Lebanon crisis ‘more about Saudi than Iran’
● Israel sees Lebanon as a failed state
ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE believes that the political crisis engulfing Lebanon is more likely to be the result of Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s troubled relations with Saudi Arabia than Iranian interference in the country.
But both Mossad and the IDF have been warning for the past year that Hezbollah, the Shia militant group sponsored by Iran, has deepened its hold on Lebanon’s government and especially its armed forces. Footage supplied to Washington this year shows Hezbollah fighters in Syria using weapons supplied originally to the Lebanese army by the United States.
Mr Hariri caused widespread surprise when he resigned in a televised statement on November 4 from Riyadh, saying that he feared for his life. But Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun said he would not accept the resignation until Mr Hariri returned home to Lebanon — which he has yet to do.
In a stark message, Mr Aoun accused Saudi Arabia of detaining Lebanon’s prime minister in violation of human rights law.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the crisis in Lebanon by flagging up the role of Iran: “This is a wake-up call to the international community to take action against Iranian aggression,” he said in a statement after the resignation.
But in the days since, the view has developed that the key lies in Mr Hariri’s relations with the Saudis.
Israeli intelligence sources say that, while the Saudi leadership may have expected Mr Hariri to assert some control
over Hezbollah, Israel has long regarded Lebanon as a failed state where Iran and its proxies hold sway.
The chief concern now is that the situation in Lebanon will be replicated in Syria, where planning for the aftermath of the civil war is well under way and Hezbollah and Shia deployments risk becoming permanent Iranian bases for missiles, radar and fighter-jets.
Prior to the civil war, President Bashar al-Assad did not allow operations against Israel from Syrian territory, ensuring that a ceasefire has held on the Golan Heights since 1973.
But Iran provided steadfast military and economic support to the Assad regime throughout the conflict and has since secured the rights to build an air and naval base on Syrian territory in return. Israeli officials say a US-Russian agreement signed last week in Jordan on “de-escalation zones” in southern Syria does not provide clear assurances to Israel that Iranian forces will not operate close to its border. In any event, however, Iranian missile batteries and air-bases would still be capable of striking Israeli targets even if they were stationed deep within Syria.
“Israel will continue to operate in Syria, including in southern Syria, according to our understanding and our security needs,” Mr Netanyahu told the Knesset on Monday. “Iran knows that we will not agree to their entrenchment in Syria.”
The message was clear: Israel is not about to let Syria become another Lebanon.
TWO WEEKS on, Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s surprise resignation is still sending shockwaves far beyond his native Lebanon.
Mr Hariri said he intended to create a shock to highlight Hezbollah’s increasing control over Lebanon’s foreign policy and Iranian interference in Beirut’s domestic affairs. The Shia group — backed by Iranian leadership — moved quickly to deflect the negative attention, attempting to focus on the admittedly unusual circumstances of the resignation.
In hindsight, Mr Hariri’s departure is no surprise. He reentered office in December 2016 having secured the election of Lebanese president Michel Aoun. The two men enjoyed a good personal relationship despite Mr Aoun being a decade-long ally of Hezbollah. Mr Hariri was willing to make the compromise of a cabinet dominated by Hezbollah allies to end Lebanon’s two-year presidential vacuum; it resulted in political stagnation and delegitimized the republic to Hezbollah’s advantage.
However, a year later, it was Mr Hariri alone who had made compromises — concessions that now appeared more like capitulations. Not only did this harm Lebanon, it eroded his support among his Sunni base and threatened to cause irreparable harm to his political alliances. However, it appears the final straw came after Mr Aoun and his son-in-law, Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, refused to respond to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani boasting of Iran’s control over Lebanon.
Mr Aoun, a former Lebanese Army General, had placed his alliance with Hezbollah above his duties to the Lebanese republic and Mr Hariri likely realised the depth of his mistake.
Within a week, Mr Hariri was in Saudi Arabia for consultations. Five days after that, back in Beirut, he met Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s foreign policy advisor, who boasted of Iran’s guardianship over Lebanon’s stability and lumped the country into the Iranian-dominated “Resistance Axis.”
The normally soft-spoken Mr Hariri then abruptly returned to Riyadh and resigned in a sharply-worded speech saying he was under threat of assassination in Lebanon. Implicitly referencing Mr Aoun’s silence, he said he could no longer abide by a situation where Iran controlled Lebanon’s critical “power junctures,” and possessed the “final and deciding word,” in Beirut through its proxy Hezbollah.
Hezbollah found itself in the negative spotlight, accused by a prime minister whose performance and compromises even it lauded of harming Lebanon in service of Iranian interests.
In two relatively conciliatory speeches, Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah denied Mr Hariri was under threat of assassination, blamed Riyadh for his resignation and its content, and accused the Kingdom of holding him hostage. Mr Nasrallah also claimed to know the Saudis were goading Israel to attack Lebanon, and were orchestrating a coup against Mr Hariri within his own Future Party.
He has promised to return to Lebanon by the end of the week. In the meantime, little can be said about his next moves or motives beyond taking his words at face value. The rest remains speculative, distracting from the most important part of Mr Hariri’s resignation: his warning against the danger Iran and Hezbollah pose to Lebanon’s sovereignty.