The betrayal of Lebanon

What coverage there has been has presented this development as yet another round in the schismatic internal politics of Lebanon and of scant concern to us. On the contrary: it is a major development in the war being waged against the free world. Hezbollah is the irregular army of Iran and the means by which Iran intends to turn Lebanon into its proxy, pin Israel down from multiple belligerent fronts as a prelude to its annihilation, impose its domination of the region and thus win its war against the west. The counter-terrorism expert Oliver Guitta writes:

Iran's priority, as mentioned in the past few months by various leaders, is to turn Lebanon into a base from which it could attack Israel and the United States. Hezbollah has been rapidly rearming. It has now close to 45,000 rockets, more than before the onset of the summer 2006 war with Israel. Now that it is becoming clear that Hezbollah and Iran are in charge of Lebanon, what is the international community going to do about it?

What indeed. While Barry Rubin sees an analogy between Lebanon 2008 and Spain 1936:

Does anyone remember the Spanish Civil War? Briefly, a fascist revolt took place against the democratic government. The rebels were motivated by several factors, including anger that their religion had not been given enough respect and regional grievances, but essentially they sought to put their ideology and themselves into power. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy backed the rebels with money and guns. The Western democracies stood by and did nothing. Guess who won? And guess whether that outcome led to peace or world war.

The west has consistently stood by and done next to nothing about Syria and Iran. That’s why the Lebanese are in their desperate situation today (quite apart from the carnage Iran and Syria support and plan elsewhere). Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, 1.5 million brave Lebanese people took to the streets in protest against their Syrian and Iranian occupiers in the short-lived ‘Cedar Revolution’. Walid Phares has spelled out the price these Lebanese democrats paid in blood:

After the Syrian withdrawal, many leaders were assassinated because of their role in the anti-Hezbollah resistance, among them Samir Qassir, George Hawi, and Jebran Tueni, the charismatic leader of the youth and liberal MP. The areas that supported the anti-Hezbollah uprising were subjected to several bombings, leaving many citizens killed and maimed.

But in response America, Britain and the other whited sepulchres of the west did nothing to assist these people. Paying lip-service to the cause of democracy in the Middle East, they appeased its deadly enemies Iran and Syria instead. They never followed through on prosecuting Syria for the murder of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, and they never supported or put any muscle behind the popular Lebanese revolt against Syrian and Iranian meddling. America, Britain and Europe left Lebanon to swing in the terrorist wind — just as they have done to the democratic resistance in Iran itself, and to Israel, whose mortal enemies they continue to arm, finance, talk up and encourage. Having so completely betrayed both the Lebanese people and their own loudly-trumpeted principles, America, Britain and Europe now just look on in silence as Lebanese freedom threatens to go under altogether.

There is, however, a small ray of light in this darkness. For some commentators perceive that Hezbollah may have overplayed its hand in Lebanon, particularly against the Druze and the Christians. Walid Phares records the heroic stand being taken by 300 Druze who have succeeded in giving the overwhelmingly superior forces of Hezbollah a bloody nose.Lee Smith agrees that Hezbollah was actually beaten back in the area of the Shouf:

‘And so, the Party of God has achieved the 'great victory' of conquering a few Beiruti streets, terminating the credibility of the army, hastening the prospect of its disintegration, and damaging beyond repair for the foreseeable future, the Shiites' ties to the Lebanese social fabric.’ Hezbollah and its allies have won one small battle in a war that has just begun.

While Michael Young, op-ed editor of the Beirut Daily Star, is even more bullish in declaring that Hezbollah has bitten off far more than it can chew:

In 2005, once the Syrians departed, everything collapsed. The party [Hezbollah] found itself having to justify its private army against a majority of Lebanese that opposed Hezbollah’s state within a state and its lasting allegiance to the Syrian regime. In 2006, as the national dialogue prepared to address the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, Nasrallah sought to turn the tables by kidnapping Israeli soldiers and imposing his version of Hezbollah’s defense strategy on March 14. The plan backfired when Israel responded by ravaging Lebanon and the Shia in particular. And now, having fully discredited its ‘resistance’ the eyes of its countrymen, having ensured that an antagonistic population will be to its rear in the event of a new war with Israel, having weakened its non-Shia allies, Hezbollah, as both an idea and a driving force, is in its death throes. The party may yet endure, but the national resistance is finished.

Shrewd insight — or over-optimism? What is surely undeniable is the imperative need to defeat Hezbollah, and that America and Britain will either help bring that about — or will help strengthen it instead through continuing to pursue their lethally misguided strategy of appeasing Syria and Iran.