The Middle East Puzzle
Masha-Allah Shamsol Va’ezeen is an Iranian author and political analyst that has lived in Lebanon for years. From now on, Iranian Diplomacy will look at Middle East developmentew to the Midds with Mr. Shamsol Va’ezeen. This week’s discussion is about Sainte Claude conference in France with participation of Lebanese groups and return of peace to Lebanon.
Q: The Sainte Claude conference in a Paris suburb took place under complete media boycott. What’s the likely reason? Was the conference a failure?
A: France has asked Lebanese leaders to avoid statements which might affect the process of negotiations, whether positively or negatively, because of the complexity of the negotiations which even France itself hadn’t predicted.
This matter could be addressed in negotiations’ protocols. As you know in all negotiations a clause refers to the way the result of the negotiations must be reported. That’s something natural in diplomacy and Bernard Kushner’s statement that the participants must not give interviews is in accord with the negotiations’ protocols.
Q: France has rejected Iran’s proposition to start its bilateral talks with Lebanon. What’s the reason in your opinion?
A: France has adopted a new Middle East policy during Sarkozy’s presidency which starts from Lebanon’s case. As you know United States had sent Ms. Rice to Paris to request France not to invite Hizbullah to the negotiations. Sarkozy accepted the request and launched a diatribe against Hizbullah.
Consequently Hizbullah boycotted the negotiations and because of Hizbullah’s key role in Lebanon’s political structure, France had to revise Sarkozy’s statement and say that this country and the European Union wouldn’t put Hizbullah’s name on the list of terrorist groups. Therefore it seems that from now on a divergence between U.S. and France’s Middle East policies has formed which may lead to disputes.
In this framework France doesn’t want other countries to ruin the process it has triggered. France first wants to uncover the roots of the crisis directly, and then look for solutions. It seems one of the solutions would be talks with Iran because of its influence with the Hizbullah. Overall, we can say France is against the idea of bilateral talks between Iran and Lebanon because it may be too early and impair France’s preliminary steps towards a way to resolve Lebanon’s crisis.
Q: France’s F.M. has asserted that Lebanon’s crisis will be solved only by the Lebanese and not by the intervention of a country which deems Hizbullah as a terrorist group, by which they probably mean United States. Do Americans tolerate France’s role in Lebanon and accept the solution of Lebanon’s crisis by France? Even without Iran’s participation?
A: As long as it’s possible, United States doesn’t allow the opponents to enter its backyard. Lebanon is one of the places for which America follows the strategy that is set within a belief that all events are interconnected and interdependent. So, America doesn’t see Lebanon as a case apart from Syria and North of Israel but views all these cases as one.
But on the contrary, France considers Lebanon as a piece of Middle East’s puzzle, which can be separated from the general strategy.
France has put this test to practice; therefore it follows the strategy of providing the domestic powers in Lebanon with a central role for solving the problem, while America focuses on external powers’ role. It means that the United States believes the roles of Syria and Israel are more important than domestic powers in solving Lebanon’s crisis.
That’s why they include Iran in the solution of Lebanon’s crisis, Syria in the case of Rafiq Hariri’s assassination, Israel on UNIFELs in South Lebanon and Saudi Arabia on 14th of March alliance. That is, theUnited States uses major regional powers to put Lebanon’s domestic forces under pressure. Finally I have to say France moves from minor to major, while U.S. moves from major to minor.
Q: It seems that the power equilibrium in Lebanon is transforming. Analysts say the Fat’h-al-Islam is established to confront Hizbullah. What do you think?
A: It’s been for years that Lebanon is subject to transformations in power balance, which is directly affected by transformation of the balance of power in the region. Since institutions and political parties in Lebanon have been found in relation with religious sects, it seems that there would be no sustained solution unless we resolve the marginal crises, since Lebanon has got a pluralistic social and political structure which is indispensable from regional, religious and political factors.
I’m not sure if France’s intervention resolves the crises. See that with all its weight and credit, Saudi Arabia wasn’t able to put the Mecca Treaty into effect. They proposed the peace plan in the Beirut Summit but they couldn’t make it operative. All these are a message that the regions developments are inseparable. I agree with U.S.’s point of view that to be resolved, interdependent elements of the crisis, require inter-related procedures. Therefore Lebanon’s crisis can be resolved temporarily but not permanently.
Q: Some days ago some the media declared that Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador in America and the current secretary of Saudi Arabia’s National Security Council has a key role in supporting Sunni groups in Iraq and Lebanon. Also it is said that the Prince is the financial sponsor and in some ways the founder of Fat’h-al-Islam.
A: Generally in my analyses I don’t enter the interwoven sectarian structures. I believe Fat’h-al-Islam is the result of a security mechanism and it lacks social basis. So it’s an ephemeral movement which is going to meet the needs of one of the parties engaged in the crisis.
Fat’h-al-Islam will vanish as soon as Lebanon’s crisis is solved and it’ll be the victim of the changes going on between more important powers. Let’s not forget that in the political scene, major forces in Lebanon follow major regional powers. Regional powers must also negotiate with key world powers. The sudden entrance of organizations such as Fat’h-al-Islam into the equation is not a good sign for resolving the crisis and shows that the situation has gotten worse.
Fat’h-al-Islam lacks a social basis and parameters of a political institute, so it can’t change the power balance in Lebanon, stand against Hizbullah or become the Sunni cellular proliferation of Hizbullah in Lebanon’s political and social structure.
Q: Recently Israel attempts to get closer to Syria. If Syrians reach an agreement with Israel, what would be its impact on Lebanon’s political atmosphere?
A: I don’t think negotiations between Syria and Israel start over because of other unresolved crises between United States and Syria in Iraq and Middle East. The messages sent by Israel are to revitalize Ulmert’s shaky political situation after the July 2006 war.
Like the October 1973 war, Israel talks of peace after defeat. After the July war and Israel’s failure to realize its aims in Lebanon, it brings forward negotiations with Syria to neutralize this country.
On the other hand, if for any reason the peace process starts between Syria and Israel, its direct impact on Lebanon will be the pursuit of Syria’s Middle East policies by pro-Syrian groups and consequently a part of Lebanon’s crisis which is tied to Syria’s dispute with Israel will calm down and so the piece of puzzle related to Lebanon will move towards peace.
Q: How do you see Hizbullah’s future after Sainte Claude summit? Weaker or more powerful?
A: It depends on regional factors. As long as Middle East’s situation remains the same Hizbullah’s position in Lebanon will get stronger, enjoying the sensibility we are all aware of. But in case of transformation in regional equations Hizbullah will be influenced and would change its structure. In an optimistic view with the solution of Lebanon’s crisis Hizbullah will transform into a political force and its paramilitary forces will enter the army.