Close Menu
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    Middle East Transparent
    • Home
    • Categories
      1. Headlines
      2. Features
      3. Commentary
      4. Magazine
      Featured
      Headlines Yusuf Kanli

      Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home

      Recent
      23 July 2025

      Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home

      22 July 2025

      Lebanese Central Bank Lands a Blow on Hezbollah’s Finances, but It’s Not Enough

      22 July 2025

      Druze Revolts, Then And Now

    • Contact us
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Middle East Transparent
    You are at:Home»Power plays between friends in Beirut

    Power plays between friends in Beirut

    0
    By Michael Young on 5 April 2010 Uncategorized

    No one could fail to notice that it was a Syrian spokesperson, Wi’am Wahhab, who spilled the beans recently about Hizbullah members being called in for questioning by investigators working on behalf of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. It was also Wahhab alone who mentioned the possibility of a link between the late Imad Mughniyeh and the Hariri assassination. This has raised interesting questions about what Syria is trying to achieve.

    Of course, Wahhab’s professed purpose was to warn against what an accusation directed against Hizbullah might mean for Lebanon’s stability. This has been a recurrent theme sounded by the Syrians and their allies in recent years. However, party officials must also have suspected that Wahhab’s comments, by providing information no one else had, threw the light, uncomfortably, on Hizbullah to avoid it falling elsewhere.

    Beyond the tribunal, there are other dynamics at play specifically related to the Syria-Hizbullah relationship. In its effort to reassert its hegemony in Lebanon, Damascus has not only sought to wear down its one-time adversaries in March 14; it also seems to be looking for ways to tighten its control over its more autonomous allies, above all Hizbullah.

    It’s not difficult to grasp why. In the five years after Syrian soldiers left Lebanon in April 2005, the party became the pre-eminent defender of Syria’s interests in Lebanon. With no soldiers on the ground the regime of President Bashar Assad had to watch as Iran’s sway over events in Beirut increased, because although Hizbullah remained close to Syria, there was never any question that it was, above all, an Iranian venture.

    For Assad, this was unwelcome. From the moment his men left Lebanon, his ambition was to recover the country as a Syrian card in regional politics. But if it was Iran that was primarily calling the shots, because Syria remained so dependent on the pro-Iranian Hizbullah to defend its Lebanese stakes, all that really meant was that Assad was a secondary player in Lebanon. That is, until the Saudis came to the rescue.

    In February 2009, King Abdullah “reconciled” with Assad at an Arab economic summit in Kuwait. After having spent more than three years trying to isolate Syria regionally, only to see Saudi Arabia itself become more isolated, the kingdom’s leadership concluded that it was time to change tack. With Iran gaining power and developing a nuclear capability, and Iraq perceived as being under the control of a Shiite regime, the Saudis decided that Lebanon was a distraction worth dispensing with.

    What appears to have emerged from that rapprochement is a quid pro quo with Syria, explicit or more likely implicit: the Syrians would be granted considerable leeway in Lebanon, in the process containing Hizbullah, while Syria and Saudi Arabia could find common ground in looking the other way on Iraq’s destabilization, each for its own reasons. A byproduct of the understanding was that Saad Hariri, if he became prime minister, would visit Damascus in the context of a lowering of hostility between Lebanon and Syria. This could be placed under the rubric of “Arab solidarity.”

    While Syria has done almost nothing to curb Hizbullah, the Saudi calculation may have been more subtle. In handing Assad great latitude to impose Syrian priorities on the party, Riyadh probably took the minimalist view that it was better to have an Arab state in charge in Lebanon than Iran. That hard-nosed assessment preserved little of the sporadic sovereignty that Lebanon enjoyed after 2005, but the Saudis were too preoccupied with the future of their own regime to pay much heed to this.

    That is where the Hariri tribunal comes in. Although the Syrians want to ensure that the investigation does not harm them or Hizbullah, the situation offers political opportunities. A Hizbullah feeling the heat, even if this is unjustified, is also one more vulnerable to Syrian power plays in Lebanon. Assad and party officials have denounced prosecutor Daniel Bellemare’s investigation as politicized; they have raised the pressure on him by warning that indictments might carry Lebanon into a new civil conflict; and they will both use the ensuing fears to politically emasculate Hariri, who will find it difficult to approve measures that might threaten civil peace.

    But within this complex game is another one, whereby the mere prospect of an accusation against Hizbullah makes the party doubly exposed: toward its traditional enemies such as the United States and Israel; but also toward Syria, which could make Hizbullah more beholden to it by using its weight in Beirut to ensure that the Lebanese government defends the party’s innocence. Syria’s developing rapport with Hizbullah would bring home that Hizbullah now needs Syria to protect its margin of maneuver in Lebanon rather than the other way around following the Syrian departure.

    This does not mean that Syria and Hizbullah are on a collision course. Both share multiple aims. Wahhab’s recent criticism of Michel Sleiman was perhaps, in part, a sign of Syrian displeasure with the president’s endorsement of municipal elections, which Hizbullah wanted to postpone. Both Syria and the party are collaborating to control the Palestinian camps by marginalizing officials recently appointed by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. For Assad to depict Hizbullah as a problem that only Syria can resolve, he must give the party room to be a problem.

    That is why we should understand statements by Hizbullah officials as addressed both at the party’s foes and, somewhere, at Syria. Hizbullah does not relish becoming a Syrian bargaining chip once again, even if it has no choice but to cooperate with Damascus. But the grip is tightening on all.

    Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Copy Link
    Previous ArticlePeace Without Religion
    Next Article Pakistani Sikh returns home without converting to Islam

    Comments are closed.

    RSS Recent post in french
    • « Vers le sauvetage »: Pour mettre fin à l’hémorragie chiite… et lancer le redressement économique 18 July 2025 Nahwa al Inqaz
    • Du Liban indépendant et de son « héritage syrien » (avec nouvelles cartes) 8 July 2025 Jack Keilo
    • Nouvelle approche des Forces Libanaises: Alliances ou Endiguement ? 5 July 2025 Kamal Richa
    • Ce que nous attendons de vous, Monsieur le Président 3 July 2025 Michel Hajji Georgiou
    • Il faut être pour Nétanyahou lorsqu’il affaiblit la menace iranienne ; et ardemment contre lui lorsqu’il détruit Gaza 1 July 2025 Denis Charbit
    RSS Recent post in arabic
    • معركة تركيا ضد التقسيم في الخارج مقابل مُغازلة “الأَعراق” في الداخل! 24 July 2025 يوسف كانلي
    • انسحاب القوات الأميركية من المنطقة غير وارد 24 July 2025 هدى الحسيني
    • لكي ينجو اليسار العالمي من الانقراض: “الوصايا العشر”! 24 July 2025 سعيد ناشيد
    • هل يُستدعى “جبران باسيل” للمثول امام القضاء؟ 23 July 2025 خاص بالشفاف
    • الشَعرة التي انقَطَعت في السُويداء 23 July 2025 سلمان مصالحة
    26 February 2011

    Metransparent Preliminary Black List of Qaddafi’s Financial Aides Outside Libya

    6 December 2008

    Interview with Prof Hafiz Mohammad Saeed

    7 July 2009

    The messy state of the Hindu temples in Pakistan

    27 July 2009

    Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany Apeal to the World Conscience

    8 March 2022

    Russian Orthodox priests call for immediate end to war in Ukraine

    Recent Comments
    • Khaled Mahrouq on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    • Edward Ziadeh on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    • Giant Squirrel on Holier Than Thou: Politics and the Pulpit in America
    • Edward Ziadeh on As Church awaits a Conclave, President Trump puts up picture of himself as next Pope
    • Victoria Perea on As Church awaits a Conclave, President Trump puts up picture of himself as next Pope
    Donate
    Donate
    © 2025 Middle East Transparent

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    loader

    Inscrivez-vous à la newsletter

    En vous inscrivant, vous acceptez nos conditions et notre politique de confidentialité.

    loader

    Subscribe to updates

    By signing up, you agree to our terms privacy policy agreement.

    loader

    اشترك في التحديثات

    بالتسجيل، فإنك توافق على شروطنا واتفاقية سياسة الخصوصية الخاصة بنا.