|
17 November 2012 By Amir Taheri No one knows how the crisis in
Syria might end. But one thing is certain. What
happens in Syria would also affect the balance of
power in Lebanon. A balance of power resembles a kaleidoscope in
which different colors are positioned in relation with
one another. Turn it and you reposition all the colors
in a new combination, excluding some in the process.
In that context, the Lebanese faction most likely
to be affected by the outcome of the struggle in Syria
is Hezbollah. It is the one most dependent on Syria
for political support and as a conduit for military
and financial aid from Iran. Thus it is no surprise that, slowly but surely,
voices within the Lebanese Shi'ite community are
beginning to demand a review of the movement's
strategy shaped by its dependence on Iran and Syria.
Under its present leadership, Hezbollah suffers
from three contradictions. The first is the contradiction between its
political persona as a people-based movement and the
reality of its decision-making mechanisms. While it
claims that its policies are shaped by internal
debate, everyone knows that a telephone call from
Tehran could produce an about-turn on almost any
issue. The second contradiction is between its championing
pan-Islamic causes while operating as a strictly
sectarian organization. This is illustrated by the
claim that Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei is the
"leader of all Muslims", whether they like it or not.
The third contradiction is caused by the party's
attempt at playing the political game according to
Lebanese rules, which emphasize compromise, and the
Mafia-style politics of the Syrian regime in which
force and terror are dominant features. Despite these contradictions a combination of
factors had helped Hezbollah built a position at the
heart of several concentric circles of support.
Recently, the party has either lost or is in the
process of losing some of those circles. The first to go is the outer circle of support from
nostalgics of pan-Arabism, the remnants of the Arab
left and anti-despotic forces in the region. By associating itself with the Assad regime
Hezbollah has all but lost that circle. The second circle of support consisted of those
Lebanese who, cutting across sectarian boundaries, saw
Hezbollah as an expression of their nationhood. That
circle, too, has all but evaporated. Today, many
Lebanese fear that Hezbollah may be leading them into
conflicts that have nothing to do with their national
interests and aspirations- conflicts too large in
scope for Lebanon to handle. The third circle of Hezbollah support consists of
the Shi'ite community, the largest in demographic
terms in Lebanon. Hezbollah never succeeded in winning
a straight majority, a fact illustrated by its
relatively modest scores in parliamentary elections.
Nevertheless, almost all Lebanese Shi'ites were
prepared to acknowledge Hezbollah as an important
element in their community. Hezbollah was admired for
its ability to assert Shi'ite power through
propaganda, political maneuvering, and, when
necessary, use of force. It also managed to bring in
vast resources used to rebuild the south and create
employment opportunities for Shi'ite. That circle is fading as more and more Shi'ites
realize that what Hezbollah has built, mostly with
money from Iran, could also be destroyed by an
adventurist policy imposed by Tehran. Worse still,
Hezbollah's largesse has created jealousies among
Shi'ites. A Shi'ite who suddenly builds an imposing
house or drives an expensive car instantly labeled a
"Hezbollah parasite". It is the loss of the third circle that most
concerns the party' leadership. One sign of that is
the gradual but no less perceptible efforts by Amal
leader Nabih Berri to distance himself from Hezbollah.
Although allied with Iran and Syria, Berri is
essentially a Lebanese politician in the "Lebanon
First" tradition. He is not ready to risk Lebanon's
national interests, in fact its very existence, in the
interest either of Assad or Khamenei. The traditional Lebanese politician may get
involved in all manner of chicanery to receive foreign
financial and political support. Deep down, however,
he remains Lebanese, always ready to jettison a
paymaster to protect Lebanese interests. In contrast, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah
describes himself as "a proud foot soldier of Khamenei."
In that, Nasrallah represents some Communist
leaders during the heyday of the COMINTERN. They
regarded themselves as "proud foot soldiers" of Stalin
and were prepared to sacrifice their own nation's
interests in the service of the Soviet Union. In 1939,
Stalin told them to praise Hitler because Moscow had
signed an alliance with Nazi Germany to partition
Poland. In 1941, the same Stalin ordered them to fight
Hitler who had invaded the Soviet Union. There other signs that Nasrallah may be losing
support among the Shi'ites. Until recently, the
pro-Hezbollah media never referred to Nasrallah
without the deferential titles. Now, he is plain
Hassan Nasrallah. Again until recently, whenever
Nasrallah emerged from his hideout to broadcast a
speech through the TV networks he owns, his appearance
would be greeted with Shi'ites firing celebratory
bullets in the skies across Lebanon. Now, however,
Shi'ites are saving their bullets, responding to
Nasrallah's diatribes with dismissive yawns. The self-styled hero has become a TV personality
and, like other TV personalities, he is subject to a
rise and decline cycle. Some Lebanese Shi'ites are pondering some crucial
questions. What if Assad falls? What if Khamenei loses the
power struggle, paving the way for an end to his
adventurism? What if Iran is dragged into a war that
could lead to regime change in Tehran? Some Lebanese Shi'ites are looking to Iraq as a
potential source of support in the future. According
to Iraqi sources, prominent Lebanese Shi'ites have
visited Iraq to establish communication with the
Shi'ite clerical leadership in Najaf and the
government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in
Baghdad. Though concerned about the possibility of a Middle
East dominated by Muslim Brotherhood, allied with the
United States, Iraq, has managed to hedge its bets. In
Baghdad the emphasis is on Iraqi interests not
pan-sectarian dreams. The regional kaleidoscope is changing, making
Nasrallah's conservatism all the more risky for
Lebanon and its Shi'ite community. The growing debate
about a new strategy for Lebanese Shi'ites must be
welcomed. But, without leadership change, no new
strategy is possible Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran,
and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was
Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
(1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for
the Sunday Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of
the Executive Board of the International Press
Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a
contributor to the International Herald Tribune. He
has written for the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French
magazine Politique Internationale, and the German
weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he was editorial
writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has
published 11 books, some of which have been translated
into 20 languages. He has been a columnist for Asharq
Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian
Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and
New York. |