Lebanon-Syria border’s key role

Assaf Orion, a retired Israel Defense Forces brigadier general, gave a talk last Thursday in which he discussed Israel’s border with Lebanon.

Orion said that Israel might take a preventive step due to Hezbollah’s growing arsenal of precision missiles. Hitting Lebanon might disrupt the group’s operations in the very short run, but in the medium and long term it would embolden Hezbollah and restore its legitimacy. Therefore, the US should deter its ally from any aggression on Lebanon.

Since the war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah has grown in strength. In fact, before 2006, Hezbollah’s legitimacy was in question. The alliance with the much-loathed Bashar Assad regime in Syria had put Hezbollah in a bad position. However, the hit by Israel renewed its standing. It also renewed the perception among the Lebanese that Israel was an existential threat — hence the need for Hezbollah as a resistance group. Since last October, with the beginning of the popular protests and their demand for accountability, Hezbollah’s arms and illicit activities have been brought into question. But a hit on Lebanon would again revive Hezbollah’s legitimacy.

Better than hitting Lebanon and making the entire country pay the price of Hezbollah’s agency to Iran is to break the Lebanon-Syria connection. Assad has a very close relationship with Hezbollah, which is why, when the Syrian revolution erupted, Iran rushed to the aid of Assad. The Iranians knew that, if Assad was overthrown, the link between Iran and Hezbollah would be broken. Hezbollah is the Islamic Republic’s prime success in exporting its revolution. It is the role model of all its militias in Arab countries. Hence, a better alternative to hitting Lebanon would be to cut Hezbollah’s supply lines. Controlling the LebaneseSyrian border is key to that.

Should UN Security Council resolution 1701, which states that UN peacekeeping forces should be deployed all along Lebanon’s borders, be enforced, it would be a step toward de-escalating and stabilizing a very volatile situation. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, in a televised speech last Wednesday, said that deployment of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) on the Lebanon-Syria border would achieve the goals that the 2006 Israeli assault failed to achieve. Nevertheless, the issue should be approached from an economic perspective and not a political one. A political approach to the issue would deepen Lebanon’s internal divisions, but if the move was proposed as a measure to fight smuggling and increase state revenues it would receive overall acceptance.

Two of the main conditions attached to any potential IMF bailout are fighting corruption and tax evasion. If the IMF was to ask for the deployment of UNIFIL on Lebanon’s borders to ensure the proper eradication of cross-border smuggling, then the Lebanese government could not refuse.

The US should pressure Israel and suppress Benjamin Netanyahu’s appetite for a full-blown war. It is better to take calculated steps and think long term. It is also important for the US to push for the scenarios that will reduce regional instability, not those that will increase it.

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying.

For full version, log on to www.arabnews.com/opinion