Beirut Is Burning
If there were ever a perfect example of the Bush administration's utterly bankrupt, and provably impotent, foreign policy, it would have to be the State Department's reaction to events in Beirut over the last few days. The laughably weak U.S.-backed Lebanese government, in what can only be described as a moment of insanity, decided last week to take on Hezbollah by cutting off their private telephone network, an act that Hassan Nasrallah, perhaps the Arab world's most popular leader, described as an act of war. And war he brought, completely taking over West Beirut in a matter of hours, and humiliating the hapless pro-Western government and its allies. And what was the U.S. up to as Beirut burned? This, according to the New York Times:
"Ms. Rice and other Bush administration officials were on the phone Friday with their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. A senior administration official said the United States, which barely talks to Syria, Iran or Hezbollah, which the Bush administration considers a terrorist organization, was trying to use its Arab allies to send a message to Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon."
Trying to use its Arab allies to send a message to Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon. Hmm. I'm sure Supreme Leader Khamenei is quaking in his slippers, and President Assad in his bespoke brogues. Hezbollah was indeed created by Iran in the early eighties, and has been supported by her and Syria ever since (and it might be good to remember that one of Sheikh Nasrallah's official titles, perhaps his most important, is "Representative of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in Lebanon." That would be Ayatollah Khamenei. And Hezbollah's flag shares a symbol with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, their mentors.) But Hezbollah, which in the minds of at least most of the Muslim World handed Israel it's first real military defeat, this week proved what everyone, except the Bush administration and the Lebanese government, already knew: there will be no peace in Lebanon, nor will there be real peace between Lebanon and Israel, without Hezbollah. And yet our government will not speak to Hezbollah, nor will it speak to its creator, Iran. It can pick up the phone, however, and beg its Arab allies to ask Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon. Does that message come with a please? Does America still really believe that Iran is afraid of her?
A couple of months ago, after the latest UN resolution on Iran's nuclear program passed, I was chatting with a senior Iranian diplomat. He asked me if I thought America really believed that Iran, or Iranians, were afraid of the U.S. "Don't they know us?" he asked. He asked another diplomat in the room to tell me how old he was when he went to the front during Iran-Iraq war. "Sixteen," replied the other diplomat. "And how old was your brother when he was martyred at the front?" continued the first diplomat. "Fourteen," was the soft reply, and I saw the diplomat fight back tears. "This," said the first diplomat, making a gesture, "is who we are. We have seen the worst. Do you think we're now afraid of anything? Do the Americans really think that threats will work on us?"
Send a message...stop interfering in Lebanon. And this is what American foreign policy has come to. There are still three candidates in the U.S. presidential race, and two of them would continue the Bush foreign policy with respect to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Senator Barack Obama, however, who has indicated that he would at least speak to our adversaries, might be able to do more than just beg, through intermediaries, that they stop embarrassing us.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hezbollah will own Lebanon because Liberals will not support Israel.
Liberals are for justice for all. Is that against Israel?
Some liberals want justice, but many do not. And as the late William F. Buckley observed, anti-Semitism was a part of the conservatuve movement in the past, but it is currently a resident on the left.
Wiser,
Thats what got us in this mess to begin with. Justice for our country period and that excludes Israel and the rest of the world period. The store is closed to other countries. Damed if we do and damned if we dont. I pick damned if we dont.
Time for real change.
Go Obama
Not at all, in theory. But in practice, it tends to be: justice for all except Israel. Where is the justice in daily rockets falling in southern Israel? Where is the justice in the UN Human Rights Council that between 2006 and 2007, condemned Israel 22 times and yet failed to mention Darfur or Sudan even once, where a widely perceived genocide is currently taking place. Liberals oftentimes choose sides, which currently means being anti-Israel.
As for history-the US largely stayed out of the Middle East and Israel for a long time. Truman, after acknowledging Israel as a country, refused to help the fledgling state when her Arab neighbors invaded in 1948 and enacted an arms embargo which hurt Israel immensely. Throughout American history, many presidents did not hesitate to condemn Israeli actions (both publicly and in the UN) nor withhold aid, loans, and supplies. Originally, the Palestinians did not want a state separate from Israel, and the surrounding Arab countries, instead of helping them to build their state, kept Palestinians refugees in their countries and tried to destroy Israel time and time again. And during this time, the US mainly stayed out of Israel's affairs.
Has any one noticed the escalation in the drum beats to war with Iran over the past couple of weeks. It has intensified. I have counted at least 6 seperate stories indicating Iran as a major destabilizing force in the region. The timing of Lebanese conflict isn't just a coincidence. Do you not think that Lebanon's western backed government knows that they are severely outgunned by Hezbollah? Why would they instigate them then? I'll tell you why, Washington DC orchestrated this conflict to have another story about Iran's destabilizing force in the region as a justification to the American people for war. Consequently, American's need to wake up. The only destabilizing force in the region is the United States Intelligience Services. It's called divide and conquer/order through chaos. World peak oil production has come and gone. What we are witnessing is the battle for the energy which drives the economies of the world. An energy source which is depleting as world demand is vastly increasing.
15 years ago the median income of a Saudi was 28K. Today the median income is 6K. Think about how mad we U.S. citizens are at our government over a slight decrease in purchasing power (respectively). Now think about how angry Saudi's are at their government at the fall in their purchasing power. When the Saudi's revolt maybe the U.S. will blame that on Islamic fundamentalism too. Maybe they will blame Iran for this also. If we haven't destroyed their country already.
If only the US government were as powerful as conspiracy nutcases believe them to be. Why would we concoct such an elaborate scheme? Our omnipotent CIA would be far better off just assasinating Assad, Nasrallah, and the Iranian mullahs (like they tried to do with Castro of course) and clear the Middle East for Mr. Cheney and Halliburton to cash in. Please log off, go outside, and reorient yourself to reality.
Did you ever notice that when Iran feels threatened it unleashes Hezbollah to destabilize greater Israel?
And that relates how with Bush proxies attacking Hezbollah?
The U.S. supported governments of Iraq and Lebanon attack Iranian assisted Shia groups in those two countries. The U.S. backed forces get their asses handed to them on a platter, and Condi Rice says it is Iran and Syria's fault that the forces that we back attacked their backed forces. Does the administration realise how ridiculous this sounds?
The closest comparison I can come up with is the man who beats his wife, or girlfriend, and then screams, "See what you make me do to you!!" Neither the man in this example nor the U.S. gets that they are committing crimes, that they are desperately in need of mental help, BUT, more importantly, that their destructive violence has got to be stopped ASAP.
Excuse me! Any policy is foreign to this so called administration!
I don't doubt those Iranian diplomats have seen plenty of horrors, but the truth is Arabs and Persians don't have a clue about war. The Iran Iraq war was bloody, but it pales against the total war of WW2.
It's why I have never shaken in my boots at the thoughts of radical Islamists. The words make me think of the Wizard of Oz when they are walking in the woods. Instead of singing lions, tigers and bears oh my the words would be imams, mullahs, and radical Islamists oh my.
Over time Muslims will integrate into the west become more secular. But let's say they don't and they truly threaten the "West".
Should that happen, mass deportations, trade embargoes, and the bombing of every major city in the Islamic world would end the threat. Comparing any Islamic state to a cold war USSR or a Nazi Germany or Japan is ludicrous. They have no industrial base to speak of and no ability to really project power. They are at best an annoyance.
You really don't know anything about the Iraqi/Iran war do you?
It was plenty bloody enough.
Yeah, Durango. I'm an idiot and a veteran of the first Gulf War.
A million died in the Iran/Iraq war fought over 8 years.
Do you remember the fire bombings of Dresden (24, 000 to 40,000 over 3 days),
Battle for Berlin (530,000 dead), Stalingrad (nearly 2 million dead), Philippines campaign where the Japanese lost 400,000 soldiers? I haven't even scratched the surface. And we haven't even talked about WW1, the 62,000 who died the first day of the Battle of the Somme?
The bigger point you missed is the threat to the west posed by radical Islam, minimal.
Like I wrote earlier, the Iraqis and Iranians are amateurs when it comes to total war.
Nice editorial but you're scratching the surface and not going to the root of the problem. Lebanon's problems began a long time ago when it came up with a complex formula to share power rather than have true representative democracy. They were a democracy in name only and the peace between Sunnis, Christians, and Druze was tenuous. Shiites were not even part of the equation.
The influx of Palestinian refugees changed everything, upsetting the demographics and the balance of power as they brought all their weapons and their military experience with them. Lebanon became a failed nation the minute it let Palestinians use its territory to launch attacks from.
The ensuing civil war allowed the Shiites to step into the power vacuum as Sunnis and Christians slaughtered each other.
Iran and Syria found the Shiites to be perfect proxies.
If there was truly one man one vote Shiites would run the country unless Sunnis, Druze, and Christians joined together to block them. It's why the Shiites now dictate foreign policy.
The U.S. has little real influence in Lebanon because the groups that could control the Shiites, disarm them, integrate them fully into the government are too busy fighting each other.
Could our diplomacy be better? Yes as it could be based on reality, not desire, but it still wouldn't fix the Humpty Dumpty called Lebanon.
Funny that you blame every country in the region for meddling except Israel, who've done their share. I think part of the problem is we (America) can't give Lebanon the military hardware they need to fight Hezbollah because our best friend won't allow it.
Israel doesn't have veto power over who arm and who we don't. That's ridiculous. If she did, we wouldn't be arming the Saudies to the hilt. Arming the Lebanese military would only further entagle us in middle eastern madness. .The Lebanese government had their chances, many times, to fight hezbollah and didn't. Lebanon is a mess that's been going on for decades now, as a messy as Jordan would be if it didn't have a dictator of a king to crack down on Palestinians within it's midst. Wheher we like it or not, sometimes the strong hand of someone no one voted for is better than those who have been voted into office yet too weak-willed to defend it's democratic form of government.--in the middle east that is.
Hezbollah has more legitimacy, competence, and power than the lebanese government, which doesn't contain any representatives of Lebanon's largest demographic.
In such a situation, it doesn't matter what the west does; we're backing the wrong side, and the people of lebanon know it.
While the lebanese constitution has frozen powersharing into demographic ratios unchanged since the thirties, the population has changed immensely. Meanwhile, political volatility has meant that no census has been conducted in decades, meaning that a substantial gap has opened up between reality and politics.
The Catholic Maronites, once the majority and still guarranteed the presidency because of it, have for generations been the group most able to emigrate, in that they have shared a church with most western nations, have traditionally been the educated middle class, more likely to speak a european 2nd language, etc. Over the decades, they've been the readiest to leave, and also being wealthier, did what wealthy people do, everywhere: educate their daughters and have less kids.
So, the consequence now is that the shiah who make up the bulk of Hezbollah, and who won the war against the long-term Israeli occupation now constitute the largest block in lebanese society.
And are permenently consigned to third party status by the constitution, and are at present not represented in government, at all.
That institutional bias against the nation's largest demographic is all the political space necessary to guarrantee the permanent existance of Hezbollah.
Well written S1mon
Your right of course. Lebanon was a mess prebush. Bush's saber rattling, with no ability to do anything about the situation, is another example of an impotent foreign policy.
I wonder how much of a drain supporting Hezbollah is to Iran? I've heard that plenty of Iranian's are pissed about the money spent on Lebanon. This in the end may be what changes the situation.
I've read the same thing. And just this past week some of the more powerful ayatollahs chastised Ahmadinejad for spending too much time worrying about the end of times and the return of the 13th imam instead of more worldly problems like high inflation and unemployment.
Both Lebanon and Iraq are drains to the Iranian treasurer, but with oil at 126 a barrel, perhaps Iran is not feeling the pain as much as we thought.
Another reason for our nation to become energy independent. The media worries about China while the greatest transfer of wealth from the West occurs each time we fill up our cars.
You have to wonder how big a mess Lebanon would be if it wasn't bordered on the South by Israel?.
The author points out the American disfunction, punishment through the silent treatment.
It reflects the infintile mind set of the bush white house and his approach to diplomacy. You're either "with us, or against us". Black or white, what's it ganna be? OK, then, "bring it on".
Fly days and nights, fly. At 57 years old, I never thought I'd wish this, but I wish for the remaining days before bush is out of office, to go by like a wink of an eye. I want to savor every moment of each day, so I'm in no hurry to turn 58, but I hold my breath every day, hoping these insane people don't push some button and vaporize Tehran in 500 milliseconds.
It's nice to see Hizbullah actually wearing uniforms. During the war with Israel they didn't. That's why civilian casualties were so high. All the soldiers were civilians!
In contrast with Israel, where the civillians are soldiers.
Umm, actually during the battle of Biet Jebel the Isralis were complaing that they were confused because Hezbullah were wearing uniforms.
George Bush is the best the Republicans have to offer America. His inability to communicate does not phase anyone in the Republican Party. As McCain observed about his being a dumb as a stump, informs us, he is unable to grasp the what his actions mean to others. He was taught by his father and his father's lawyers that he can get away with anything.
Not talking is Bush at his finest.
G HW Bush tested the waters for his son by putting that complete moron Dan Quayle in as Veep.
When no one screamed or hollered he knew the coast was clear for his idiot son.
thanks a lot dad.
That hadn't occurred to me.
But I think you are right.
I find it funny, in a disappointing way, that we have laws in America that say our candidates can't even accept money from foreigners (except for Presidential libraries).
Yet, here we are funneling not just loads of money but planeloads of weapons into other countries to influence their internal politics and nobody even points out the double-standard.
Everybody knows the Golden Rule, yet few seem to grasp its' meaning.
Oh, the bad guys broke the rule first? Then it's ok. Damn Romans.
At least Bush has the support of the democratically elected Sunni leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia...
I came across a paragraph from Robert Fisk, reporting from Beirut this morning, where he lives:
"But I found far more powerful symbolism in Hamra Street, one of west Beirut's two main commercial thoroughfares. More than 100 Hizbollah men were standing or patrolling the highway, clad in new camouflage fatigues, wearing new black, peaked, American-style baseball caps and -more to the point-what appeared to be equally new American sniper rifles."
A startling description to be sure. Perhaps this might be considered proof that Blackwater culture crosses all ethnic barriers.
Could it be that Bush, Cheney, Rice et al are right about arms smuggling in Iran Iraq.
Except the American arms are being smuggled out of Iraq and into Iran?
Too bad the bush Administration, all Republicans and the trolls on this site live in an IRONY FREE ZONE.
Because this one could be delicious.
I just wanted to raise some points from my vantage point in predominately Shia southern Lebanon. (I'm an American aid worker with an organization that clears cluster bombs from the 2006 conflict.)
We can all agree that Bush and the US foreign policy establishment have been disastrous recently. But I think one thing that I think is missing from this article is the sense of anger and loss on the Sunni side of the equation. I have Sunni, Shia, Druze and Christian friends, and it's very complex. But there is real anger on the Sunni side about what has happened, and I don't think it's accurate to blame Bush for all of this.
To my semi-informed mind, the essential problem in Lebanon is the lack of true representation for the Shia due the relative size of the Shia population in the present structure of the Lebanese government. Most people can agree that there should be restructuring along a "one man one vote" principle. How we get there is another issue. (It gets pretty complicated when you consider 400,000-500,000 Palestinians here....yet another issue!) All sides feel insecure, and turn to "big friends" (whether that is the US or Syria/Iran) because they feel they need someone to back them up in this tiny country.
Anyway, too many things to say, but just wanted to make the point that many Sunni are frightened and unhappy with recent events.
The Americans, surprisingly, did the right thing by not overreacting over recent events in Beirut. Iran turned up its Lebanese asset as a last ditch strategy to prevent the Iraqi Govt take over of Sadr City. Had the Americans looked wounded over Beirut Sadr City wouldn't have capitulated yesterday. The Sadrists gave up and allowed the Iraqi Army control of Sadr City, within hours Hezbollah called it off too. It wasn't really about some telephones.
"Hezbollah was indeed created by Iran in the early eighties, and has been supported by her and Syria ever since (and it might be good to remember that one of Sheikh Nasrallah's official titles, perhaps his most important, is "Representative of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in Lebanon." That would be Ayatollah Khamenei."
That's true, but you'll find a lot of dissenters here who believe Hezbollah was merely a local reaction to Israel, rather than an Iranian power grab over the traditional Shi'a party Amal. But keep it up. Obama can "talk" all he wants, that's just an appeal to American vanity.
I posted this on another thread but I would like to see a reaction.
Since this started with Hezbollah's support for striking workers I think I am beginning to see a pattern.
Shia in the Middle East have been a minority. And being the minority tend to make up the under classes in their respective societies.
Ahmedinijad came to power in Iran as the champion of the lower classes. He got elected on the basis of his promises to increase economic prosperity.
Al Sadr is the champion of the poor and unemployed in Iraq. His base of support is Sadr City, the enormous Shia slum.
Hezbollah came to power in the Civil War as protectors of the Shia of Lebanon who had been used and abused by the Christian and Sunni upper classes.
I am wondering if we are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than a religious struggle maybe it is a class struggle.
Which would also explain the Bush Administrations mismanagement. They have been at war against the American working and middle class for some time.
Maybe it's not "instead of" but "in addition to."
Here in the US, the religious right is definitely working to dominate society culturally. Their corporatist allies are waging the class war. With them working together, we get a combined religious and class struggle.
I think that is right. It is not either or. Class struggle is fused into religious struggles.
But in order to better understand what is happening in the Middle East it is best to look at things from different perspectives.
Durango,
Nice analysis...I'm always amazed at the intelligence of the readers and bloggers here at HuffPost (characterized as the "far left" by the warmongering pro-Zionist right like O'Reilly) than any other blog or opinion website out there.
Spinning the radical Islamic war against Israel into a "workers movement" wont fool anyone but i"m sure you think your lame propaganda is poetry.
Ignorance prevails in your mind. Radical Islam is just a term for those ignorant enough not to call them as they are radicals that use Islam as toll. The same as you that use freedom to demonize every single one that does not match your ideology.
I asked for opinions.
You offer insults. Nice petty little world you live in.
Take a step back, and realize how simple minded is your argument. Read some of these post and you might Learn a little bit. Durango is not preaching anything, hes making a valid observation. if you disagree, give us some substatial content to support your argument. if you dont have one, and you rely on some petty insult, then dont waste your time.
It is class struggle, when Mexico got its independence was based on religious grounds using Virgin Mary as a standard for the dispossessed and poor.
However, the us continues to support the Nazi state of Israel, where Palestinians are made to pay for the atrocities committed by the Europeans for many centuries against the Jews. The aftermath of colonialism and oppression.
"I would like to see a reaction"
Marxist templates cannot begin to explain the Middle East.
"Hezbollah came to power in the Civil War as protectors of the Shia of Lebanon who had been used and abused by the Christian and Sunni upper classes."
Not quite true. That was Amal. Hezbollah was the creation of the Iranian Revolution. One of Khomeini's visions was the destruction of Israel and that it would be led by Iran/Shi'a which would grant him an Iran "leadership" of the Muslim world. They still talk that way, can't get it through their heads they are loathed as apostates. Amal was not interested. In fact, they supported Israeli incursions somewhat as long as they fought the Fatah/Palestinian intruders kicked out by Jordan into Lebanon. Iran changed that with a lot of money.
If you ignore Marxist templates don't be surprised when the Marxists take over, leaving you to wonder what in Hell happened.
But I am no Marxist. I simply noticed a common thread. And why would anyone be surprised at class struggle. Bush and Republicans have been waging it for years. Calling it Americanism (look up the American Legion circs 1919 100% Americanism).
Amal supporting Israel would explain the rise of Hezbollah very well also. With or without the Iranians why should the Shia support the invaders of the ir country? Or the occupation of the same?
I know I would fight like hell if anyone invaded and occupied mine.
I do not know when the gun totting, second amendment crazy Republican or the "I'd rather vote for McCain" Clinton fanatic will really understand that in order to have a say in foreign policy you have to actually speak to your enemy. I fear your point is lost with them and the mass media that second guessess what the average American thinks when exiting the polls. There is really no reason why the Bush administration should not act like a 5 year old. This President would have stayed the "vacation" President were'nt it for 911. The main objective is to look busy. Instead this President worries about his legacy. He hasn't put in a honest day's work since he left home. But we should have know this, shouldn't we?
GWBUSH likely worries little about his legacy. He got us right where he and his network of thugs want us. Based firm in the Middle East. IRAQ as our headquarters. Proximity from which to quickly deploy our military as foreign policy. Hundreds of bases. For that matter, an increased number of bases in bribed border regions, some in former Soviet Union Republics. Oh, that's a safety factor for us eh. Biggest EMBASSY in the world in IRAQ. In control of IRAQ oil, up to the point it produces less than when Saddam Hussein controlled the spigot. And still maneuvering to get IRAQ to sell its OIL rights to our allied foreign investors.
Here at home BUSH has pillaged our Treasury. Leaving just subsistance, so to speak, for our people entitlements, infrastructure fix and repair, let alone innovation. (To the Moon Alice!) Forcing us more and more to rely on business to allot our 'charity'. He and his thugs have narrowed us closer to a Church/State collusion. Not to mention advancing collusion of Corporate and Government to flesh out CORPORATISM. USA form of a type of DEMOCRACY facism. Prey on us, use our sweat, influence us to support their version of what it takes to make our EMPIRE work to aggrandize their bank accounts. Establish a revisionary Supreme Court, appointing Alioto and Roberts iced that cake. And on and on. No, BUSH leaves office, unpunished, likely a very satisfied man.
You've explained the Bush/Fascist Corporatocracy Conspiracy precisely. It's what I believe historians will write of these Dark Days.
We should have known a great many things, Hoelder; mostly we should have known better even as the MSM toiled mightily to keep us mis- and un-informed. Case in point: a friend who remarked recently that she'd spent the entire day watching cable news and didn't have the faintest idea what was happening in the world -- multiply that by almost eight years.
George Washington warned against "foreign entanglements" when it was conceivable to avoid them. The world is smaller now and our entanglements are strangling us, our policy is myopic, jingoism blinds us to the most common sense strategies. We've lost the moral high road and the Bush administration has shown not a whit of interest in regaining it, would not even recognize it if one of his advisors stumbled upon it by accident. How can we know who our enemies are when the entire world distrusts us and half despises us? I can assure you it isn't our freedoms they hate, but our greed and hubris.
There's more at stake in the election than foreign policy (the Supreme Court, the Constitution, health care, etc.) and I'd be happy if I never heard divisive words like Clintonista and Obamabot again. But I, for one, would be very grateful for an administration whose first reaction to foreign affairs is not belligerence; I believe Senator Obama has made that commitment while, dismayingly, Senator Clinton has fallen back on harsh rhetoric that served no one well, least of all her campaign.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
