The recent visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to Lebanon has forced political leaders there to increase their efforts to select a new prime minister following the resignation of former PM Hassan Diab.

The aftermath of the Beirut explosion has triggered demands for a radical overhaul of Lebanon’s political system as many of the country’s citizens blame political elites for failing to prevent the event from happening.

Parliamentary consultations at the presidential palace took place on Monday morning, with most politicians settling on a diplomat called Mustapha Adib, who previously served as Lebanon’s ambassador to Germany.

Adib Has an Unenviable Task Awaiting Him

The task that awaits Adib is a daunting one, as he must lead his country through one of the worst political crises that Lebanon has ever faced.

The French President called for “deep change” when he visited Beirut on August 6, and stressed that he would monitor Lebanon’s progress during his visit this week to mark the centenary of Greater Lebanon.

Like with any other political appointment, Adib’s represents an opportunity for change in Lebanon. The new Prime Minister has Macron’s support and the French leader will continue to monitor events in the former French colony closely. Yet the two politicians also face enormous obstacles if they hope to implement meaningful changes in the country.

Macron is Provoking Rouhani by Intervening in Lebanon

The more the French President intervenes in Lebanese politics, the more likely he is to provoke Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Tehran has already pleaded with the international community not to interfere in Lebanon’s political process and has urged Washington to start lifting its sanctions there.

Iran is one of the main sponsors of Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Islamist party and militant group which has influence over the Lebanese Government, a radio and a satellite station, and social services. They have been described as a “state within a state.” The Washington Institute discovered that the Iranian Government provides the terrorist group with $100 million per year.

Macron Cannot Have His Cake and Eat it too

If relations between France and Iran deteriorate as a result of the Lebanese crisis, it will be difficult for Macron to persuade US President Donald Trump and the Iranian President to draft a new nuclear deal after he almost persuaded Rouhani and Trump to do so last year. He cannot have it both ways in the Middle East and at some stage he must decide to prioritize reform in Lebanon or peace between the US and Iran.

Politico reports that the French leader has been consulting both Rouhani and Trump over his plans for Lebanon, but as the Council on Foreign Relations’ Amir Asmar suggests, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) were instrumental in defeating ISIS and it is one of the few institutions that Lebanon’s citizens have a positive view of. If they are not involved in reforming Lebanon’s political structure, there is little chance they can act as a restraining force against Hezbollah, which is intent on maintaining its stranglehold over the country.

Real Reform Won’t happen in Lebanon Until Iran’s Grip is Loosened

Macron told reporters in Paris at a Q&A with the Presidential Press Association on Friday that he will ‘finalize something,’ but how can he persuade Lebanon’s political leaders to transform a system that they have profited from for the last three decades and change their political identities at the same time? So far, they have only committed to forming a new cabinet.

Hassan Sinno, a member of the Massirat Watan opposition group, claims there is little time to initiate change, but he will be judged on his actions as opposed to his words after Macron’s visit, as will the rest of Lebanon’s political elite.

Adib may enjoy Macron’s support, but he cannot realistically expect things to change until Iran’s grip over Lebanon is truly broken. The French President should prioritize reaching an accord with Rouhani before asking Lebanon’s political elite to embark on an impossible task.

L'articolo Can Macron Help Prime Minister Mustapha Adib Reform Lebanon? proviene da InsideOver.

The Beirut explosion that took the lives of 160 of the city’s residents has already sparked change in Lebanon and days of violent protests. Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced his resignation and that of his government whilst addressing the nation on Monday, and he described the blast as a “disaster beyond measure.”

But the alarming rate at which political developments are taking place in Lebanon has also caught the attention of Iran. Tehran has already called on the international community to refrain from politicizing last week’s explosion in Beirut. They also pleaded with Washington to start lifting sanctions against Lebanon.

Tehran Accuses Macron of ‘Interventionism’

Iran will begin to monitor events in Lebanon closely as Tehran is one of the main sponsors of Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Islamist party and militant group which has influence over the Lebanese Government, a radio and a satellite station, and social services. They have been described as a “state within a state.” The Washington Institute discovered that the Iranian Government provides the terrorist group with $100 million per year. It is no wonder that Tehran is alarmed by French President Emmanuel Macron’s “interventionism.”

Iran did not attend an emergency donor conference on Sunday led by Macron. The French leader assured the event’s audience that he would closely monitor how aid was being spent. The Iranian Government itself has so far provided Lebanon with $298 million for immediate humanitarian relief.

Lebanon Becoming Part of Larger Geopolitical Fracas

It is more than likely that Iran will use Lebanon as an opportunity to enter into an international dispute with France, should the latter choose to increase its level of intervention in its former colony. Iran’s ultra-conservative paper Kayhan has already stated that Macron’s proposed reforms in Lebanon would result in the elimination of Hezbollah and the “rescue of the Israeli regime.” Therefore, the French President’s attempts to curb Hezbollah’s influence over Lebanon could be met with rebukes from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the future.

Rouhani will be keen to clash with France over who leads Lebanon in the future. This is a tactic that Tehran has deployed before when they helped Hezbollah put Diab into power last October. With the Lebanese Prime Minister leading a caretaker government until he can find a successor, there is no doubt that Iran will do all it can to prevent a reformist candidate from breaking Hezbollah’s grip over Lebanon.

Iran may well increase the amount of funding Hezbollah currently receives from Tehran, as the terrorist group has been used as a means to crush protests in the past. Hezbollah fighters who returned to Lebanon from the Syrian battlefield last year attacked protesters such as poor Shi’ites who have historically supported the militias. Prior to the Beirut explosion, The Soufan Center stated that the use of violence against protesters last November reduced the numbers of protests in Lebanon.

Iran Won’t Loosen its Grip on Hezbollah

Nonetheless, Iran’s ability to fund Hezbollah will depend greatly upon its economic fortunes. Focus Economics believes that US sanctions and the coronavirus will cause the Iranian economy to contract sharply for the third consecutive year by 7.3 percent.

Hezbollah’s funding may also be affected by US-Iranian tensions if Donald Trump is re-elected in November. Trump claims that he will ‘have a deal with Iran within four weeks’ if he wins this year’s US election. But it is unlikely that Washington will approve of a deal that lifts sanctions against Tehran just so that they can continue to fund terrorist groups, which was a flaw with Obama’s Iran Deal. The US President may well want to make it harder for the Iranian regime to continue to fund terrorist organizations.

By proposing to reform Lebanon’s political structure, Macron may have unintentionally paved the way for a power struggle between France and Iran over the former French colony. Tehran is already winning due to Hezbollah’s strong grip over the country. To prevent Beirut’s explosion from becoming a wasted opportunity to reform Lebanon, Macron must prevail.

L'articolo How Will Iran React to Hezbollah’s Waning Influence in Lebanon? proviene da InsideOver.

On 29 December 2019, the heads of the US government gather at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s California villa. They have interrupted their Christmas holidays to meet with their commander in chief and, together, decide how to confront the revolts which, as from the last few weeks of 2019, have been disrupting Iraq. The tycoon leaves the golf field and locks himself in a room alongside his government high officials to discuss – or at least this is the version which circulated for days,- the raids which, a few hours later, would strike Kataib Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian militia in Syria and Iraq.

As the Washington Post later revealed, however, during the meeting other topics were also discussed. On that occasion, somebody – it is still uncertain who – introduced an option which, until then, had always been considered taboo: the possibility of killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, commander of the al Quds forces. It appears that Trump gave the green light to the targeted killing on that very occasion, and immediately, American intelligence launched the search for the general.

Four days later, on 2 January, the American president met with his closest advisors: Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo; Defense Secretary, Mark Esper; US Army Chief of Staff, Mark Milley; Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joe Maguire, and influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. But, as Il Corriere reports, “the most highly-anticipated guest was Gina Haspel, CIA director. It was Haspel who put together the dossier on Soleimani’s movements and, above all, on the general’s ‘ominous schemes’”.

They know that the general arrived in Damascus, from where he travelled to Beirut (to meet Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah) and finally made his way back to the Syrian capital where he boarded a flight landing in Baghdad on January 3 at 00.32 where, shortly after, he would meet his death.

The general had been busy during his last days. What with? And, above all, why did he reach the Iraqi capital’s airport travelling on a commercial flight?

As Il Post reveals, “the compound’s security is guaranteed by a private British company, G4S, under Iraqi intelligence supervision, while that of the airport perimeter and the air space is competence of Iraqi counterterrorism in collaboration with the United States.”

Was Soleimani hoping – despite his political standing – to not be seen? Or was he convinced he was protected by some sort of “immunity” as Il Corriere also recently hypothesized?

Maybe, a lead which should be investigated is that indicated by Iraqi premier, Adel Abdel Mahdi. Yesterday, just as his country was voting to expel all US troops from Iraq, Mahdi stated, as we can see in this video, relaunched by Ali Mourad, a reporter of Al Akhbar, a daily newspaper close to Hezbollah: “…I shall say this that it may go down in History: I was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8.30 on the morning he was made a martyr. He was to bring with him the answer to a message we delivered from Saudi Arabia, to reach an agreement in Iraq and the region.”

عادل عبدالمهدي يؤكد أنّه كان بصدد اللقاء بالجنرال #سليماني صباح الجمعة عند الساعة 8:30 للحصول منه على الرد الإيراني على الرسالة #السعودية التي كان عبدالمهدي قد أوصلها لإيران للتوصل لاتفاقات وانفراجات في #العراق والمنطقة pic.twitter.com/wd9uk4DCHh

— Ali Hassan Mourad (@alihmourad) January 5, 2020

If Mahdi’s version were true, it would be reasonable to suppose that Soleimani felt safe as he was the bearer of a diplomatic message. As things stand we cannot refute this account, we can only add pieces to an affair which still presents many obscure points.

L'articolo How Trump Decided to Kill Iranian General Soleimani proviene da InsideOver.

Her name is Cynthia Aboujaboude, she is 28 and works as an art director. She was the first person to understand the impact the face of Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker could have through the media and took it to the streets of Beirut in support of the protests against the government of premier Saad Hariri. In an exclusive interview with InsideOver, Cynthia describes what drove her to transform herself into the clown burdened with pain and suffering and, above all, to emulate the character in the streets: “We’ve had enough of corruption, I and the others are seeking more justice and a better country, a country without any more thieving. We’re seeking an independent and better future”.

But how did you come up with idea to paint your face like the Joker? “I decided to wear the make-up of the Joker during the protest because it seemed right to me. Wearing the mask of the Joker allowed me to express my feelings without having to speak to anyone. We are hurt and simply disappointed. I think that what is most obvious and what connects us most to the figure of the Joker is his outlook on life. Now life teaches you just to lie and cheat if you want to survive. You don’t have any other choice. And this is not the life that I and the others want”.

That’s how it is because the Lebanese protests were not mounted solely by one political or religious group but, initially at least, crossed divides. Many supporters of Hezbollah also took to the streets to protest against the Hariri government until the leader of the Party of God, Hassan Nasrallah, put the movement and the entire country on their guard, accusing the United States of fomenting the revolts: “it is easy to say that the United States is always behind everything and that other countries are involved”, Cynthia told us, however. “Our problem is only with our politicians and how they are treating our country”, she continued.

These protests have however had their effect but we are just at the beginning: “The next step will be fresh resignations, they must all fall from power. We’re seeking the right to vote for anyone we deem suitable to hold these offices”. Also in Syria, it all began with protests which then led to a bloody civil war that cost the lives of at least half a million people. But the case of Lebanon is different, Cynthia explains to us: “They are two different situations. People in Lebanon are realizing that this is not a war, and it truly is not. We’re protesting peacefully and will continue to do so until the politicians stop standing in the way of our future”.

But what is this future that Cynthia and the demonstrators are dreaming of? “I hope for peace and prosperity for my country. A better future for me. I hope that my friends, my family and all Lebanese can lead the lives they deserve”. But how that can be achieved is still difficult to say…

© Cover photo: Alain el Khoury

Translation by Dale Owens

L'articolo “I, the Joker, Will Explain to you the Protests in Lebanon” proviene da InsideOver.

Protests in Lebanon, now in their fifth week running, took a much-feared violent turn on Monday with the death of two southern civilians burned alive in their car as they attempted to cross a highway blocked by anti-government protesters. The second fatal incident, after the shooting of a prominent Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) headed by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, some two weeks earlier has raised tension in the small Mediterranean country and caused a nation-wide outrage against road blockers. The new victims, a man and his sister in law who came from the mainly pro-Hezbollah southern areas of Lebanon, were burned alive when their vehicle hit some metal roadblocks and swerved out of control to hit a concrete wall along Al Jiyyeh coastal highway.

With so many axes to grind, violence is inevitable

The surge in violent clashes between supporters of  rival political factions in Lebanon over the past two days, aggravated an acute economic situation and a looming political vacuum after caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, under tremendous pressure from some Lebanese as well as regional and even international power breakers, had announced his intention to forsake the formation of a new government. Hariri resigned his post at the outset of massive popular protest that had started as a peaceful anti-government uprising with legitimate demands five weeks ago, only to turn into more violent inter-factional clashes that bring sad memories of the 15 years of Civil War (1975-1990) that shattered the country. The UN Security Council and some EU nations have called upon all actors in Lebanon to refrain from acts of violence and respect of peaceful protests demanding an overhaul of the country’s political system and sectarian divisions.

From day one, protesters raised the controversial and extremely precarious slogan ‘ALL Means ALL’, targeting the most influential Lebanese figures in the country. While demonstrators, in general, appeared very much united and keen on burying traditional sectarian and political divisions, and succeeded to do so for some time at least, patience soon ran short for some influential power brokers who viewed the uprising as a well-planned, pre-fabricated regional and international effort designed to undermine the rule of President Michael Aoun and his close powerful allies, Amal Movement (headed by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri) and anti-Israeli Hezbollah and its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.

While stressing their demand for a total change, Lebanese protesters campaign has particularly focused on the president Aoun’s influential son in law, Foreign Minister and chairman of ruling FPM (Free Patriotic Movement) Gibran Bassil, whom they accuse of running the country on behalf of the president. The ongoing protests broke out immediately after Bassil had announced his intention to visit the Syrian capital Damascus to discuss the return of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees from Lebanon.

Paradoxically, Syrian businessmen since the start of war in their country some nine years ago, are reported to have deposited up to $30 billion. Analysts argue that this in itself has damaged the Syrian economy and caused the national currency, the Lira, to hit an all-time low opposite the US dollar since the war broke out in 2011. No surprise then, that recent clashes have mainly been between this ‘patriotic’ triangle (which by the way includes Christian Maronite and Shiite Muslims) with strong ties to Syria and Iran on the one hand, and supporters of other Sunni, Druze and Christian factions with strong bonds to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, the US and in the case of Geagea’s Lebanese Forces, even to Israel.

Protests and counter-protests as gloom looms

For the third consecutive day, Lebanese army soldiers and security officers have had to intervene to break up confrontations between rival protests against the country’s elite. Gunfire has been reported in some parts of Lebanon amid claims and counter-claims that parties are armed and ready to escalate the situation much further once they get the green light from their bosses or operators. Although such accusations are accurate or not remain unverified, it has become more certain since the outbreak of protests, that Lebanon has entered an extremely dangerous phase which demands an urgent set of measures and actions that are badly needed in order to avoid a very likely and highly unfortunate slide down the hill of anarchy and chaos.

Lebanese broadcaster LBCI aired a video Monday, that showed heavy gunfire around the Cola bridge in the capital, Beirut. No injuries were reported and the source of the gunfire was not immediately clear. Several cars belonging to supporters of President Aoun were attacked by rival protesters as they crossed a Beirut suburb yesterday, and two protesters were reportedly wounded after Hezbollah and Amal supporters attacked some road-blocking demonstrators in the capital.

Is Lebanon’s worst danger lurking in the north?

Albeit recent confrontations in Beirut and some of its radical suburban areas were some of the worst since protests erupted in Lebanon, the worse could still come from the northern militant Sunni strongholds of Tripoli and Akar, where hardliners, masterminded and run by the influential former Justice Minister and Police Chief General Ashraf Rifi are reported to be armed to their teeth, supported by some Gulf Arab states, and getting ready for an imminent bloody showdown with rival Shiite and Christian factions alike. Rifi has recently established his well-organized, lucratively paid and heavily armed militia’ City Guardians, in Lebanon’s largest northern city of Sidon. His men quickly took over streets and squares with unchallenged numbers as protests escalated. Reports that thousands of terrorists and hardline Islamic fighters have managed to flee the Syrian conflict and take refuge in north Lebanon are likely to be true, but yet to be verified by independent sources.

Political pressure and popular outrage aggravated by extensive high-level corruption, a worsening economic crisis that features massive government debts, poor economic performance and US dollar shortage – let alone conflicting national and regional agendas in the country- are all factors pushing Lebanon faster towards the brink of the abyss. Unless a genuine and largely magical solution is forged out pretty quickly, this once called ‘Paris of the East’ could, God forbid, irrevocably fall into the mayhem of chaos, violence and destruction.

L'articolo Lebanon’s Protests Take a Dangerously Violent Turn proviene da InsideOver.

Ever since he pulled America out of President Obama’s 2015 Iran Deal, Donald Trump has met criticism from his allies and his enemies. French President Emmanuel Macron tried to use this year’s G7 summit as an opportunity to bridge the gap between Tehran and Washington and get both sides talking again. The French President even boasted that Trump-Rouhani talks ‘could happen within weeks.’

President Trump’s convictions on this issue have been clear from the start; the Iran Deal does not work, and he is right to exercise that point. Obama’s deal failed to prevent Iran from sponsoring terrorist groups like Hezbollah and it did not curb Tehran’s nuclear activities altogether. Both NATO and Washington are to blame for failing to agree on a coherent plan that could replace the 2015 agreement sooner.

Since the Iran Deal was cancelled, the US President has issued sanctions that are crippling Iran. Newsweek’s Jonathan Broder said his sanctions have caused Tehran to get weaker as protests escalate at home and abroad. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards have killed approximately 106 protesters in disruptive demonstrations against fuel price increases. Amnesty International said the actual death toll could be higher, with Iranian reports suggesting at least 200 people might have been killed.

Iranians have smashed stores, burnt vehicles and ransacked buildings in the capital and other major cities. This has triggered Iran’s judiciary into agreeing that death by hanging is the most suitable punishment for protest leaders.

Iran’s influence abroad is being tested too. Street demonstrations have erupted across Iraq and protesters have burnt Iranian flags in the holy city of Karbala. Iraqi militias trained and armed by Tehran have killed more than 300 people and injured 15,000 more.

Demonstrations in Lebanon, although less severe than in Iraq and Iran, have been targeted against Hezbollah. Perhaps this could be a sign that Iran’s grip on the Middle East could be starting to break.

Trump is achieving his desired effect. He never believed war was the answer to the Iranian crisis and he has no intention of ending Iran’s sanctions until he can reach a deal with Iran or ensure there is a regime change, followed by Tehran’s total capitulation. As the Islamic Republic finds itself crippled by protests, it begs the question as to which nation should make the first move in resolving this situation?

National security adviser John Bolton was fired because the President lost faith in his ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran. Now that it is working, it could bring Hassan Rouhani to the negotiating table. Trump knows that his goal of removing Tehran’s current regime is an unrealistic prospect in the short-term, so a deal must be his first solution.

Rouhani declined a meeting with Trump because the latter refused to ease his sanctions, but now that Tehran has witnessed the effect they can have on its economy, the Iranian leader should realise the US is in a stronger position. Rouhani will only agree to talks if the President eases his sanctions, which he must consider doing so that both sides can conclude a new deal.

Furthermore, both leaders must adhere to the 4-point plan that Macron coordinated and that Trump and Rouhani agreed to. This plan would ensure that all US sanctions against Iran are lifted in exchange for Tehran completely surrendering its nuclear programme. As Politico’s Rym Momtaz said, it would be a ‘win-win’ for both sides: the President can claim he forced the Islamic Republic to completely surrender its nuclear arsenal, whilst Rouhani could argue he rescued his country from US sanctions.

Therefore, Trump’s sanctions may be working, but to resolve this situation altogether, he should meet his Iranian counterpart and implement the four-point plan they agreed to. If he doesn’t, many Iranian citizens will continue to suffer.

L'articolo What is Trump’s Next Move in the Face of Iranian Demonstrations? proviene da InsideOver.

With escalating tension spreading in Lebanon and Iraq over the past few weeks, the term “Arab Winter” might well come into play in regional Middle Eastern politics. Both nations have been witnessing massive popular uprisings against corruption at the highest echelons of the political elite aggravated by poor living standards and crushing austerity measures as well as rising taxes. The upheaval in Iraq, in particular, has been more violent claiming hundreds of deaths and injuries due to the heavy-handed response by government troops and the police force. Demonstrators in both Iraq and Lebanon have been calling for the resignation of the government, retrieval of stolen state fortunes and the demise of traditional warlords turned super-wealthy politicians at the expense of poverty-stricken people and their sufferings.

Potential Long-term Targets of Lebanese and Iraqi Revolts

Whilst the stated goals – some are legitimate and overdue – of the revolts in both Iraq and Lebanon have much to do with deeply-rooted political and economic corruption at the highest levels, many analysts believe that the untold end goal is an unabated US-led campaign to curb the increasing Iranian influence in the Middle East from Lebanon, Syria through Iraq all the way to Yemen and the oil-rich Gulf region. The US administration has long decried such Iranian influence and what it claims as cross-border operations that exceed Tehran’s territorial borders.

Part of Trump’s strategy in this direction has included a unilateral withdrawal from the 5+1 nuclear deal signed by world powers and Iran in 2015, a series of crippling economic sanctions against Tehran and countries trading with it, as well as a White House resolution branding the elite paramilitary IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) a “terrorist” organization. A similar parallel campaign has been waged against Hezbollah, the main pro-Iran military and political force in Lebanon. On the campaign trail, Trump adopted the rhetoric of Washington’s hawks, labelling his domestic rivals as timorous enablers of an Iranian project for Middle East hegemony.

Some regional and international analysts maintain that Trump, sensing the painful fact that all his “maximum pressure” strategy, sweeping sanctions, tough decisions and preposterous tactics have so far failed to curb the growing Iranian influence in the region, he decided to instigate Plan B; being direct revolutions against pro- Iranian political forces in two countries where Tehran’s powerhouse is most effective, Lebanon and Iraq – not forgetting the nine-year-old war in Syria of course – Iran’s closest ally. But all US efforts seem to have neither dented Iran’s defiant policies in the region, nor compelled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, leader of the powerful paramilitary organization’s overseas arm, to scale back their activities.

The current uprisings in Iraq and Lebanon aim to put Iran and its allies face to face with the popular unrest. This has instigated an emergency strategy by Pro-Tehran forces, particularly in Lebanon, to avoid at any cost falling into this potentially fatal trap, distancing themselves and their supporters from violent street confrontations and side-allays confrontations, while at the same time supporting the rightful demands of demonstrators in combating corruption, retrieving stolen state fortunes and rectifying the sect-driven electoral and traditional militia-type political systems in the country.

Tentative Achievements Reinvigorate Uprisings

Despite massive pro-Lebanese President Michel Aoun from all over the country, demonstrations have gained momentum in some parts of the small Mediterranean nation, particularly in the Sunni stronghold southern city of Tripoli, led by the powerful former Police Chief and Justice Minister General Ashraf Rifi. The uprisings have also seen demonstrators openly reject the Iranian hand in their countries’ politics, which in both cases have democracies built around power-sharing agreements within diverse, multi-confessional societies. The resignation of three-time Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, though he will stay on in a caretaker role as the government struggles to find a way out of a crisis, was widely seen as a major success by demonstrators and their ability to force changes in the country struggling under hefty debts, poor economic performance and rising taxes- protests were originally sparked when the government tried to levy a tax on WhatsApp phone calls.

In Iraq, confrontations have been more bloody and violent, claiming the lives of hundreds, and injuring thousands of demonstrators nationwide. Iraqi President Barham Salih said in a speech last week that the government would overhaul the country’s electoral commission and draft a new electoral law – one of the demands of the protests – ahead of possible new elections. He indicated that Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, a target of popular ire, would stay on in his post only until a successor was identified. His promises have so far failed to dampen the mounting popular anti-government sentiments or mollify the rage on the streets. Mass protests took place over the weekend. Tens of thousands of Iraqis gathered in Baghdad’s central Tahrir Square on Saturday and in cities elsewhere, demanding more sweeping change. Clashes with security forces in the capital led to at least one death and dozens of injuries, raising the death toll of around 250 people since the protests first erupted last month.

Popular uprisings nicknamed “Arab Spring” that swept the region for a decade now, are currently entering an extremely hot “Arab Winter” phase that threatens more upheavals and potential chaos for a region that has been  plagued by wars and conflicts throughout its modern and ancient history alike; sadly, it seems poised to undergo much of the same in the foreseeable future at least.

L'articolo From the Arab Spring to the Arab Winter proviene da InsideOver.

It has been already eleven days since the country-wide protests have started in Lebanon and the public is carefully watching how all this is going to play out. The popular unrest all over Lebanon, came as a dynamic reaction, sparked by several tax increases announced by the government, in accordance with the 2020 federal budget. The protests have been gaining momentum day-by-day, highlighting long-time social and economic grievances within the highly fragmented country. Even though the government promptly publicized a series of economic reforms, in order to limit public anger and President Aoun claimed that he would meet with the protesters and hear to their demands, the situation has hardly improved. These demonstrations are not unprecedented in terms of scope or size -remember the 2006-2008 protests; the most intriguing fact about them is their substantial non-sectarian nature, establishing a much larger in scale and significance movement than the 2015 “YouStink” group. A movement calling for an overall reform of the current Lebanese system, tackling the problematic aspects of Sectarianism.

In a televised speech, on Friday 25 October, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, addressed the party supporters and Lebanese people. This speech indicates the importance of the protests for Hezbollah; this could be seen as a turning point for the party, that has been designated as a terrorist group by many Western countries, since it is probably the first time in its history that it is being openly criticized not only by other religious or political groups but also by the Shia community, which is fundamentally  its popular base. It should be noted though that many western media are trying to overstate this criticism against Hezbollah and specifically Nasrallah, missing some crucial points, as we will analyze. In this context, it is worth looking into the mid-term potential of this massive -albeit currently leaderless- anti-government movement and the impact it could have on the country’s most influential political entity.

Nasrallah’s speech

Starting from the semiology of Nasrallah’s Friday televised presence, it could barely go unnoticed that the Hezbollah leader has chosen just a Lebanese flag, as the background setting for his speech. In this instance Nasrallah, who rarely uses the national flag in the scenery, has tried to portray himself as a leading figure not only for the Shia community but for all the Lebanese people, subsiding his role as the Secretary-General of the party. Opposed to the initial statement shortly after the protests began, Nasrallah’s appearance this time has been much more insightful and well-positioned. He made clear that Hezbollah does not want to interfere with the protesters; therefore, he called the party members and advised Hezbollah supporters to abstain from the public gatherings. Being proactive, Nasrallah understands that an organized Hezbollah presence in the protests, where critics of the party are participating, could easily raise the tension even further and escalate rapidly. Given the fact that clashes between protesters and Hezbollah supporters have already been reported, the Secretary-General has purposefully chosen to distance himself from the demonstration, minimizing the risk of violent incidents where Hezbollah could be depicted as the government strike force. The significance of this decision is even higher when considering that protests are ongoing in some of the de facto Hezbollah strongholds around the country, like the cities of Bint Jbeil, Nabatiyeh and Tyre.

Nasrallah has also sympathized with the people’s grievances and admitted that the country has been through rough economic conditions, but he stressed that the  protests have already achieved enough and the government has backed down in some critical public demands; any further delays in the implementation of the updated and transformed agenda would cause serious problems to the country, he mentioned. The party leader has also highlighted the disruption that is being caused by the protests impacting thousands of everyday people, like workers and students, and suggested that life should come back to normal shortly.

The most crucial point of Nasrallah’s speech though, leaving significant implications for the in-country and regional security apparatus, has been his reference to the involvement of dubious foreign actors in the mobilization of the people amidst the very birth of this popular movement. He stated that external powers -not surprisingly naming Israel- are seeking to exploit the wide-spread unrest in order to destabilize the country and undermine the position of Hezbollah. Although there is no evidence of any foreign involvement so far, it goes without a doubt that local rivals -especially Israel and Saudi Arabia- would warmly welcome any in-country developments that could weaken Hezbollah’s power grip. The Secretary-General warned that similar traction in neighboring countries, where foreign involvement has been apparent, has led to civil wars and failed states; but his afterword has been even more determined – if not worrying. Nasrallah, pointing his finger to the audience, emphasized that the strongest group in Lebanon now is Hezbollah, not clarifying if he was speaking about political achievements or military capabilities.

Where Hezbollah standing now

Since the coalition of the government in Lebanon on January 21, 2019, Hezbollah has strengthened even further its political presence; two of the most influential Ministers in the country, Jamil Jabbak -Ministry of Health- and Ali Hassan Khalis –Ministry of Finance-  have been affiliated with the party and Hezbollah has aggressively lobbied in order to secure for them the respective positions. Over half of the MPs belong to the political coalition, where Hezbollah holds a prominent position, and most of them are maintaining ties with the party.

From a military aspect, the long-time participation of Hezbollah fighters in support of the Assad regime in Syria has significantly upgraded the capabilities of the party’s armed wing. The number of fighters that had a steady presence in Syria is estimated at approximately 8,000; the fighters have been rotating throughout the duration of the war, but this number is indicative of the typical Hezbollah manpower in the country since 2012-2013. The casualties account for almost ten percent of that number, however, this fact has hardly impacted the capabilities of the group, compared to the ensuing advantages from their involvement in the war. According to a 2018 Bloomberg report the group holds around 150,000 missiles, ten times their missile stockpile prior to the 2006 war with Israel. Also, the role that thousands of Hezbollah fighters have played in Syria, supporting the regime forces, has dramatically enhanced their operational background and experience. Most of these soldiers have now returned to Lebanon, and are ready to be activated any time, in case of a confrontation with Israel, or an in-country conflict.

On the other hand, it is probably the first time that the group is facing such harsh financial problems. The US sanctions on their primary foreign patron, Iran, has created several economic difficulties which impacted Hezbollah domestic activities, in terms of recruitment and day-to-day operational needs, but also with regards to the social work of the party, an aspect that has been vital for its popularity, especially within the Shia community. Those developments pushed Hassan Nasrallah last March to address the popular base of the party, calling for funding and donations. The US aggressive sanctions policy not only to Iran but also to individuals associated with Hezbollah has made things even worse for the group.

Albeit the financial hardship, Hezbollah seems ready to face decisively the ongoing challenges in Lebanon. A potential escalation of the ongoing protests, leading to full-scale confrontation among the in-country competing groups could eventually benefit Hezbollah rather than marginalize it. Even though the party does not wish the tension to increase further as per Nasrallah’s latest speech, it is a solid fact that Hezbollah has been always able to remerge after wide-scale conflicts, and politically capitalize on the alleged military gains.

L'articolo Lebanese Protests And Hezbollah’s Role proviene da InsideOver.

Since 2012, Israel has been running an intense campaign against Iranian influence on its northern borders with Syria and Lebanon. The Israeli Defense forces have named it “the campaign between wars”. The civil war in Syria changed the rules of the game for everyone involved. Iran, which invested heavily at the Assad regime’s battle for survival, used the chaos in Syria for its own benefit, smuggling convoys of sophisticated weapons through Syrian territory to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. Israel took advantage of the war to create a constructive ambiguity of its own. According to various media reports, it conducted hundreds of airstrikes, mostly without claiming responsibility, against the Iranian-run convoys.

By late 2017, things began to change. The Assad regime regained control of most of Syria, relying on help from Russian airpower, Iranian commanders and Shiite foot-soldiers, from Hezbollah and other Iranian-supported militias. Israel has aimed most of the attacks against Iran’s “Accuracy Project”, in an attempt to upgrade the accuracy of Hezbollah’s rockets and missiles arsenal, which lacked this capability. Being a small country, Israel is particularly vulnerable to attacks against its strategic infrastructure. In most cases, it doesn’t have alternative sites, such as more airports or power stations. The Israeli campaign had been described as a success. According to the IDF, Hezbollah only has a few dozens of high-accuracy rockets today.

But then, Israeli intelligence realized that Iran had other ambitions. General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC”s “Quds” force, started a calculated effort for Iranian military entrenchment in Syria. In many areas of the war-torn country, the Iranians were building military bases for their Shiite militias, while also deploying mid-range rockets, UAV’s and anti-aircraft systems, many of them meant to challenge the Israelis. The IDF started attacking those military sites as well. By 2018, Israel and Iran were involved in direct warfare in Syria, for the first time. Mostly, Israel had the upper hand. It is estimated that dozens of Iranian targets in Syria had been hit. At least three attempts for Iranian retaliation, launching rockets from Syria towards Israeli territory, were unsuccessful. In most cases, Israel maintained its policy of vagueness. The majority of the strikes remained undeclared, therefore reducing the public challenge to Iran.

Yet the Israeli counter-campaign failed to deter Soleimani from his goal. On September 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the platform at the annual United Nations General Assembly to uncover three underground sites recently built in Beirut. These, he claimed, were production lines the Iranians had built with Hezbollah, to improve the accuracy of the rockets closer to their “customers”, instead of exposing the systems to Israeli airstrikes while moving them on Syrian soil. A few days later the Lebanese government invited diplomats and journalists to visit those sites, claiming Netanyahu had lied about their nature. Some who attended the visit told me the fresh smell of paint had been rather evident.

Be that as it may, the Iranians persisted. Convoys kept attempting to smuggle weapons. There were also signs of new attempts to establish production lines on Lebanese territory. At the same time, Shiite militias began deploying long-range missiles in western Iraq, pointed towards Israel. Tehran, the Israelis claimed, had successfully established a “land corridor” connecting Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, under its effective operational control.

Israel increased its efforts. During a 24 hour period, between August 25th and 26th, three Israeli strikes were reported: against a Shiite militia on Iraq’s border with Syria, against an IRGC cell, attempting to launch attack drones at Israel from the Syrian border in the Golan Heights and in Beirut, where apparently a vital piece of equipment for the rocket production line had been hit. On September 1st, Hezbollah struck back, launching anti-tank rockets at an Israeli armored Jeep from the Lebanese border, yet missing.

This, however, is far from the end of the story. Netanyahu, entangled in a second election within five months (and perhaps facing a third one, due to political stalemate) is also extremely concerned about three forthcoming indictments for corruption. Under enormous personal pressure, he has deserted some of his customary cautiousness and sometimes hints quite bluntly to Israeli responsibility for the strikes. There have also been questions regarding his judgement, usually praised for being extremely calculated. As Ha’aretz has reported, a week before the second election he proposed a massive campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The security chiefs had their doubts whether the PM’s change, of course, had to do with his political troubles. Finally, the Israeli Attorney General prevented Netanyahu’s plan by insisting that the PM convene his security cabinet to vote on his suggestions. Netanyahu took a step back, yet the security apparatus remains sceptic of his intentions, as the political situation becomes more and more impossible to handle.

After the latest round of violence on the Lebanese border, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, insisted that the “equations” he has proclaimed in the past against Israeli aggression were now irrelevant. In the future, he said, his organization will use tougher means in retaliation. This Sunday, a senior IDF officer, Brigadier-General Dror Shalom, was interviewed by “Israel Today”, a newspaper considered as Netanyahu’s closest media outlet. Iran, warned Shalom, may decide to launch rockets from Iraq towards Israel. “We are getting closer to war. The picture is much gloomier than before”, he added. Stay tuned.

L'articolo The Campaign Between Wars: Israel’s Arduous Fight Against Iran proviene da InsideOver.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun issued a warning to Israel on Sept. 6 that if it were to attack his nation, it would suffer the consequences of doing so.

Less than a week before Aoun put Israel on notice, the two states traded rocket fire along the Lebanon – Israel border. While their governments have never been at peace with one another, recent events are the first major armed conflicts since the month-long 2006 war. Border clashes have cropped up occasionally, but after two Israeli drones crashed in a Lebanese neighbourhood on Aug. 25, both Aoun and Hezbollah leadership have become more vocal of Israel’s military actions. Then a report emerged that Israel could attack a missile factory which allegedly supplies Hezbollah. 

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon, promised to launch a “new phase” in its fight against Israel which will primarily focus on targeting drones inside Lebanese airspace. As the incident last month illustrated, the Israeli Defense Force has no qualms about flying surveillance craft along the border, equipment that is prone to venture into foreign airspace by design. 

Aoun went a step further in condemning the drones which were downed, comparing them to a “declaration of war.” 

“Any attack on Lebanon’s sovereignty … will be met with legitimate self-defence which Israel will bear the consequences of,” he said according to a transcript released from his office. Aoun had been meeting with United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubris as the two discussed ways to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. Thus far, the conflict is relatively calm compared to other military clashes across the globe, and Aoun would like for it to remain that way.

In a related matter, Aoun invited the United States to mediate discussions over a maritime disagreement with Israel and US Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker landed in Beirut on Tuesday to begin talks with Aoun’s government. It was not only Aoun and his diplomats seeking to control the conversation, but also Hezbollah. Nasrallah urged the Beirut negotiators to deal with Israel from a position of strength. The disagreement between the two states centres around an 860 sq. km. piece of the Mediterranean Sea which both Israel and Lebanon claim ownership of.

Nasrallah lectured his government, however, that American negotiators hold a bias towards Israel. 

“The American envoy is a friend of Israel and keen about [protecting] Israel’s interest and wants to negotiate with our leaders on oil, gas, and border,” Nasrallah said. 

Further complicating the situation, the US government has blacklisted two Hezbollah politicians and Jammal Trust Bank for “knowingly facilitating banking activities for Hezbollah.” 

Within the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent a message to Beirut regarding the missile factory. Israel, he said, could target it in the coming days and Pompeo recommended that the Lebanese government dismantle it. For Israel, the compound represents one piece in the greater regional outlook as it provides weapons for Iran as well. 

“This facility is of superior importance to the Hezbollah precision missile project, which is why Hezbollah, in fear of strikes, evacuated precious and unique equipment from the compound to civilian locations in Beirut,” an IDF report stated. 

A senior Israeli official told reporters that the plant has received more focus in recent months and took precedent over Iran’s growing presence in Syria. Israel’s plan to eliminate missile factories is simply another component in its battle against an increasingly-close Iran – Lebanon relationship. Throughout it all, civilians in Syria are the ones who suffer the most: Hezbollah produces weapons in Lebanon and supplies them to Iranian proxy militias who use them in Syria. 

The extension of Israel’s fight against Iran into both Syria and Lebanon is unsurprising given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy of completely eradicating his foes. Netanyahu is enjoying – and capitalizing on – a period of carte blanche on the international stage. Few have every successfully opposed Israeli military actions, nor even condemned them, but with Trump in office, Netanyahu can do anything he feels necessary. After all, if American leaders do not pull the reigns in on Israel’s loose cannon, which world power is left to reprimand Israel? Any that do would risk their relationship with Washington, which is already easy enough to do without attacking Israel’s foreign policy. A war could be brewing if Israel continues to ramp up its military strikes, especially within Lebanese airspace. Doing so threatens to ruin a decade of relative peace between the two nations.

L'articolo Aoun Warns Israel Will Face The Consequences If They Attack proviene da InsideOver.