Hezbollah and Rafik Hariri’s Tribunal: Lebanon on the Verge of Civil War?

25 December 2010 | 14:18 Code : 9393 General category
By Mohammad Irani.
The current situation in Lebanon is best described by the adjective ‘erratic’. The accusations against Hezbollah members by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)—in charge of investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination in 2005—have cast a shadow of mistrust between two rival camps: the pro-West Saad Hariri-led 14th of March camp, and the 8th of March, spearheaded by Hezbollah. In his Thursday speech in commemoration of Hezbollah’s martyrs, Seyyed Hassan Nasrullah explicated the situation and pictured a daunting prospect for Lebanon’s future if any members of his party were convicted by the Rafik Hariri tribunal. His remarks indicate a failure in the joint efforts by Syria and Saudi Arabia to delay the release of the tribunal’s verdict, scheduled for the end of 2010. These efforts have come to no clear conclusion for Nasrullah, thus he is trying to prepare Lebanese society for the consequences of a likely scenario, one in which Hezbollah or its members are convicted for complicity in Rafik Hariri’s assassination. The tribunal’s verdict will place further pressure on Syria and force the country to step back from its support for the Shi’a group, a long-time aim of pro-West forces in Lebanon.

For many, the critical question is how will the political developments unfold if the tribunal leads to the issuance of another resolution against the Resistance and calls for stripping Hezbollah of its weapons (while the last two resolutions which had demanded Hezbollah’s disarmament had no actual effect)? It is not clear which body, whether international or Lebanese, will be in charge of decommissioning Hezbollah’s weaponry. Therefore, Nasrullah’s speech could be aimed at making enemies understand two basic facts: one, that nothing will happen even if the scenario above is triggered, and two, that Hezbollah’s response will be fierce if anyone tries to take action against his party.

Another civil war in Lebanon will not occur unless there is foreign instigation. Domestic violence is the last thing Lebanese groups are looking for. Despite Hezbollah’s upper hand in terms of arms, human resources, and control over Lebanon’s politics, regional circumstances do not allow for a civil war. Major Arab states such as Syria and Saudi Arabia are intently pursuing a de-escalation of tension in Lebanon and their collaboration can influence the final verdict of the Rafik Hariri tribunal. France, as an extraregional force with historical ties to Lebanon, also doesn’t want to witness fresh strife in its former mandate.

What the 14th of March is actually trying to realize is an American-Israeli plan. Clearly, the pro-West camp –just like Israel- does not favor the status quo, as it believes that the current trend only leads to the Resistance’s reinforcement and its transformation into the primary political actor in the Levant. Thus, the best contingency is Hezbollah’s involvement in political or military battles that will debilitate its power and chain it to domestic politics. Pages upon pages are added to the Rafik Hariri dossier to occupy Hezbollah with minor concerns.

Seyyed Hassan Nasrullah has also rejected transformation into a political party and a preferential status in Lebanese politics –suggested by many international organizations and regional states- and has underscored that Hezbollah is not trying to seize power in Lebanon. The Hezbollah leader is alert enough not to be trapped by the byzantine politics of his country.

On the other hand, for the increasingly weak 14th of March camp—which is witnessing the emergence of more rivals—enduring the status quo is difficult. Lebanon’s pro-West camp knows that if the current political trend in Lebanon continues, it will shrink into a minor actor in domestic politics.

Another key actor in Lebanon, the United States, views Lebanon as a part of its Middle East package, one that includes the Palestine-Israel conflict, the troop withdrawal from Iraq, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and Iran’s nuclear program. Nevertheless, U.S. problems are not a concern of the Israelis and Lebanese. Washington knows that if it wants to follow its own Middle East plans, fueling domestic tension in Lebanon is a big mistake. As such, their incendiary remarks should not be taken that seriously.

* Mohammad Irani is Iran’s former ambassador to Lebanon.