quite sure about Syria but it is certainly something they could support. I have to say that considering past history the various sides in this will be careful about pushing the boundaries, peaceful demonstrations yes, I doubt anything militant, but don’t rule it out.
The fragile condition of Lebanon is something Westerners should be watching as a bellwether for the case for establishing liberal democracies in the ME. Any liberal, democratically elected government will be dealing with organized religious extremism which is supported by states like Iran and Syria, who will be constantly a threat to the government’s survival. I’m wondering if the only possible way for the West to overcome this orchestrated chaos, is to install strongmen in Lebanon and in Iraq. This of course would mean that Bush’s ambitious plan to remake the ME in a democratic fashion had totally failed.
Kim,
That would obviously be a return to the style of foreign policy that the US has embraced in the past. I think most of us would hope that this doesn’t happen, and I think in many ways not only has the US realized that this approach is unfair (to impose and prop up autocratic governments) but that in the end it backfires for us anyway (eg, backing Saddam and then later having to deal with the consequences of that).
I don’t think you were really advocating this, but I wanted to point out the implications.
CS-I realize that propping up autocratic governments has been a long time policy mistake, but I’m not sure its one we can correct, especially in the ME, where most Muslims view our presence with extreme suspicion. I’m trying to show the futility of trying to get inherently undemocratic societies to live democratically.
I don’t think you can make the comparison (as some others have) that its like what Reagan did in the Cold War, as Eastern European countries were originally largely democratic before coming under Soviet domination. I don’t think our policies should be decided on thin hopes and idealism, when American lives and our economic health are at stake (also of course the civilians who get caught up in the chaos). I don’t think you undertake something that major without better assurances that it will work-otherwise we will just be viewed negatively as an occupation force, as we are now.
BTW- I did not mean to imply that we should not try to support democratically elected governments wherever feasible. I think we have failed to do that in Lebanon- leaving a vacuum that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran have filled. I just realized that my post read that way. My futility is mostly aimed at Iraq and at any future efforts in Iran.
Kim you are forgetting one thing: this ultimate approach (democracy, respect for human right andsoforth) is something that takes time. A lot of time. If Western countries would adhere to those policies, not just for 3 years but for 20, we will see changes: work on gradual changes.
The problem is that Bush messed that up.
MvdG- Yes it takes time- maybe more than 20 years-maybe 100 or 150. We have no reliable way of measuring how long it takes an undemocratic society to evolve into a democratic one, particularly when there are so many forces against it. The British tried and failed to introduce democratic institutions in Iraq in the 1920′s (they were there mostly for oil, but did try to govern democratically). They occupied the country for 12 years. After the long occupation, the cost and high death rate of British soldiers became unpopular at home, so they withdrew. The country went into chaos, resulting in an autocracy that finally established order. Heir to that autocracy was Saddam Hussein. Do you think the British should have stayed longer?
The war is costing us our country’s financial health- we have spent over 300 billion on this experiment. We have other threats that we need to face, but our military is bogged down in Iraq. There is no example of a successful democracy in the ME, discounting Israel, of course.
Kim,
I think what MvdG is saying that failure in Iraq doesn’t mean that it was the wrong thing to do, just that it has been done in the wrong way. You are drawing the conclusion that failure means it was impossible, and I don’t agree with that.
C.S. that is also my view. They messed it up, that is how I see it and that is how I describe it. If it were impossible to achieve in the first place, they would not have ‘messed it up’ as such. Messing it up, messing the goal up means that one is blamable for not executing it rightly. This means that if one would have done it in the right way, one would have succeeded.
CS- I won’t go as far as to say that the mission was impossible, but our chances of success were never good. It is for this reason that Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft and the president’s father decided not to remove Saddam in 1991. They were prescient enough to foresee that a long occupation would be required due to aggravated sectarian strife.
George Herbert Walker Bush—Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we’re going to show our macho? We’re going into Baghdad. We’re going to be an occupying power —America in Arab land with no allies by our side. It would have been disasterous.”
MvdG- It may or may not have been impossible-yes its obvious that major mistakes hindered the undertaking, but I disagree that that automatically means success with the right plan was likely. Or at least likely enough to send 140,000 troops over and spend 300 billion plus. To commit those kinds of numbers of lives and tax money there needs to be more than a vague possibility that it might work.
All wars are based on calculated risks. My opinion of the first Bush, who dealt much more in reality, and his acknowlegement of the limits of American power abroad is that he was right-it would have been and has been a fool’s errand. Powell warned Dubya- if you break it you own it. There may be some plan out there that would have succeeded-if so I haven’t seen it. Its impossible to critique a plan that doesn’t exist-just because the goal is worthy and it might have worked.
Kim,
I agree with you about calculated risks of war and that this was a big risk. But you can’t ignore the risks that we would have faced if we didn’t adopt a comprehensive GWOT strategy. Whether you believe it or not, the Bush administration decided right from the start that it wasn’t going to respond to terrorist attacks in simply a retaliatory way. They saw a pattern of OBL becoming emboldened by our tit for tat approach during the 90s. Now, you can certainly argue that the Iraq invasion shouldn’t have been part of that global, preemptive approach, and in hindsight you may be 100% correct. I say in hindsight because the reality is that very few people prior to the invasion would have believed that Saddam was bluffing. And, I say in hindsight because many of us didn’t realize that the post invasion planning was completely based on false optimism, and that there was almost no planning for the non-military parts of the strategy that would have improved the chance of successfully establishing a new Iraqi govt.
To all who have made comments.
Bush’s policy in Iraq has not worked because no goverment in that region wanted it to succeed, even the so-called American friends like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They don’t want a prosperous Iraq to become show piece for the rest of the people of that region. They use Arab nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism and religous sectarianism specially anti-Americanism to make sure Iraq fails as a modern democracy.
France and the most of the Europe didn’t want their blood spilled to a cause that have no immediate threat for them. But what they failed to understand is that this troubles of the Middle East will come and knock on Europe’s door sooner than later with a force that Europe alone cannot thwart, and probably in a time when America embracing isolationst policy due to bitter experinces.
Let’s not forget Israel’s push to destabilize the situation.
Beirut Star
From another Lebanese paper:
Yaliban
CS I agree with most of your post. But feel that Iraq has less to do with the GWOT than you imply. There was plenty of evidence that the intel was shoddy—Powell questioned a lot of it before giving his speech to the UN, and Richard Clarke claimed that he was told to try to tie 9/11 to Iraq.
I believe 100% that the administration misrepresented the intelligence to make a case for the war. Then as you pointed out, they failed abominably to plan past the invasion stage, thereby almost insuring our defeat there. I don’t fault Bush for taking a proactive stance against terror, but question whether he ever connected the GWOT with Iraq until we were already in there drawing the terrorists there with our very presence. Also feel that once the UN rejected the plan, we should have thought twice-realizing we’d mostly be on our own.
I’m astounded at how much hand-wringing and analysis is done about a possible Syrian-Iranian coup against Lebanon without a single mention about the recent Israeli-Lebanon war.
President Bush gave his whole-hearted and unqualified support for a month-long Israeli assault on the whole of Lebanon, which included bombing the capital city and destroying much of the infrastructure the country needs to survive economically. Where was his defense of the democratically elected government then?
Now he’s worried that someone might overthrow the government in a coup?
During the conflict the Lebanese government was completely powerless to defend the nation. The Lebanese military were entirely absent during the conflict, except when they were being killed in their barracks. Hezbollah was the only actor on the Lebanese side fighting against a foreign invader.
It doesn’t matter whether we think the Israelis were justified or not. From the Lebanese point of view, the central government failed and Hezbollah succeeded in repelling the Israeli army.
If this democratically elected government falls, it will be more due to the Israeli war than to anything else.
Good points, Mike F. I can’t understand why all of our attention has been accorded to providing support for Maliki’s fragile democracy, but none for Lebanon’s fragile democracy???? The official attitude seemed to be that since the Lebanese government had failed to control and disband Hezbollah, and Hezbollah had attacked Israel, Israel deserved a free pass in the conflict. That strategy would be out of the question in Iraq, where we have not insisted that Maliki stand up to Sadr and the Mahdi army and disband the Shiite militias that are preventing a political solution there.
Sigh. Whose fault is it that the Lebanese govt hasn’t reined in Hezbollah? The Lebanese govt has decided to fight the border issue with Israel even though the international community is firmly with Israel in this case. If Siniora had chosen recognize the Blue Line border (giving up Lebanon’s bogus claim to the Shebaa Farms, which was never Lebanese territory to begin with), and to kick out the Hezbollah militia when they kicked out the Syrian army, then we wouldn’t have had last summer’s conflict. Instead, Siniora chose to appease Hezbollah. I believe he’s probably motivated by fear, not by ideological agreement with them, but either way the effect is the same: his weakness is his choice.
Which if it is so important to us that Lebanon continue as a Democracy we could have bolstered Siniora’s position. Surely you realize that he is not only facing Hezbollah, but weapons and money coming from Syria and Iran as well that support Hezbollah. Its a little too much to expect-especially if there’s a double standard in our policy towards Maliki. Instead of taking a moralistic view- like this administration has, we should do the pragmatic thing and support fledgling democracies in the ME—that is the policy is it not????
Whose fault is it that the Lebanese govt hasn’t reined in Hezbollah? The Lebanese govt has decided to fight the border issue with Israel even though the international community is firmly with Israel in this case.
I’m not really sure what your point is here, C. The president is currently up in arms about a plot against the “democratically elected” Lebanese government. 3 months ago they were 100% supportive of an Israeli attack against the Lebanese (in part because members of Hezbollah had been elected to that government). They refused all appeals by the democratically elected government for help and okayed the Israeli attacks on the capital city.
If you think of the Lebanese government as invalid because it includes members of Hezbollah, then who cares if their leaders are ousted in a coup? If you want to preach about the sanctity of democratically elected governments you should defend them against all threats to their survival.
Its a lie to pretend that George Bush is suddenly concerned with the survival of a government he cast aside months ago.
his weakness is his choice.
His weakness is probably just weakness, not a choice. I doubt he has the strength to kick out Hezbollah. The Israeli army wasn’t able to dislodge them and they’re much more capable than he is.
To compare with our own problems, is our refusal to kick out the Mehdi militia from Iraq a choice? Or do you think we’re actually incapable of doing it?
These groups are difficult to dislodge, because they’re home-grown with huge support among the population and well armed.
yeah good point MikeF. it’s not as if the international community was more than willing to help him get rid of Hizbullah if he just asked…
o… wait…