The inauguration, this Sunday, March 1, of the International Tribunal in The Hague, specifically set up to judge the assassins of the former assassinated Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, comes at a timely moment for American diplomacy in the Middle East. Although it will take several years to obtain a verdict, the mere public mention of the sponsors and their accomplices – the “criminal network” mentioned by the Investigation Commission which has not yet revealed the identity and nationality of its members – could embarrass the Syrian authorities as well as those of Hezbollah. Recently, Canadian prosecutor Bellemare was denied the interrogation of eight figures from the pro-Iranian Shiite militia. According to information from Dutch security services and relayed by “Le Monde,” this group would also be involved in several incidents: the latest of which would involve taking photos of the facilities of the Tribunal where several generals, former heads of Lebanese security services controlled at the time by Syria, could soon be transferred.
Alongside the activities of this court established by UN resolution 1757, the Cedar Country clearly becomes a crucial hinge, a real lever for an American diplomacy much more active in the region: a diplomacy aiming particularly to decouple Syria from Iran, to counter Hezbollah’s operational capabilities, and, subsequently, to corner economically weakened Iran.
Firstly, Washington officially intends to “review” its policy towards Damascus: three congressional delegations visited Syria in less than a week. The one led by Democratic Senator John Kerry asked the Syrian President to “assist in disarming Hezbollah.” “No one can replace the United States” in the region, emphasized Bashar Al-Assad in return. Nicolas Sarkozy would appreciate this. And Damascus expresses its hope for the return of an American ambassador while also wishing to receive the influential General David Petraeus, head of the American Central Command. Meanwhile, the Syrian president is less hurried to appoint an ambassador to Lebanon and even less enthusiastic about the idea of having to surrender any of his countrymen to the new Hague Tribunal.
Simultaneously with this initiation of dialogue, Barack Obama assured Lebanese President Michel Sleiman of the “permanent support of the United States to Lebanon” over the phone. The American ambassador to Beirut, Michelle Sison, visited Defense Minister Elias Murr while her office announced the American decision to equip the Lebanese army with surveillance drones to “enhance border control and counter-terrorism capabilities.” Tactical surveillance drones that the French from UNIFIL had wanted to deploy in southern Lebanon in December 2006, in vain due to Hezbollah’s pressure. As the legislative elections of June 7 approach, the tension in Lebanese territory becomes palpable. Repeated calls by Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah to form a national unity government speak volumes about the risks of a popular verdict that the Shiite militia will accept only if it is favorable to them. The peremptory denial contained in the recent statements by Sheikh Naïm Kassem, the number two of the movement from Haret Hreik, about the “illusion” of America’s ability to “distance Syria from Iran” and about the interpretation of the rapprochement between Damascus and Riyadh, which he says would favor the “resistance,” confirms the acute sensitivity of the stakes as well as the apparent concern of the Party of God.
Finally, from the Iranian side, the “Shoraye Negahban,” an organization under the control of the Guide and which decides on candidacies, seeks to multiply those of moderate presidential candidates to dilute the chances of former president Khatami. A strategy by Khamenei designed to allow a concentration of useful votes in favor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In anticipation of a political opening with the United States which is widely supported by the population, Iranian officials consider the reelection of the current president as an asset: a leader with radical positions offers, in their opinion, more material to negotiate. A reasoning that logically accounts for the thirty years of the Islamic Republic’s fundamental slogan “Marg bar Amrika”: death to America!
