Iran: Lack of
police making, and the open gates of Lebanon
By Dr : Riad Awwad
080121
With the debut of the year 2008 and after the speeches of French
president Nicolas Sarkozy, who announced the ending of contacts with
Damascus in order to reach an agreement on the situation on Lebanon,
the international community could believe that Syria’s role in the
matter has ended, appreciating that the Damascus regime interprets
today’s international evolutions not in 2008`s language but in the one
of the `70s which has become obsolete, passing in the pages of
history.
The Syrian regime wished, very probably, to demonstrate to Paris that
Lebanon’s situation could not be solved in Beirut, but only in
Damascus who wants but a settlement based on the ruins of this poor
and peaceful country. If Lebanon had been a great producer of oil,
probably the world would have been a lot more interested in what is
going on there and of Damascus’s behavior that wishes a copy of former
president Emile Lahoud to be installed in Beirut. A wish to which the
internationally agreed upon candidate, Michel Slemaine, does not come
close to.
Far from wanting to have a positive role, congruent to the way the
international community thinks, Damascus does nothing more than
playing a negative rapture, arranged by Iran who, in it’s turn, is
confronted with serious problems generated by the nuclear arms file
which preoccupies the whole world through the perspective that one day
it could be put in the hands of Islamic extremists.
The world crosses today an unstable period in which America, the sole
international cop, seams to lack time to analyze the dictatorial
regimes that obstruct the realization of Iraqi – Iraqi harmony or who
dictate the dissemination on death and destruction in Israel, or
sabotage any good intentions of the international community in Lebanon.
This can explain France’s refusal to continue diplomatic contacts with
the Iranian backed up Damascus, although Paris had proposed a
basketful of rational measures for electing a consensual president,
and the constitution of a national unity government, with proportional
representation for all parliamentary parties, and the elaboration of a
new democratic election law. The leader of the Lebanese majority
stated, in Ryad that: “Syria wants a solution to the situation in line
with its clients wishes, not with the needs of Lebanon”, adding that
Damascus is convinced that a solution can only be reached in Syria.
Syrian minister of external affairs, Walid Al-Moallem declares that
the solution depends on General Michel Aoun and he, in his turn, says
that the deciding factor is Hezbollah, which if expressed differently,
means that the solution lies in the hands of Teheran. The pro Syrian
opposition accuses the parliamentary majority of obedience to the
Occident and America, forgetting though that it is itself obeying
Syria and Iran. Taking sides and making favors can not be divided,
it’s an act of betrayal, whatever the identity of the protector is.
This time Hezbollah will use force to impose, what ever the cost, the
orders of Teheran and Damascus. In the 2006 war this faction used to
bring salutations to the parliamentary majority, only to undermine its
authority afterwards, only because it was ordered to do so by the
Iranian and Syrian regimes, forgetting or faking to forget its
terrorist character, worldwide known. Who pays more gets served first.
In the Declaration of Constitution from 1985, it was stated clearly:
“We (Hezbollah) are the sons of the nation named Hezbollah who first
saw the light of day in Iran as main nucleus of the world Islamic
state. We are obedient to the fair ruling of the sole supreme leader,
inheritor of the teachings of the eternal imam Ruhollah Khomeini”. In
his turn, the former leader of Hezbollah, Sobhi Tofaili, agreed
textually: “He who states that Iran has no interest in Lebanon is a
liar. The decision does not lie in Beirut, but in Teheran. Ibrahim Al
Amim, responsible of the leadership of Hezbollah stated recently: “We
are not a part of Iran. We are Iran in Lebanon itself!” On 4 august
2006, general secretary of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah declared for an
Islamic Iranian publication: “Our parties dream is to constitute one
day the Islamic Lebanese Republic, the only way to secure the future
and peace of this society”. About what kind of stability Nasrallah
speak, we shall find out soon enough.
In no other part of the world the government can not be elected before
the president. In Lebanon though, it’s a glance of external intrusions.
After all the diplomatic efforts made by America, France and the Arab
community , Damascus an Teheran began to fight over the inexistent
ministerial chairs in Beirut. None of the sides takes in consideration
that the representation in the government has to be proportional with
the one in the legislative body. The pro Syrian and pro Iranian
opposition wishes not less than 11 ministries, next to the 14 that
should reach the majority, to which another 5 ministers would add
named by the president who, in his turn, is supposed to answer to
Teheran and Damascus.
Today the solution depends on the actions of the peace and democracy
loving forces who have the duty of closing Lebanon’s gates in front of
the forces of evil and terrorist extremism, to take to justice the
killers of ex prime minister Rafik Hariri and to make harder the
measures against Iran who, with its actions, threats the whole
international community.
|
