From Beirut to the Beltway

Trouble in Assad's paradise

Aging Lebanese singer Wadih al-Safi's announcement that he will release two songs dedicated to Syria could not restore color to Bashar's face. Regime stooge Nasser Qandil has also been trying to cheer up his master by spreading a theory that Saudi Arabia, the US, Jumblatt and the Zionists are after him. Mind you Qandil knows that his life is not valued by anyone, not even his pals. But the Assad regime’s pamphleteer is, as instructed, attempting to cover up the humiliation caused by the Mughnieh assassination. Nasrallah’s open war call had failed to remove the question lingering in people hearts and minds. How could the Hizbullah superhero perish in Damascus of all places, under the watch of its intelligence agencies? Was the killing really facilitated by someone from the inside? Trouble in paradise? Has the brother-in-law done it again?

Regardless of whether Hizbullah’s master planner was co-assassinated by the killers of Rafik Hariri, it looks like the Assad game in Lebanon has not brought them relief. A Saudi fleeing Lebanon is not a Saudi going to Damascus, it is a Saudi funding a tribunal. And a summit without a Lebanese president is not a summit worth attending.  This much was made clear by the Saudis and Egyptians, who, after the EU, have learned (the hard way), that the Assad regime deserves what it brings to itself.

It continues to kill Bashar how much importance the world gives to a country such as Lebanon. If you think Beirut is troubled, you haven’t seen Damascus. The regime is so frightened, it has jailed everyone in sight—from political dissidents to bloggers writing about motorcycles. The level of distrust and paranoia is reaching new levels. Isolation is not what the doctor ordered for this regime.

Like you, I follow with utmost disgust Aoun’s adventures as a “negotiator”. It is easy to forget, given the preposterous arguments he advances, that the former general is nothing but an empowered village idiot, who was promised a hut if he moved his act to the town hall. In other words, Aoun is there to buy time, as was Berri before him, before the latter ran out of ideas.

The challenge is to not let ourselves see this as a purely Lebanese matter. Lebanon has a lot at stake, and the opposing side is at fault for lacking imagination, but this is also a battle of wills against the Assad regime. One hopes that the time will come when their house of cards falls apart, hopefully with more of that inside help that brought them isolation. As for Hizbullah, forget Nasrallah's size challenge (the man's shortcomings are exposed with every weapon he hands to a child). Hizbullah is only half of what it used to be, despite the flaunting of rockets, and the occasional remembrance of Moussa As-Sadr. The soil under them is starting to rot. No missile will bring them back what they lost, and what they will lose if the Assad regime continues to devour its own. 

Nasrallah managed to spook own supporters

Contrary to what Hizbullah would like you to believe, the Shia community in Lebanon is not ready for another "divine" war. Nasrallah's "open war" declaration prompted many Shias to say khalas, that's enough!

Now Lebanon's Hanin Ghaddar interviewed many Shias who showed no enthusiasm whatsoever towards the open war declaration. While this is no scientific poll, it does show that many Lebanese Shias no longer think that the "dignity" promised by Hizbullah can put food on their tables or secure a decent future for their children.

For many Shia, another declaration of war is an inescapable fate, albeit a distressing one. Sawsan, a school teacher from Nabatiyeh, was not surprised when she heard Nasrallah’s speech. “They have always been a confrontational party, and his tone doesn’t mean that they want another war,” she said.

“Of course we [the Shia] know that we cannot eliminate Israel from existence and that, to score a victory, we will have to lose a lot. But we cannot expect a softer tone from Hezbollah after they lose such a significant leader like Mugniyah,” she added. “We are always paying the price for their political agendas. Khalas! That’s enough.”

While most Shia derive a sincere sense of pride from Hezbollah’s resistance, and especially the “divine victory” of July 2006; the memory of that war is still painful.

Walid, a Shia from Dahiyeh, told NOW Lebanon, “Nasrallah is my hero, and I believe he has given us [the Shia] pride; however, when he talked about an open war in his last speech, it didn’t make sense.” Walid said that despite the “divine victory” brought by Hezbollah, he believes that most Shia would prefer not to go through it again. “We are still suffering from the consequences of [the July War] and believe me, no one would want to relive that bitter experience,” he said.

Samir, a Shia from Tyre, said, “I feel we have just won a war against Israel, and we don’t need to go through another one to assert our strength. It’s a dangerous game, and Hezbollah might not win the next one and that would lead to its downfall.”

Samir, who said he has been displaced many times, explained that although he prefers to live with “dignity,” he also knows that dignity doesn’t put food on the table. “It is my responsibility as a father to provide a secure and decent future for my children in a more or less stable environment.”

One hopes that this attitude infects all Lebanese Shias, many of whom found themselves isolated from the rest of the country because of Hizbullah's obstructionist policies.

This is a common dilemma for the Lebanese Shia. The Shia community in Lebanon has long felt treated as second-class citizens, and the resistance is seen by many as something that has brought them a unique degree of pride and dignity. Moreover, many have been told by their religious and political leaders that they need to support the leadership of the Islamic resistance in order to avoid humiliation.

However, Mohammad Ali Moukalled, a professor of political science at the Lebanese University, argued that the militant stance of Hezbollah and its political practice have only put the Shia back in isolation.

Mona Fayad, a professor of sociology at the Lebanese University who is also Shia, told NOW Lebanon that Lebanon is the only Arab country where Shia are considered a main component within the society and enjoy the same rights as other Lebanese. “Hezbollah is harming the Shia community by leading it toward more isolation, adding to the hostility toward them,” she said.

Read it in full here.

Lebanon and the impossible dream

The Syrian-backed "Lebanese opposition" keeps on inventing obstacles. The latest being, according to Amin Gemayel, a 10-10-10 formula for the cabinet makeup, where the 10 loyal to the president are silent and unable to vote or discuss issues.

Such preposterous conditions have caused the Arab League Secretary-general to delay his visit to Beirut, amid Saudi and Kuwaiti exodus from the country. Both Gulf countries warned their citizens not to travel to Lebanon, following media campaigns waged by the Syrian regime and following intelligence reports suggesting that Saudi and Kuwaiti interests will be targeted.

In any other country, the actions of the likes of Michel Aoun, Hizbullah and their pro-Syrian puppets would constitute grounds for imprisonment. The domestic terrorism practiced by the pro-Syrian camp is so great that the lone presidential contender has had to make a statement threatening to withdraw his candidacy (which mind you, he claimed that he never declared) if March 14 entertains electing him through a simple majority vote. Given that Michel Suleiman's image is being constantly dragged through the mud by Hizbullah, especially following the "Black Sunday" riots, it is pretty pathetic that the army general is still trying to please the Syrian camp, which has made it clear that it has no faith in him, as long as he is not a dedicated slave for Syrian interests. The quick investigation that followed the riots, tragically and shamefully equated soldiers who swore to protect the country, with traitors trying to set it on fire.

But Suleiman's feelings are the least of the country's concerns right now. The issue is not the presidency-- it is far greater than that, as many have repeatedly said. There is something terribly wrong in Lebanon. Criminals are on the loose, and gamblers are given free reign to gamble the country away. The economy is falling apart—the prime minister is on a world tour to beg for assistance, at a time when his enemies, Lebanon's internal enemies, show no sign of remorse. The people that could have built this land into a marvel are leaving. The financiers are pulling out. And it's all for what? For a stupid piece of land that is not ours anyway? For a chair? For some foreign country's fear of the rule of law?

Sadly, with the Lebanese unable to resolve this on their own, the world seems unable to give them more than words. The Saudis and Kuwaitis have fled Lebanon, leaving the Lebanese to endure more economic woes. Will they stand up to the Assad regime and punish it the way Lebanese are being punished? Assad has successfully placed economic sanctions on the country. Will anyone in this world impose sanctions on the Assad regime?

There seems to be an across the board rejection of war by the local players, and their foreign backers. But I'm afraid that there will come a time when there will be no other alternatives, if there is no decisive action taken against the likes of Assad. Mind you, Lebanon is not where romantic pro-freedom wars can be waged. It's a treacherous land that's part of a large swamp of things evil and sinister. The appeal of the March 14 "revolution" has been the dream of a country that celebrates life, and not death. This was the dream of many who unleashed their souls on March 14, 2005. A dream that increasingly feels very ambitious and unrealizable, when we remember who our neighbors are, and what our own housemates are doing to our very foundations.

Hizbullah to destroy Israel, after Lebanon

The headless martyr will return to avenge his death and inflict destruction on Israel "in the near future". So predicted Iran's top revolutionary guard, repeating what their man in the land of Cedars had barked days before.

The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards on Monday predicted that Hizbullah would destroy Israel in the "near future," the Fars news agency reported. "In the near future, we will witness the destruction of Israel, the aggressor, this cancerous microbe Israel" by Hizbullah, the agency quoted Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari as saying.

His comments came in a condolence message to Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah after the murder of the Shiite group's top commander Imad Mughniyeh, Fars said. "With the martyrdom of this true Muslim, the intentions of all revolutionary and combatant Muslims, especially the comrades of this dear martyr, will without doubt become firmer against the Zionist regime," Jafari said.

Nasrallah on Thursday declared "open war" on the Jewish state after accusing it of killing Mughniyeh in a car bombing in Damascus. Iranian First Vice-President Parviz Davoudi said on Sunday that Mughniyeh's assassination will not deter Hizbullah. "Let the Zionist regime and its supporters not imagine that Hizbullah would step back," Davoudi told reporters on the sidelines of a ceremony held to honor Mughniyeh who was killed in a car bomb attack in Damascus on Feb.12. (Naharnet)

It's clear to me that Jafari has never studied biology. But that's beside the point. Ignoring the puzzling declaration by the US's DNI on the identity of Mughnieh's killers, here's an elaborate account of Mughnieh's last days on this planet, summarized by Naharnet.

Britain's daily Times reported in its Sunday edition that the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, carried out the assassination of Hizbullah's top commander in Damascus through an explosive planted in the headrest of the driver's seat. The British newspaper said that Imad Mughniyeh was attending a reception to mark the 29th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian revolution the night he was killed.

"He had grown accustomed to living dangerously and there was no reason he should have feared for his safety last Tuesday as he sipped fruit juice at the party at the Iranian cultural center. Mughniyeh was on fairly good terms with everybody present – almost all the leaders of the Damascus-based militant groups were represented" the newspaper said.

It added "at 10.35pm he (Mughniyeh) decided to go home. Having exchanged customary kisses with his host, Hojatoleslam Ahmad Musavi, the newly appointed Iranian ambassador, Mughniyeh stepped into the night."

"Minutes later he was seated in his silver Mitsubishi Pajero in a nearby street when a deafening blast ripped the car apart and killed him instantly."

"According to Israeli intelligence sources, someone had replaced the headrest of the driver's seat with another containing a small high-explosive charge" the Times reported.

The British daily quoted One witness as saying: "I held his head in my hands, kissed him farewell. His face was burnt but intact and he had received serious injuries to his abdomen," in a hint that Mughniyeh's head was ripped apart from his body following the deadly explosion.

The newspaper quoted a close friend of Mughniyeh, Anis Al-Nackash, as saying that a Hizbullah retaliation to Mughniyeh's death will be "most likely… a one that had been planned and masterminded by Imad himself." Al Nackash, the newspaper said, confirmed that "Mughniyeh had prepared a variety of "spectacular" attacks to be executed by Hizbullah if one of its top leaders was assassinated. These were now being dusted off and updated."

The Times claimed that on the day Mughniyeh was buried Israel's Premier Ehud Olmert summoned Mossad chief Meir Dagan from his cottage in Galilee to Jerusalem. "It was a one-on-one meeting," said a source. But it is believed that Dagan was complimented by his boss and told that he would stay as head of Mossad until the end of 2009, the newspaper alleged. (Naharnet)

A Kuwaiti paper confirmed a list of targets was drawn up by Mughnieh himself, many months before he decided to sip fruit juice in Damascus.

A source close to Hezbollah told the Kuwaiti daily Al-Ray that the group’s list of Israeli targets was set by Imad Mugniyah himself. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah declared an open war against Israel in reply to Mugniyah’s assassination.

“After Israel threatened to liquidate Nasrallah in the aftermath of the 2006 July War, Mugniyah set a ‘bank of Israeli targets’ in reply,” the source said. It also noted that the UNIFIL forces are outside of “this game” and are safe.

“Hezbollah is ready to retaliate to Mugniyah’s assassination, but not in haste. It is waiting to target an Israeli figure as important as Mugniyah,” it added. The source said that Hezbollah is considering the effect of Israel’s open war on Lebanon, especially on its ally, the Free Patriotic Movement.

“It is as if Nasrallah was presenting his excuse to the FPM for knowing that it will not be able to follow along with Hezbollah in its open war,” the source said.

It also noted the possibility of Hezbollah taking over the situation in Lebanon before starting its war on the Zionists. (Now Lebanon)

So, according to the Kuwaiti paper, Lebanon's destruction would precede Israel's. How considerate.

Nasrallah, keep barking

Hassan Nasrallah is in a pickle. In 2006, he lost his front with Israel and has had to call a hole in the ground home. And in 2008, he lost the man who dug his tunnels and guided his fighters to their graves, among other things. The day before the earth shook in southern Lebanon, and as hundreds of thousands of Lebanese were braving rainy weather to bury his pretend alliance with Michel Aoun, he declared "open war" against his eternal enemy, thinking this latest cry of war would recreate the illusion that he and countless others have created around his "resistance party".

Nasrallah's threat to extend the geographic reach of his war failed to impress or convince anyone in Lebanon. First, note the big "if". The Lebanese prime minister rejected it, which is, even if the man is not acknowledged by the Hizbullah crowd, a far cry from the days when no one dared question Hizbullah's warmongering publicly.

"We have no interest in an open war... because this would harm Hezbollah, Arab and Islamic causes," Saniora told Future News in an interview on Friday... Saniora's comments came in response to a speech by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at the funeral of top Hezbollah security officiall Imad Mugniyah, who was killed in Damascus on Tuesday in a car bombing blamed on Israel. Nasrallah said on Thursday that if Israel wanted open war, "then let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

Saniora added: "We have endured a similar experience in the past and we do not want it to be repeated," referring to the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. (Now Lebanon)

Second, even his Christian allies distanced themselves from this open war strategy.

Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader Alain Aoun announced that the decision of war-and-peace should be in the hands of the Lebanese state..."No one wants ‘open war,’ and I think that the speech of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah placed the condition of ‘if they want war.’ What is required today is the restoration of rights as a means to prevent war and to bring peace to the region," Aoun concluded. (Now Lebanon)

Since the July 2006 war, and his occupation of downtown Beirut, the number of Nasrallah's enemies has been steadily rising to include at least half of the country he claims to defend. Don't expect anyone, in Lebanon or abroad, to thank Hizbullah for expanding the battlefield. Nasrallah never consulted the Lebanese before turning their land into a permanent war zone. And very few countries, even those with vehemently anti-Israeli populations, will stomach his perpetual Jihad.

Of course this assumes that Hizbullah did indeed restrict its operations to Lebanese territories. Nasrallah himself admitted to assisting Palestinian militias in the past, and Mughnieh, now exposed as an active part of the Hizbullah leadership, was reportedly involved in training the Mahdi militia in Iraq. What was he doing in Syria anyway, vacationing with the murderers of Lebanese politicians and al-Qaeda's facilitators? Nasrallah would like you to believe that by killing Mughnieh outside the Lebanese border, that this violated some unspoken rule of war that confined the Hizbullah-Israeli war to Lebanon. Well, wasn't it Hizbullah that kidnapped an Israeli businessman in Dubai in 2001? 

Nasrallah is now a fighter without a land to defend. His has prostituted his fighters to serve the goals of the Assad regime, creating a widening rift with the Christian, Sunni and Druze communities. The daily street clashes between his supporters and the rest of the population indicate that Hizbullah is quickly losing Lebanon. Nasrallah's only option now is to keep barking, and dreaming of his own little state. And it looks like he has less than a year before a tribunal is set up to call him to the witness stand.   

A turning point?

(Now Lebanon)

Mughnieh killing exposes Hizbullah

One is tempted to view the killing of Imad Mughnieh as a case of the "wicked witch is dead". Indeed, many who believed that he was behind the attacks on the US embassy and the US marines in the 1980s, have cause to celebrate his being blown up to pieces. Western media linked  Mughnieh to most attacks and kidnappings targeting Americans in the 1980s. Time Magazine even linked him to the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers in July 2006, which sparked a reprisal by Israel that even took the Hizbullah leadership by surprise.   

The reactions to the assassination, which took place near a Syrian intelligence office in the heart of Damascus, indicate that the man's assassination was a big blow not just to Hizbullah, but Iranian intelligence.

Hizbullah, which spent years trying to publicly disassociate itself from the man, is now mourning him as a resistance leader, vowing revenge and what have you. To now claim that he was an active member of the group is to finally admit to being an international terrorist organization that never really "changed" after the end of the Lebanese civil war, as many had convinced themselves. Mughnieh was practically an Iranian intelligence operative, and was linked to attacks in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. His assassination left Hizbullah exposed. The group that could no longer argue for the holiness of their weapons, could no longer claim their theater of operations is restricted to Lebanon.

Although Hizbullah officially blamed Israel, one interesting theory today was delivered by the leader of the anti-Hizbullah group, the Free Shia Movement.

President of the Free Shia Movement (FSM) Sheik Mohammed Hajj Hassan condemned the assassination of Hezbollah security leader Imad Mugniyah, saying that “Syrian intelligence carried out the operation as an attempt to assassinate Lebanon and incite civil unrest.”

Hajj Hassan also suspected the assassination was the first sign of a Syrian-Israeli deal and said that the FSM must reconsider their relations with the Syrian regime...  Hajj Hassan added that the concurrence of the assassination and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki’s visit to Damascus, and the site of the crime, are “strange.”

“Did Mugniyah control operations in Lebanon from a Syrian intelligence site? And are the assassinations and explosions in Lebanon linked to a cooperation between Hezbollah and Syrian intelligence?” Hajj Hassan asked.  Mugniyah’s assassination, he added, may be a Syrian attempt to evade the Special Tribunal.  (Now Lebanon)

The above sounds far fetched. Why would Syria kill an Iranian operative on its own soil? The New York Times argued that it could have been a case of "Intelligence agencies exchanging favors". I for one, find this hard to believe. The symbolism and weight of what happened, and where it happened, should not be missed. What is interesting about Hajj Hassan's statement is the link to the Hariri assassination. In this case, I see why someone might want to argue that Syria and Iran got rid of the agent who orchestrated the killing. But it's not like Mughnieh was acting independently. Let us not dismiss the possibility that he was killed by someone whose accomplishments will never be known to the public.

Even March 14 and PM Siniora condemned the killing. The March 14 condemnation reeked of insincerity. Not too long ago, Jumblatt accused Hizbullah of assisting Syrian intelligence in the assassination of the ISF counter-terrorism chief, Wissam Eid. It is ironic that Mughnieh, who would have been well placed and trained to have killed Eid, died a similar death. And in Damascus of all places.

The March 14 statement said Mughnieh's assassination should be an occasion for unity, especially that it took place on the eve of a planned demonstration to commemorate the killing of Rafik Hariri. Unity of what, I wonder. The two men had nothing in common, and worked towards opposite goals. Mughnieh could have killed Hariri for all we know. I would like to think that today, Hizbullah and March 14 became united in vulnerability. It could be wishful thinking, but why not.

Back to the dark ages

Arab information ministers have adopted a media charter prohibiting Arab satellite channels from offending Arab leaders, their fictitious Arab nation and the traditions of its dwellers, and God.

Arab countries, at the initiative of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday adopted a document which imposes "regulations" on Arab satellite television and bars offending their regimes.

Over the opposition solely of Qatar, the home of Al-Jazeera, information ministers of the 22-member Arab League voted in favour of the document...

It calls for the stations "not to offend the leaders or national and religious symbols" of Arab countries...

The Cairo document authorises signatory countries to "withdraw, freeze or not renew the work permits of media which break the regulations". It stipulates that satellite channels "should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values."

Programming should also "conform with the religious and ethical values of Arab society and take account of its family structure." Channels should "refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities."

Broadcasters should avoid "erotic or obscene material" or programmes that "encourage smoking or the consumption of alcohol," the latter prohibited by Islam. They should also "protect Arab identity from the harmful effects of globalisation."

Brilliant. Now let's go resolve that Lebanese crisis.

March 14 puts war on the table

In one of his most aggressive speeches since the civil war, Walid Jumblatt said March 14 will go to war against Hizbullah if that’s what the militia wants. “Our existence, dignity and Lebanon are more important than anything else. You want disorder, so be it.”, he said, addressing Hizbullah and the forces he said are trying to bring back Syrian hegemony. ”You want war, so be it. We have no problem with weapons, no problem with missiles. We will take your ready-to-use missiles. We have no problem with martyrdom and suicide.”

واذا كنتم تظنون اننا سنقف مكتوفي الايدي فهذا امر من الخيال قد نضطر لحرق الاخضر واليابس، وجودنا وكرامتنا وبقاؤنا ولبنان اهم من كل شيء. تريدون الفوضى اهلا وسهلا بالفوضى. تريدون الحرب فاهلا وسهلا بالحرب. لا مشكل بالسلاح، ولا مشكل بالصواريخ، ناخذ الصواريخ منكم جاهزة. ولا مشكل بالاستشهاد والانتحار، كفانا اغتيال وكفانا تخوين وكفانا تحقير، لا يا سيد ليس هذا من مقامك ان تطل علينا في كل لحظة بهذا الكلام البذيء، اترك الغير، الحائط وغير الحائط (...) من امثال الموسوي وغير الموسوي. كفانا حرب مفتوحة مع اسرائيل تحت شعارات زائفة خدمة لطموحات النظام السوري والامبراطورية الايرانية. كفانا مربعات امنية، كفانا رفضكم للعدالة. مفضوح رفضكم للعدالة".

Jumblatt also rejected Hizbullah’s “open war” against Israel under “fake slogans that serve the Syrian regime and the Iranian empire”.

Jumblatt’s speech is a departure from the Politics of Job that have plagued the March 14 movement since its birth in 2005. At the risk of reading too much into Jumblatt’s statement, there appears to be a growing belief that the crisis will not be resolved peacefully. Last week, Hariri declared that the movement is ready for “confrontation” with Iran, Syria and their allies if “dragged” into one.

Hariri and Jumblatt have been rallying their supporters to take part in a anti-Syrian demonstration in downtown Beirut on February 14th to commemorate the third anniversary of the Hariri assassination. Hariri has just announced that he will be donate some $52 million dollars to develop Tripoli, in an apparent bid to keep his large Sunni base in that city happy, and boost the number of participants.

On Saturday Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa left Lebanon after failing to broker a settlement allowing the election of Michel Suleiman as president. Michel Aoun, who renewed his vows with Hassan Nasrallah last Wednesday on national television, refused to budge on the demand for veto power in the next government.  Nasrallah’s Christian cover reportedly bragged about the “opposition”'s ability for obstruction from outside the government, suggesting that the parliament majority should not be afraid to give them veto power inside the government, given their power to bring the country to a halt without being in the government. An-Nahar reported inconsistencies between Berri and Aoun. The former had proposed a 10-10-10 power sharing formula for the post-election cabinet, something that Aoun said he wasn’t aware of. When asked about the inconsistency, Aoun reportedly left his meeting with Moussa, Hariri and Gemayel to make a phone call. He returned with “yes, but only if there is prior agreement on the identity of the next prime minister and top security officials”.

With Aoun reducing himself into a Hizbullah tool, and the patriarch calling on the international community to intervene, March 14 finds itself before an opportunity to be more aggressive. They probably have all the international support they could ask for to embark on an aggressive approach. The Saudis have finally agreed to fund the Hariri tribunal, and have grown exasperated with the Assad regime after the sabotage of the Arab initiative. Even Sarkozy, who had tried what Barack Obama is now preaching, is calling for a unified European voice against the Assad regime’s obstruction of the Lebanese presidential election.  And now, Jumblatt and Hariri are, for the first time perhaps, putting a military conflict on the table.

There are those who could argue that another civil war is inevitable. Nothing else will stop the Hizbullah machine and the Assad regime agents. In their response to Jumblatt, Hizbullah described his statement as an “ant threatening a lion”. I highly doubt that Hizbullah’s opponents can be easily crushed, as the Hizbullah official seems to think. Hizbullah might have a temporary advantage should a war break out tomorrow, but it stands to lose a lot in the long run.

Regardless of what will happen, it’s about time someone on the March 14 side showed some muscle.   

Obama, Lebanon and the myth of change

Someone got Barak Obama to comment on Lebanon. While he spoke against Syrian and Iranian meddling, and urged the disarming of Hizbullah, he also gave us this gem:

“Washington musts rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans,” he added. He also said that the US must cooperate with its European and Arab allies to sponsor an inter-Lebanese consensus on a stable and democratic Lebanon. (Now Lebanon)

Readers of this blog will find this painfully hilarious, and possibly indicative of Obama's ignorance of the situation in Lebanon. I don't expect the presidential hopeful to read Lebanese news every day, but really, the situation has gotten so repetitive that it should be clear that the above statement is at best moronic. What kind of diplomacy that has not been tried before by the "Europeans and Arab allies" will help Lebanon? I am not going to defend the Bush administration's policy in Lebanon. It may reek of "empty slogans" at times, but how does talking to criminals create solutions? And pray explain how supporting the Hariri tribunal, as Obama said he does, can be reconciled with chatting up the ones who killed him?

Obama's Super Tuesday speech could have been inspiring. "We are the ones we have been waiting for", he said. Despite its beauty, the speech reeked of the same "empty slogans" Obama complains his competitors inflict on people. Running foreign policy on the basis of "talking to those we don't like" makes the world look like an old episode of the Oprah Winfrey show with Obama filling in for Dr. Phil.

I, for one, am not waiting for Barack. His path is long and winding, and if Bush suffered of ignorance at the beginning of his first term, then Barack will not make up for it through fancy talk. The only "change" I see from a Barack administration, as far as foreign policy is concerned, is the change that will befall the naïve president, and that will hit his supporters like a slap in the face.

Our moment is indeed now, not when Obama learns the ropes.