A WikiLeaks cable details a discussion that took place as pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups laid siege to Beirut and threatened the government of Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora, seen here with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Photograph: Ali Haider/EPA
Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.
The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world.
The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan.
It would have marked a return of US forces to Lebanon almost three decades after they fled in the wake of the 1983 suicide attack on US marine barracks in Beirut that killed 299 American and French military personnel.
Faisal, in a US cable marked secret, emphasised the need for what he referred to as a “security response” to the military challenge to the Lebanon government from Hezbollah, the Shia militia backed by Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria.
The cable says: “Specifically, Saud argued for an ‘Arab force’ to create and maintain order in and around Beirut.
“The US and Nato would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as ‘naval and air cover’. Saud said that a Hezbollah victory in Beirut would mean the end of the Siniora government and the ‘Iranian takeover’ of Lebanon.”
The discussion came just days after Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon laid siege to Beirut, threatening the pro-western government of Fouad Siniora, after 17 months of street demonstrations.
Siniora survived, though only after making enormous concessions to Hezbollah. He was replaced by another pro-western leader, Saad Hariri, but Hezbollah remains a force in Lebanon, lionised by many Arabs after defeating Israel in the 2006 war along the Lebanese border.
According to the cable Saud argued that a Hezbollah victory against the Siniora government “combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front would be a disaster for the US and the entire region”. Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was “entirely military” and the solution must be military as well. The situation called for an “Arab force drawn from Arab ‘periphery’ states to deploy to Beirut under the ‘cover of the UN’.”
Saud said Siniora strongly backed the idea but the only Arab countries aware of it were Egypt and Jordan, along with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.
No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding: “What would be the use?”
Saud said that of all the regional fronts on which Iran was advancing, Lebanon would be an “easier battle to win” for the anti-Iranian allies.
Satterfield responded that the “political and military” feasibility of the undertaking Saud had outlined would appear very much open to question, particularly securing UN agreement, but the US would study any Arab decision.
Saud concluded by underscoring that a UN-Arab peacekeeping force coupled with US air and naval support would “keep out Hezbollah forever” in Lebanon.
US embassy cables: Saudi prince urges need for ‘security response’ to Hezbollah threat in Lebanon
Wednesday, 14 May 2008, 09:24
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 RIYADH 000768
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 05/12/2018
TAGS IR, IS, IZ, LE, MASS, MCAP, MNUC, MOPS, PGOV, PINR,
PREL, SA
SUBJECT: LEBANON: SAG FM SAYS UN PEACE KEEPING FORCE NEEDED
NOW
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Michael Gfoeller for reasons 1.4
(b) and (d)
1. (S) SUMMARY. S/I Ambassador David Satterfield and an MNF-I/Embassy Baghdad team met with SAG Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal on May 10. While Iraq was the main topic discussed, Saud brought up events taking place in Beirut and emphasized the need for a “security response” to Hizballah,s “military challenge to the Government of Lebanon.” Specifically, Saud argued for an “Arab force” to create and maintain order in and around Beirut, which would be assisted in its efforts and come under the “cover” of a deployment of UNIFIL troops from south Lebanon. The US and NATO would need to provide movement and logistic support, as well as “naval and air cover.” Saud said that a Hizballah victory in Beirut would mean the end of the Siniora government and the “Iranian takeover” of Lebanon. END SUMMARY.
Lebanon: A “Military” Problem with a Military Solution
———
2. (S) Opening a discussion with S/I Satterfield focused largely on Iraq, Saud first turned to Lebanon and stated that the effort by “Hizballah and Iran” to take over Beirut was the first step in a process that would lead to the overthrow of the Siniora government and an “Iranian takeover of all Lebanon.” Such a victory, combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front, would be a disaster for the US and the entire region. Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was “entirely military” and that the solution must be military as well. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) were too fragile to bear more pressure; they needed urgent backing to secure Beirut from Hizballah’s assault. What was needed was an “Arab force” drawn from Arab “periphery” states to deploy to Beirut under the “cover of the UN” and with a significant presence drawn from UNIFIL in south Lebanon “which is sitting doing nothing.” The US and NATO would be asked to provide equipment for such a force as well as logistics, movement support, and “naval and air cover.”
3. (S) Satterfield asked what support this concept had from Siniora and from other Arab states. Saud responded that “Siniora strongly supports,” but that only Jordan and Egypt “as well as Arab League SYG Moussa” were aware of the proposal, lest premature surfacing result in its demise. No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding, “what would be the use?”
An “Easier Battle to Win”
4. (S) Saud said that of all the regional fronts on which Iran was now advancing, the battle in Lebanon to secure peace would be an “easier battle to win” (than Iraq or on the Palestinian front). Satterfield said that the “political and military” feasibility of the undertaking Saud had outlined would appear very much open to question. In particular, attempting to establish a new mandate for UNIFIL would be very problematic. Satterfield said the US would carefully
RIYADH 00000768 002 OF 002
study any Arab decision on a way forward. Saud concluded by underscoring that a UN/Arab peace-keeping force coupled with US air and naval support would “keep out Hezbollah forever” in Lebanon.
5. (U) Ambassador Satterfield has cleared this cable. FRAKER
WikiLeaks cables: Saudis proposed Arab force for Lebanon
Remember that Hezbollah move at that time was in FACT an (Iranian takeover of Lebanon) and it was and STILL related to the UN tribunal, what the Saudi suggest is absolutely Lawful, especially, as we all now know that reaction of the Army led by Suleiman at that time by staying aside play in the hand of Hezbollah plan, to be rewarded later by Hezbollah in backing him to become the President.
God bless Saudi Arabia, and if you Lebanese can do it without them: go ahead and start learning Farsi