Throwing Lebanon Under the Bus – A Lesson for Iraq?

Condoleezza Rice went to Lebanon to bless the new Beirut government. “Obviously in any compromise there are compromises,” she said cleverly. “This was an agreement that I think served the interests of the Lebanese people. And since it served the interests of the Lebanese people, it served the interests of the United States. We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon.”

Condoleezza Rice went to Lebanon to bless the new Beirut government. “Obviously in any compromise there are compromises,” she said cleverly. “This was an agreement that I think served the interests of the Lebanese people. And since it served the interests of the Lebanese people, it served the interests of the United States. We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon.”

Could she explain how the Lebanese people are served by giving Hezbollah, which shot its way into power, a veto over the government the people elected? Could she explain how the United States is served by the violent introduction of an Iranian-back terrorist group into the formerly pro-American Lebanese government? And could she explain why she called this an optimal time to raise the issue of Shebaa Farms, suggesting an American interest in changing Israel’s position on territory acquired from Syria in 1967 to the benefit of Hezbollah? Israel’s position – that Shebaa Farms is an Israeli-Syrian issue – is actually supported by the UN.

Clearly, as the Bush Administration draws to a close, some of its officials are tired of the hard work of supporting one’s friends – so they’ve gone to trying to appease the enemies of their friends in the hope that at least it will be quiet. Lebanon is being thrown under the bus by a tired America and – interestingly – by France and by Israel. President Sarkozy has invited Syria’s dictator, Bashar Assad, to be an honored guest at the Bastille Day celebration in Paris – never mind the Hariri murder investigation. And a prominent Israeli security analyst told a JINSA group during a conference earlier in the year that Israel never really shared President Bush’s enthusiasm for consensual government in the Middle East anyhow.

Given its fundamental survival goal, Israel seeks “stability” in the form of strong Arab regimes, which play by the rules of states’ behavior, while identifying the Arab “masses” with their strong anti-Israel bias as a threat. Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel, and have kept them for many years; but the elites in these countries – represented by their professional societies – are boycotting any contact with Israel. Syria has no peace with Israel, but its dictatorship has kept the border quiet for almost 34 years, and its behavior is predictable. And so on. We care less about the internal behavior of these regimes vis-a-vis their peoples. Hence, a Syrian control over Lebanon is more stable and predictable than leaving Lebanon at the mercy of its ethnic and religious rivalries.

Saddam was stable. But it can’t be that Scud missiles and a promise to “burn half of Israel” were preferable to the emerging multi-party, multi-ethnic Iraq. Iran seems stable under the mullahs. But it can’t be that waving nukes and calling Israel “bacteria” is preferable to regime change there – the Iranian people seem far less interested in the destruction of Israel than their government. At least, says the analyst, the Syrian border has been quiet. But the subversion of Lebanon and the creation (with Iran) of Hezbollah to harass Israel with a minimal Syrian fingerprint was the result.

So, realpolitik is the order of the day. A quiet Lebanon makes for happy neighbors and happy colonial powers. The Iraqis should take a quick and serious lesson from this – get your political house in order before we get tired of you, too, and start looking for compromises with Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army.