Lebanon’s Bleak Prospect

Masha-allah Shamsolva’ezin, Iranian Middle East expert and editor-in-chief of several closed Iranian newspapers has talked about his concerns with Iranian Diplomacy. Shamsolva’ezin holds a B.A. in political sociology. He has also lived in Lebanon for years and is familiar with the developments of this country. To get a closer understanding of Lebanon’s events, he recently had a trip to this country.

 

Iranian Diplomacy: Mr. Shams, you have recently traveled to Lebanon. What are the sociopolitical differences between now and the time you lived in Lebanon?

 

Shamsolva’ezin: I think there are five major differences between Lebanon’s past and present.

 

First is the social polarization between pro-governments and anti-governments. The gap has become so wide that reminds me of the extreme polarizations which emerged at early 1970s, before the civil war broke out.

 

Second is people’s indetermination against the government. Political leaders are a cause of concern for the Lebanese nation. They fear that the leaders push them towards another civil war. Interestingly, some of today’s political leaders were commanders of paramilitary forces during the 1975-1990 civil war. So the people fear that if the political struggles end in impasse, the leaders may recall the nostalgia of the civil war and try to solve the political crisis through military clashes.

 

Third, Lebanese Shiites are incensed with the unfair treatment of Hezbollah after it brought Israel to its knees in a heavy war.

 

Fourth is that the political prospect of Lebanon is quite dark and gloomy after the recent crisis. No one knows when and how this crisis will end. But all express their concerns over its prolongation. This shows that some state institutions in Lebanon are unable to picture a promising future for the nation and there’s a looming threat of despair turning into absolution frustration which can lead to street battles.

 

Fifth is United States’ dual behavior in the region, especially in case of Lebanon and Palestine. You see, the US President and Secretary of State defend Lebanon’s young democracy and its government which faces a legitimacy crisis, arguing that the government has taken power through democracy and elections, but at the same time they refuse to support Hamas’ national unity government in Palestine and along with Israel they do their best to isolate this government and push it towards failure.

 

There are powers in the region, particularly Israel, who wish for another civil. We shouldn’t forget that it is the will of political sides to shift from a political phase to a military phase that starts a civil war. Such a will can’t be seen in political leaders of Lebanon these days. There is one about what I said at first. I said some of political leaders were paramilitary commanders during the civil war. Nabih Berri, Michel Aoun and Samir Geagea, major actors of the current crisis have been involved in the 1975-1990 civil war themselves. The futility of that war prevents them from thinking about another armed struggle. I think the factors needed for another civil war have not yet come into existence. So civil war isn’t that close.

 

Also the regional factors fostering the civil war are now weaker in Lebanon. The extraordinary presence of PLO in Lebanon as the shadow government has taught a lesson to all Lebanese political parties to quell external causes of crisis and solve the issues through diplomacy.

 

I don’t really think so. Vacuums are the outcome of crises, but the point is that the current crisis is not that severe to cause a vacuum. So that’s not so worrisome, especially if we know that Lebanese parties can solve their problems in one-hour if they want, but it is the interference of foreign powers that prevents a compromise. The regional powers involved in the current crisis have yet not decided to move towards a regional confrontation and materialize it in Lebanon.

 

Of course the vacuum that you pointed to exists, but it’s less intense than 1970s because there is the parliament, the representatives and something like a cabinet that provides services for people and enjoys international support. A balance of terror has been established that is more likely to deter the war rather than encourage it.

 

As I said, former military commanders have become political leaders. This prolongs the crisis. The common denominator here is that they won’t choose war as the solution. This is a safety factor for Lebanon and its political stage.

 

True that Aoun continued the war but he was also the one who ended the war. His resistance against the presence of foreign forces in Lebanon during the civil war wasn’t something to be ignored by observers. His current resistance against foreign presence shows that what he sought both in the civil war and the current political strife is freeing Lebanon from foreign mandate.

 

In possession of arms by a political movement or paramilitary force what counts is the mission for which the arms are held. In Western democracies in addition to army there are other institutions that provide security services, like the American Blackwater Co. that hasn’t been dissolved even after its crimes in Iraq.

 

By the same measure, when Hezbollah has defined its mission as preventing any attack by Israel, and it has no domestic objectives, there shouldn’t be any concerns about weapon possession; otherwise, the Lebanese Army must take advantage of their strength to reinforce its defensive power.

 

All countries that are prone to neighbors’ attack provide military training for their civilians in addition to army members, to use it when necessary. Such trends are recognized in Western countries since the ultimate outcome helps national interests. I think Hezbollah’s weapons must be negotiatied in national talks and they should be gradually delivered to a reliable government.

 

Sure. This has been the case for many years. The country has become the scene on which conflicting regional demands meet. Lebanon welcomes intelligence services and cultural innovations of all countries.

 You can see variety at length in Lebanon. This is somehow positive but it also leads to presence of many regional and transregional powers and collision between different groups; and it is Lebanon which pays the price.