Lebanon has yet to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran — but it will unless we start supporting its independent-minded, pro-democracy forces.
During Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s monumental Lebanon visit last week, the Iranian president reportedly invited Prime Minister Saad Hariri to join hands in an alliance of “six peoples in the region.” But the Beirut newspaper An-Nahar also reports that Hariri (who’s backed by the Saudis, among others) turned him down.
The paper — known as a cheerleader for the 2005 Cedar Revolution — may have overemphasized Hariri’s courage in standing up to Ahmadinejad. Still, the account reminds us that enough people — at least half of Lebanon’s population — shudder at the idea that their country would become a cog in an axis devoted to spreading by the sword the Iranian brand of Islamic revolution.
But there’s Lebanon’s other half. Throngs of adoring crowds greeted Ahmadinejad, waving Iranian flags and hanging flattering posters of their guest from their balconies. These people see Iran as their savior and a benefactor with a pocketful of goodies, to boot. (Iran financed the quick recovery of south Lebanon after the 2006 war as it was rearming its proxy army, Hezbollah.)
It’s easy to get lost in the Lebanese sectarian map, where major players switch alliances with insane frequency. The Druze chieftain Walid Jumblat, most notably, can be fiercely anti-Syrian one day — and on the next, kiss President Bashar Assad’s ring in Damascus. Christian leader Michel Aoun once fled to Paris to escape punishment for his anti-Syrian subversion — but later returned as Assad’s strongest Lebanese ally.
But take one step back from the trees, and you may be able to recognize a more comprehensive map of the cedar forest. For a fleeting moment in 2005, a broad coalition of Lebanese joined hands to shake off the Syrian occupation and emerge as a sovereign country dedicated to democracy, peace and prosperity.
That dreamy moment was largely ignited by what many Americans now see as a foreign-policy nightmare: the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s clear-throated pronouncements of democracy, freedom and, yes, hope and change, for a region that has never experienced them.
Bush policy soon after took a turn to the realpolitik — downplaying its revolutionary message for the region. And President Obama has been the anti-Bush — trying to tame Syria and Iran by sweet-talking them. The young, Western-leaning people who five years ago flooded Beirut’s streets gave way to the gun-toting Hezbollah and the Iranian-inspired “resistance.”
After all, Washington isn’t all that inspiring these days. State Department Spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters last week that Ahmadinejad’s Lebanon visit “is a provocation that continues to undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon and the security of the region.”
Gee, you think? And that was the administration’s lone public reaction to an event that much of the region perceived as a major step toward an Iranian takeover of Lebanon.
Such detached commentary will do nothing to rally resistance to Iran’s imperialism. Hezbollah, which is controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, already marched on Beirut two years ago, threatening to crush any Lebanese who might stand in Tehran’s way.
What the Lebanese people need is some inspiration from the West: a show of support that would revive their will to resist Iran and any other neighboring powers that might want to use their country. Only America can give them that hope — but not if Obama tells Lebanon no, you can’t and plays let’s make a deal with Tehran instead.
As long as we prefer a neutral stance over publicly declaring our support for the few Lebanese still willing to stand publicly with us, any sane man in Beirut might as well cut the best deal he can — even if it means turning the keys to his country over to the mullahs.
beavni@gmail.com