Putin meets Erdogan in Moscow

PUTIN HELPS ERDOGAN 

CLIMB DOWN FROM THE 

TREE WITH A CEASEFIRE 

AGREEMENT

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

ElijahMagnier,

7 March, 2020

President Vladimir Putin agreed to meet his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who came to Moscow seeking a ceasefire he could not announce unilaterally on the battlefield, where he has lost momentum. Thousands of Turkish soldiers were pushed onto the frontline against the Syrian army and its allies because the tens of thousands of jihadists deployed in Idlib and its rural surroundings were unable to defend Turkish interests in the northwest of Syria. President Erdogan came out of the six-hour negotiations at best a winner in some respects but with his wings clipped. President Putin skillfully showed the Turkish President the weakness of his case. Syria will remain united.

A well-informed source said that “Erdogan wanted a ceasefire in Idlib but could not announce it himself because it would have cost him dearly domestically. He lost the war when he failed to recover Saraqeb and recover the entire 70-kilometre-long highway linking Aleppo to Damascus, known as the M5. He wanted Putin to bring him down from the tree. The Russian President understood and saved his business partner from humiliation.”

President Erdogan agreed on the Astana agreement as to the basis for a deal, recognising the role of Iran, who will soon organise a summit of the three presidents. Putin and Erdogan did not agree on all points, in particular on Turkey’s desire to establish a buffer zone in the Syrian Kurdish province and to dislodge the Kurds from Ayn al-Arab.

Erdogan’s argument about the refugees flocking to his country was easily dismantled. Putin understands that Turkey is organising the transfer to Greece of Afghans, Somalis, Iraqis and other refugees along with Syrians. The Turkish aim is to pressure the European community to honour its financial commitments.

Most importantly, President Putin gave President Erdogan no room to manoeuvre on the M5 and M4 (Aleppo-Latakia road), the two roads that were supposed to be cleared in October 2018. Erdogan had established further observation points, unforeseen by the Astana agreement, to expand the control of Jihadists. The Syrian army liberated the M5 during the last months of battle when over 210 cities and villages returned to the power of the government forces. Erdogan agreed with Moscow to open the M4, now under the jihadists’ control. This is a significant victory for the Syrian army notwithstanding a serious doubt that the jihadists will agree to secure civilian circulation on the road. The Russian and Turkish troops are expected to patrol the road after the 15th of this month.

If Turkey fails to respect the deal and allows the reopening of the M4, Russia and its allies will not hesitate to regain control of it by force, but this time without the Turkish army’s intervention. Ankara sent its army to support the jihadists and stop the Syrian army’s advance. It has failed to do so. Erdogan came to Russia at his own repeated request. He can no longer rebuff his promises following the harsh battle of Idlib these last months. Putin sharply told him that death of the 33 soldiers in the convoy targeted in the last week of February was due to the Turkish army’s presence along with the jihadists and the failure to inform Russia of their position, as agreed between Russia and Turkey. Erdogan had no answer to this argument, which makes him accept both the responsibility for the death of his soldiers and the embarrassment of being in the company of jihadists he was supposed to fight against. Overtly, the Turkish President accused the Syrian army of all violations, to avoid domestic accountability for the death of his soldiers.

Putin pushed Erdogan to recognise his failure to follow through on his promise to separate the jihadists from the rebels, an apparent failure to respect the Astana agreement.

Will Turkey manage to separate jihadists from rebels? Will the M4 be cleared? It is no longer critical whether Turkey abides by its commitment. If it fails to do so, Russia will resume its military operations and will push towards Idlib city. Erdogan will no longer be in a position to defend his rebels and jihadists because he will be putting his army at the mercy of Russian and Syrian bombing.

Erdogan committed the biggest mistake of his life by pushing his troops onto the battlefield: he has permitted the Syrian army to bomb Turkish positions and destroy Turkish armed Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs, known as drones). The Syrian military collected Turkish military assets as spoils of war and killed Turkish soldiers and officers with impunity. The redline has been broken, and the confrontation can be repeated without hesitation from Damascus if ever Turkey fails to respect its commitment signed in Moscow.

After the Putin-Erdogan meeting, the jihadists are aware that Turkey is no longer in a position to defend them or their cause. They are left with few choices: fight and die in Syria or leave via the north-east where Turkey is still holding Syrian territory.

The fourteen Turkish observation points in the area liberated by the Syrian army will remain protected and in place as long as Erdogan wishes, courtesy of the Czar of the Kremlin who wants to avoid further humiliating his Turkish guest. Russia is taking great pains not to humiliate the Turkish President and is looking for his collaboration and a long-term relationship.

Putin was aware that NATO, the US and the EU had turned their back on Erdogan. The Turkish President came to surrender Idlib, save face, and ask for more concessions in north-east Syria where the US is still presently stealing Syrian oil. Putin left a door open to the Kurds for when, like the prodigal son, they return to the arms of the Syrian government. The Russian President is aware that the US cannot stay for very long in Syria. Therefore, he can’t give Erdogan any promise to support a long-term Turkish presence in Syria, notably when both Presidents agreed on and announced their respect for Syria’s integrity and unity. Erdogan contested Kurdish participation in the constitutional reform committee. This time he has accepted so that Russia can speed-up the reforms with the help of the Kurds. The goal is to help them come out from under the US umbrella.

A strong Putin offered his hand to the weakened Erdogan. His attempts to play on the Levant territory marked an incursion into the Kremlin’s arena. The Russian President is aware that the relationship with his Turkish partner must be handled very cautiously and that Erdogan’s promises cannot be taken at face value. But Turkey is also aware that Russia will hit harder the next time the Astana agreement and its annexes are violated, and that Putin’s allies in Syria will be more vigilant in any future confrontation against the Turkish army in Syria. One thing is sure: the jihadists have lost a father. Erdogan – who took upon him the spearhead role in overthrowing the Syrian state in 2011 – can no longer offer his protection but is himself looking to come out of his predicament with as few bruises as possible. The time has come for Turkey to leave Idlib.

Proofread by: C.G.B.

This article is translated free to many languages by volunteers so readers can enjoy the content. It shall not be masked by Paywall. I’d like to thank my followers and readers for the confidence and support. If you like it, please don’t feel embarrassed to contribute and help fund it for as little as 1 Euro. Your contribution, however small, will help ensure its continuity. Thank you.

The Iraqi Parliament has decided to ask for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from the country

IMMEDIATE US WITHDRAWAL DUE TO ITS VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND IRAQ SOVEREIGNTY

Elijah Magnier

EijahMagnier,

21 January, 2020

The Iraqi Parliament has decided to ask for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from the country for violating the terms of their presence. The US has broken its contractual obligations to the government of Baghdad and affronted the sovereignty of Iraq, jeopardising its stability. Sources at the Prime Minister’s office said “the request for withdrawal is imminent. US forces have violated the agreement. Therefore, the agreement is now null and void. The agreement had stipulated that US forces were to be given one year’s notice for withdrawal, but since the US broke the terms of the agreement, this time horizon no longer applies.”

Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi informed all countries with military forces in Iraq — the USA, and its coalition partners the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, Denmark, etc. – of the urgency that they initiate withdrawal as soon as possible. So far, I have learned, no country has responded positively to the request via diplomatic channels. Only the US has even answered the Iraqi government, openly declaring its refusal to depart. Tremendous pressure and intimidation are being applied to the government to persuade it not to carry out the constitutional decision voted by the parliamentary majority.

“I can only see one solution ahead: to inform the country that the United States is defying the will of the Iraqi people, and to declare the US military an occupation force if all diplomatic means are exhausted”, said the source.

US officials have overtly refused the lawful democratic decision of the parliament – the democracy that the US claimed to have imported to the country in 2003 – and insist on remaining in Iraq. US Secretary Mike Pompeo described the Iraqi decision as “non-binding”. Nevertheless, no foreign military force can stay in a hostile society, notwithstanding the number of military bases and the massive army power under its control.

The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general. Iraq would like to see these forces depart for good, putting an end to US influence in Mesopotamia and West Asia. A massive protest has been organised for this Friday 24th January, led by Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, who is warning the US of the consequences of ignoring this Parliamentary decision. It is expected to be the most massive protest in the history of Iraq. But this protest is only the beginning.

US forces have committed serious crimes in Iraq: according to Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi, the US Ambassador in Baghdad informed him of Israel’s responsibility for the five attacks against Iraqi security forces in mid-2019 and the drone assassination of a security force commander on the Syrian-Iraqi borders. These Israeli attacks were carried out with the knowledge and permission of US forces in Iraq, who allowed Israel to violate Iraqi air space and kill its security members. That attack made the US – who maintain control over Iraqi air space – an accomplice of Israel in attacking the US host country, Iraq.

In December 2019, the Trump administration committed another crime, disregarding the Iraqi government and killing more Iraqis intentionally and without any legal basis. US jets attacked Iraqi forces’ positions on the borders with Syria, killing and wounding 79 officers and members of the Iraqi Army, the Federal Police and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) brigades 45 and 46. The US singled out an encampment of the Iraqi Security Forces, who are based on the borders to hunt down ISIS militants moving through the Syrian-Iraqi deserts.

These forces are under the direct command of Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi. The US accused Iraqi soldiers at this encampment of attacking its K1 base 540 km away. The US had no proof that the dozens of officers its Air Forces killed in its subsequent bombing attack had been behind the killing of an Iraqi born US contractor at the K1 base.  The US even refused to provide any evidence of this when requested to do so by the Iraqi Prime Minister prior to the attack.

Thus, already in 2019, the terms of the US mandate in Iraq had been violated. Then the US very recently committed another crime against Iraq by assassinating an Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and three Iraqi officers at Baghdad airport. It further showed its contempt for international law by assassinating an Iranian Major General, Sardar Qassem Soleimani, and four Iranian officers (Brigadier General Hossein PourJafari, Colonel Shahroud Mozaffarinia, Major Hadi Taremi, and Captain Vahid Zamanian) even though the US had not declared war on Iran. Trump boasted provocatively about the assassination, bragging about “killing two for the price of one”.

Further evidence of US contempt for diplomatic protocol was provided by Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi, when he declared that President Trump had phoned him to ask his mediation to de-escalate tension with Iran. Abdel Mahdi said that “Soleimani arrived in Iraq at my request to receive a response from Saudi Arabia to Iran’s peace initiative. Trump killed a foreign officer on a territory he is supposed to protect and an envoy of peace who landed at the request of the Prime Minister”. But that is not all: it was public knowledge, as announced by Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari (11 June 2016), that Soleimani enjoys immunity in Iraq as an advisor – at the official request of Iraq – to fight ISIS.

It is inaccurate to say “Soleimani was plotting against US citizens just as he had done for years”. President Trump and his administration provided no evidence for such a claim. warmongering politicians and academics recall only the US occupation of Iraq and the support of Soleimani for the Iraqi resistance, accusing Soleimani of “having the blood of US soldiers on his hands during the US military occupation of Iraq”.

However, “the Security Council has not explicitly condemned attacks upon coalition forces—that would undercut the inherent right of self-defence against foreign invasion and occupation.” It is argued that “the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act (war)of aggression, and that those responsible for it are war criminals” (Mandel, 2004: McGoldrick, 2004).

Therefore, armed resistance against the occupation forces in Iraq at that time was entirely legitimate. The response of resistance, and its consequences for the US-led occupation forces, who in 2003 acknowledged their status as an occupation force, cannot be called an act of terrorism. Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani cannot be responsible for crimes against an occupier who never found the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that it had used as a pretext for invasion. The US invaded Iraq with no legal basis, causing mass destruction to the Iraqi population and the country’s infrastructure, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

We have now learned from the horse’s mouth why Trump killed Soleimani: the Iranian Major General was “saying bad things” about the US. “How much of this shit do we have to listen to? How much are we going to listen to?” Trump told his donors.

The US continues to allow Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to violate Iraqi airspace by permitting Israeli jets to bomb Syria from the Iraqi-Syrian borders occupied by the US forces at al-Tanf. Officials in Baghdad said “the US forces have no respect for their agreement with Iraq. For some time now, they have been behaving like an occupation force. This is not the first time this has happened. We inform Syria about it every time this takes place”.

The many crimes committed by the US in the Middle East, its violations of international law, and Iraqi sovereignty, in particular, did not begin with President Trump. But Trump and his team took things to a new level in 2018 when he renounced the nuclear deal known as the JCPOA that is part of UNSC resolution 2231. He didn’t like it because it was “ Barack Obama’s agreement”. Trump thus made the Middle East even more unstable and has brought the region to the brink of war. As he insists on keeping US forces in Iraq, he will one day soon have to explain to Americans why in the face of local resistance to the US occupation US soldiers are dying.

Proofread by: Maurice Brasher and C.B.G

Elijah Magnier: A new Middle East - without America?

Sometimes when I try to post sensitive material I get electronically blocked and have to look for other solutions.


This is one such case.


“The US doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil”. 

This statement has been taken by many Middle Eastern leaders as indicating the US government’s lack of appetite to defend their interests since many of these regimes base their yearly budget on oil income."
A NEW MIDDLE EAST 
“MADE IN IRAN” IS ABOUT 
TO BE BORN
Elijah Magnier

Elijah Magnier,

9 January, 2020

It would be inaccurate to say the US will leave the Middle East. However, it is certain that the assassination of one single man – the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani – is diminishing US influence significantly. This could not have happened without the (in) direct help of US President Donald Trump.

Trump is doing everything possible to undermine and degrade US hegemony in the world. He doesn’t need any help in this endeavour, but his advisors and cabinet members share his talent for mismanaging foreign policy and national security affairs. With this bad advice US relations around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, have been run as if by a businessman, used to negotiating and intimidating with little subtlety and altogether lacking diplomatic skills.

Every time Iran needs help, President Trump rushes headlong to boost its image in the world, particularly among the “Axis of the Resistance” and above all in relation to China and Russia. These two countries will now only strengthen their relationship with Iran, the country that has effectively and publicly challenged the strongest country in the world.

Targeting a base with thousands of officers and soldiers from hundreds of kilometres away and deliberately avoiding human casualties shows incredible self-confidence in Iran’s manufacture of their own missiles. Iran has shown the strength and technical ability to bomb the most powerful US base in Iraq with precision missiles and has now twice shown mercy by not killing US servicemen.

The first time was in June 2019 when Iran declined to down a US spy plane carrying 38-officers that had violated Iranian space during the “Tanker’s war”. The second time was yesterday when Iran deliberately chose not to bomb human targets at the Ayn al-Assad base hosting in Iraq, home to thousands of US, British, Canadian, Norwegian, Belgian and Dutch officers. Iran used precision missiles to hit specific military objectives avoiding human casualties, by contrast with Trump’s decision to assassinate an Iraqi commander (Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes) and an Iranian general and diplomat on a mission of peace (Sardar Qassem Soleimani).

The Iranian hit on the Ayn al-Assad military base exposed the weakness of the most sophisticated radar and interception missiles in the US arsenal. President Trump has long bragged about these tools like the “best in the world”. But the US defence system at the Iraqi-US base in al-Anbar (west of Iraq) was incapable of intercepting one of the 13 ballistic missiles launched. The consequences of this single act are devastating both to the US armament industry and to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

This strike has shown US allies in the region that the hundreds of billions of dollars they have invested in US weapons are an insufficient defence against Iran. These countries now recognize they have no real deterrence against an Iranian attack. This realisation will push the traditional enemies of Iran in the Middle East to bypass their differences and take the road to Tehran to regain good ties with the “Islamic Republic”. It should not be excluded that many countries would be tempted to buy Iranian precision missiles that must be much cheaper than the expensive US manufactured ones.

President Trump also sent a wrong signal when he announced:

 “The US doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil”. This statement has been taken by many Middle Eastern leaders as indicating the US government’s lack of appetite to defend their interests since many of these regimes base their yearly budget on oil income.

This brings us to another important point: Trump’s threat to Iran’s nuclear capability. Following the Ayn al-Assad bombing, it is clear the US will not be involved in bombing Iran any time in the future. The US has the destructive military capability, so does Iran. The lesson learned from the Iranian bombing is that Iran is ready to bomb and hit back US targets with great accuracy. Therefore, bombing Iran is off the table. However, Iran developing its nuclear capability is on the table. Tehran is likely to announce new developments in this area as we approach the anniversary of the US revocation of its commitment next April.

Iran has no choice but to totally pull out from the nuclear deal due to the incapacity and unwillingness of the European signatories of the Iran deal (known as the JCPOA) to honour their commitments, to offer Iran any alternative, and to confront Trump’s unilateral abrogation of the US treaty obligation. Such an announcement will be the Iranian “gift” to Trump for his forthcoming electoral campaign, providing political ammunition to Trump’s political opponents.

Trump has done everything in his power to unify Iran behind their leaders by imposing sanctions on the Iranian people and assassinating their general. Iran played the US sanctions skilfully when attacking tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, gathering public support for the regime and fuelling nationalist feeling. The US assassination of Sardar Qassem Soleimani brought millions onto the street and unified Iran under one flag: the return of Iranian dignity, power and sovereignty. Only Trump could have achieved such a critical goal, regenerating the Iranian regime at the right and most needed moment.

Trump’s call for NATO to assume its responsibility in the Middle East has been interpreted in the region as indicating a serious decline of US hegemony. The US President is showing his inability or unwillingness to deal with Middle Eastern affairs. This could reflect the incompetence of his advisors, or a strategic decision by the US to let go of its influence.

Iran showed its power as a regional country capable of facing the US in its most difficult state. There is little doubt the 40 years of US sanctions on the “Islamic Republic” were a total fiasco even with Trump’s “maximum pressure” of sanctions. It would be difficult to imagine the results if Iran was not under these sanctions all these years.

The US primary ally in the Middle East, Israel, is watching the events with a lot of focus. Iran’s threat to hit the US or Israel is real today. Not only that, throughout the years, Iran has delivered these precision missiles to its partners in the Middle East. Iran (or its allies) showed its capability in the most complicated and coordinated attack ever, as proved during the destruction of Saudi Arabia oil facility. Drones and precision missiles launched hundreds of kilometres away hit simultaneously their target. This spectacular attack was claimed by Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East that initiated its weapon supply and retaliation only in recent years. What about Hezbollah, the fully equipped and highly trained organised but an irregular non-state actor with 38 years of experience? Hezbollah has received precision missiles from Iran and deployed these on the Syrian-Lebanese borders under the mountain chain in underground silos. The Iran bombing of the US-dominated base in Iraq marks the end of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. Israel can see what Iran and its allies are capable of. It should maybe start thinking about a different approach towards the Palestinians.

The US President – who promised to end the “endless wars” – killed the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and the Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani believing he could win control of Iraq and achieve regime change in Iran. On the brink of triggering a major war, Trump has spectacularly lost Iran and is about to lose Iraq.

“Beautiful military equipment doesn’t rule the world, people rule the world, and the people want the US out of the region”, said Iran Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif. President Trump doesn’t have many people in the Middle East on his side, not even among his allies, whose leaders have been repeatedly insulted. Iran could not have dreamt of a better President to rejuvenate its position domestically and regionally. All Iran’s allies are jubilant, standing behind the “Islamic Republic” that fulfilled its promise to bomb the US. A “New Middle East” is about to be born; it will not be “Made in the USA” but “Made in Iran”. 

Let us hope warmongers’ era is over. The time has come to recognise and rely on intelligent diplomacy in world affairs.

Proofread by:   C.G.B and Maurice Brasher

The dangers of civil war in Lebanon

THE WORST-CASE 

SCENARIO IN LEBANON: 

CIVIL WAR

Elijah Magnier

Elijah Magnier

1 November, 2019

In Lebanon, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the ongoing anti-government protests might lead to “chaos, collapse and civil war ”. What is the scenario for a civil war? Is it a realistic possibility?

The Lebanese people think the current upheaval was triggered by monthly taxes imposed on the messaging application WhatsApp. In fact, this was only the most recent of a series of measures, starting with US sanctions on Lebanese banks and on wealthy individuals accused of having links with Hezbollah. Rumours – later confirmed by the US administration – spread in Lebanon that more sanctions were in the pipeline and expected to hit more banks and more Lebanese allies among Christian groups in Lebanese society. 

Many rich and middle-class Lebanese panicked at the consequences of the US targeting the country with even more sanctions, destabilising the banking system and destroying confidence, thus creating the risk of capital outflows. Many Lebanese withdrew their cash assets from banks and transferred their wealth outside the country. 

Notwithstanding repeated denials, Lebanese president Michel Aoun exerted great pressure on the central bank to keep the value of the Lebanese Lira at 1500 to the dollar rather than allowing it to skyrocket to an expected rate of 3000 – 5000 for one dollar. That would have consequences on the president’s reputation but above all on the local currency in a country that uses the dollar as the basis for every purchase, even in a café or a supermarket. Moreover, the Lebanese debt of $85 billion in a country that imports $16 billion and exports $2 billion and is infested with corrupt politicians was in itself a burden on the Lebanese Lira impossible to ignore. The deficit and debt approach 155% of the gross domestic product.

There are about 6 million Lebanese but between 8 to 9 million Lebanese live abroad. Many families rely on financial support from their relatives. But since the US’s strict and continuous persecution of Hezbollah and its supporters, no Lebanese dares to send money to Lebanon for fear of being accused of “supporting terrorism”. The US measures haven’t affected Hezbollah as an organisation that receives its finance on a regular basis from Iran. It has, however, hit Lebanese society, including those who support Hezbollah, and also commercial trade, which has slowed down significantly.

The real estate business has almost stopped with a significant devaluation of Lebanese assets in this sector. Small firms closed their doors and people struggle to make ends meet. Electricity is lacking on a regular basis, paving the way for the generator business but creating a burden on Lebanese families, who have to pay their bills twice every month. This is the same for drinkable water all over the country. The infrastructure is weak, trash collection and recycling are sporadic, traffic is dense, the sea is contaminated and the price of goods increases with little governmental control.

The accumulation of dysfunctionality of almost everything in Lebanon is pushing the Lebanese to unite and rebel against the unhealthy political system, which is sectarian. This critical mass is making Lebanese society very vulnerable to a worst-case scenario.

Many middle-eastern countries have stopped their usual monetary support to Lebanon- for a number of reasons. One important factor is the accusation of a “Hezbollah-controlled government”. In fact, because of the recent wars in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq and Yemen), Iran’s allies made key contributions to the failure of US-Gulf regime-changing projects in these countries, giving the upper hand to powerful non-state actors supporting similar objectives as Iran.

The US and Saudi Arabia are fed-up with the “Axis of the Resistance”: 

Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq. In no circumstances will they allow the expansion of these groups and their game-changing precision weapons and military power not far from Israel. Every single opportunity weaken this Axis has been used. Only one thing is left: a civil war.

The Secretary general of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned that the ongoing anti-government protests might lead to “chaos, collapse and civil war ”. What are the realistic prospects of civil war? 

The Lebanese Army receives light weapons – Lebanon is not allowed to receive defensive and offensive weapons that might impede continuous Israeli violations of its territory – from US and UK donors. They force the Army to stockpile the weapons received far from Hezbollah’s area of control; the Lebanese Army complies with the donors’ wishes, amassing weapons mainly in the Christian area of Lebanon.

The civil-war scenario is just a possibility, but cannot be disregarded. Nothing is factual, but there are parties who believe that the US and Saudi Arabia just waiting for an opportunity to bring it about.

There is no doubt, however, that the direction Lebanon is taking will only make Hezbollah stronger than ever. Iran is developing more sophisticated weapons suitable for guerrilla use that are shared with allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Therefore, the only possibility to distract Hezbollah and detract from the support the organisation is enjoying would be to engage it in a civil war.

Saudi Arabia is no longer injecting money into Lebanon because the prime minister, Saad Hariri, refuses to take a firm position against Hezbollah. Hariri cannot go along with the US-Saudi wishes because Hezbollah and his allies have the upper hand and the majority in parliament. But the US and Saudi Arabia can inject a lot of money into Lebanon, as in Syria, in an attempt to reach its objective- to turn a large part of the population against Hezbollah- even if the outcome is not guaranteed. 

If this happens, the best candidate to take up arms may be Samir Geagea, the former Israeli ally who is today financed by the US-Saudi team standing against Hezbollah. In this case, and if the course of events leads to another sectarian war between that in Syria (between Hezbollah and the pro-US “Lebanese Forces”) Hezbollah’s allies will not hesitate to intervene. Hezbollah will be the protector of the Christians who are not part of the Geagea forces.

 The Christians play an essential balancing role not only in Lebanon but also in the entire Middle East.

Iran brought to Syria allies from Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Lebanon. Those same allies that are still in Syria can easily move to Lebanon in support of Hezbollah.

Many questions will be solicited in this case: what will happen to the Lebanese Army? If Hezbollah and its allies take control of the army, will the world boycott and surround Lebanon as they did with Hamas in Gaza?

The Lebanese Army, under its current leadership, cannot intervene directly in favour of one side or another. However, its officers will be divided and personal initiatives will be taken, as  during the 1975-1989 civil war when the army was divided. The US will exert its influence to support those in the army who will fight against Hezbollah, a kind of the “Free Syrian Army” in Syria.

And if Hezbollah and its Christian allies win, the answer is simple: any war will definitely bring Russia, a superpower stationed just across the Lebanese border in Syria, to put an end to the conflict, and certainly not the US. Moscow has succeeded in Syria and can succeed in spoiling US regime change plans in Lebanon. It can develop Lebanon’s oil and gas fields and stop Israel from violating its sovereignty, thus bringing more stability to the region and preventing any exacerbation of the Palestinian conflict. 

On the economic front, Iran is building electric power and medical facilities and developing the pharmaceutical industry in Syria. It is eager to do the same in Lebanon. Iran has said it is ready to supply weapons to the Lebanese Army. Russia has renewed its offer to do the same- to no avail due to US pressures on Lebanon. Iran, Russia and China can also develop roads, communication facilities, reconstruction of the country and bring the country away from its medieval infrastructure. The Silk Road and a train service between all Lebanese cities and the outside world are on the table from China, ready to go when the US embargo on the Lebanese-Chinese relationship is lifted.

Hezbollah will remain stronger than ever, Lebanon’s only guarantee against Israeli attacks. Russia has its own policy and may want to keep some distance from the Hezbollah-Israel struggle. Hezbollah can launch missiles against Israel without fear of domestic opposition.

It is wrong to say a civil war in Lebanon would be to Hezbollah’s disadvantage- on the contrary! Triggering a civil war is not to Hezbollah’s advantage because the Lebanese have had enough of war. However, if and when such a conflict is imposed, Hezbollah will not lose. The question remains: Is the US aware that with every mistake it makes it is pushing Lebanon into the arms of Hezbollah?

Proofread by:   C.G.B and Maurice Brasher