Lebanon post-conflict analysis

During the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged that Israel "will insist on...fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559" which requires the disarming of Hezbollah, while describing the fight with Hezbollah as "a national moment of truth." President Bush added that, "our goal is to have a lasting peace--not a temporary peace, but something that lasts." Now that the major combat has ended with the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and its resulting ceasefire, the question arises as to whether ground has been broken on path that could lead to "lasting peace" between Israel and Lebanon.

An examination of the immediate aftermath of the combat suggests that a more likely scenario is a return to the status quo ante in Lebanon. Hezbollah will not be disarmed and it will continue to receive assistance from its Iranian and Syrian patrons. Moreover, the risk of regional instability will have increased with Israel's doctrine of deterrence having been significantly eroded.

Although Resolution 1701 calls for "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon," such calls have been par for the proverbial Middle East course. On paper, everything was in order. On the ground, there was no mechanism or desire to attempt to disarm Hezbollah. Hence, Hezbollah grew into an armed "state within a state" in Lebanon.

Emboldened by its survival in the recent conflict, hailed by public opinion in the Islamic world, and bolstered by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's declaration that the UN's call to disarm Hezbollah is "totally unreasonable" and "illogical," Hezbollah is in no mood to disarm. Already, Hezbollah has rejected requests that it surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Army.

With Lebanon's Government dependent on preserving a delicate sectarian balance, it lacks both the determination and will to coerce Hezbollah to disarm. In response to Hezbollah's unwillingness to disarm, the Lebanese Cabinet indefinitely postponed its meeting concerning implementation of Resolution 1701. Instead, Marwan Hamade, Lebanon's communications minister could only promise that Lebanon would seek to find a "formula" for implementing the terms of the Resolution. Afterward, on August 15, Al-Hayat reported that the Lebanese Government was working on a compromise agreement that would permit Hezbollah to retain its weapons in south Lebanon in spite of Resolution 1701.

The United Nations is not likely to employ international forces to disarm Hezbollah. The international community has failed to disarm Hezbollah in the past and there is little indication that it would assume the risks necessary to do so at present. Consequently, a path has been laid for Lebanon to drift back to the status quo ante that preceded the conflict.

Even as Lebanon is more than likely to regress to a situation comparable to the one that prevailed prior to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, it will do so at a time when Israel's doctrine of deterrence has been significantly eroded. That will entail heightened risks of instability in the medium-term and beyond.

Israel went into the conflict with three military options:

o A minimalist approach: Entailed striking a few targets and ending military operations once those targets had been hit.

o A "middle" approach: Entailed carrying out a significant number of strikes and operations, but overall operations would fall well short of a full-scale invasion of south Lebanon or beyond.

o A full-scale ground invasion of south Lebanon: Such a move would likely have seen the IDF, backed by heavy air support, encircle south Lebanon to cut off Hezbollah from escape, and then direct is efforts at eradicating Hezbollah and its infrastructure from that region.

If there was a benefit to the minimalist approach, it was that such an option could be accomplished quickly. Afterward, with the IDF having hit its targets, few would question whether or not the IDF had a stronger capacity. Israel's doctrine of deterrence would weakened somewhat given that Israel responded in its usual limited fashion even as Hezbollah crossed a "red line" in carrying out its raid and abductions of Israel's soil. Given the level of uncertainty over what a major Israeli effort might have achieved, the erosion would have been modest.

A full-scale ground invasion of south Lebanon would have allowed Israel to destroy a significant portion of Hezbollah and its infrastructure. In terms of dramatically changing the geopolitical landscape and redefining Lebanon's relationship with Israel, that is the option Israel should have pursued.

The middle approach was the riskiest of all. It required a lot of accuracy and depended on early execution of its robust measures so that there would be sufficient time to achieve the operation's objectives. The margin for error was small and the stake high. Its inherent danger was that the IDF/IAF would not have sufficient time to score a decisive victory. If that happened or a ceasefire prematurely ended operations, then Hezbollah would be in a position to claim victory for having stood up to a fairly robust Israeli military operation. That is what happened. In response, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah had won a "strategic, historic victory" and Prime Minister Olmert's declaration that the IDF's "strength is the main guarantee to preserving and defending our lives on this land" rings hollow.

Undoubtedly, Hezbollah has suffered damage. Its infrastructure had been hammered and its forces were slowly being peeled back at the time the ceasefire took hold. However, at the onset of the ceasefire, Hezbollah demonstrated it still possessed the means to continue fighting and launching rockets in a substantial way. As a result, Hezbollah achieved what no other Arab military force had ever before accomplished against Israel. It remained sufficiently intact to continue to fight.

Prime Minister Olmert's "Hamlet-like" indecision further undermined the already-risky middle approach by imposing lengthy delays before its execution. Based on the inconclusive outcome, perceptions concerning the Middle East's balance of power have continued to shift against Israel and the United States.

Israel has now suffered substantial damage to its ability to deter future acts of aggression. Strategic Forecasting Inc.'s George Friedman explained, "...the loss of the sense--and historical reality--of the inevitability of Israeli military victory is a far more profound defeat for Israel, as this clears the way for other regional powers to recalculate risks."

The inconclusive outcome will likely have ripple effects well beyond Lebanon even if Hezbollah ultimately disarms. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaimed, "The myth of the invincibility of this contrived and decayed regime [Israel's Government] crumbled thanks to the faith and self-belief of Lebanon's Hezbollah." Syrian President Bashar Assad stated, "We tell them [Israelis] that after tasting humiliation in the latest battles, your weapons are not going to protect you - not your planes, or missiles or even your nuclear bombs ... The future generations in the Arab world will find a way to defeat Israel." Salim al-Huss, former Prime Minister of Lebanon, predicted, "I can tell you that some change will take place in the political and ideological realities, owing to the collapse of the myth of the invincibility of the Israeli Army." Palestinian political commentator Mustafa Sawwaf stated, "Israel's deterrence force is gone forever and this revives hopes in the Arab world of confronting Israel in the future. The war has also affirmed that Islam constitutes a real threat to Israel, which now realizes that its end is close despite the military power it possesses."

In the wake of the conflict, Israel is now confronted with the challenge of how to repair its eroded ability to deter aggression. On the political front, Prime Minister Olmert demonstrated that he is not a strong leader of the ilk of a Golda Meir or a Menachem Begin. That could well encourage Syria and Iran to push ahead with their anti-Israel objectives and their proxies to take further risks against Israel. The IDF/IAF is not likely to let the issue rest and there will likely be support within the Knesset for political changes. A failed ceasefire or dramatic retreat on the second UN Security Council resolution--it is likely to be watered-down and might never materialize and both outcomes would solidify a return to the status quo ante--could accelerate Israel's political change process.

In the end, the situation in Lebanon appears poised to evolve toward one that will closely resemble that which prevailed prior to the conflict. At the same time, with Israel's ability to deter aggression compromised by the inconclusive outcome, overall risks to regional peace and security will likely be higher than they were prior to the conflict.

Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Reading Lolita in Tehran, A Memoir in Books - Analysis

For decades Iran has been the center for controversy. This week's headlines about Iran could invoke an image in one's mind of a boiler tank with vapors of suppressed religious anger bursting through the seams.

Below are some examples of the headlines:

Clashes erupt as Iran marks anniversary of embassy siege

Thousands rally in Tehran

In Iran, anti-government protests rival anti-American rallies

'Death to America' Day: How Iran Trained Its Young to Protest

Iran police to "strongly confront" Nov. 4 rallies

Iran warns of crackdown on any opposition protest

The tank could explode at any moment giving way to the accumulated pressure of hatred, threatening any opposition in its furious path.

Recently my reading of the memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran has opened my eyes to the meaning of these headlines. The author, Azar Nafisi paints a painfully beautiful portrait of her life as an English Literature professor struggling to teach a subject that is contrary to the oppressive theocratic rule of the government in power. Her teachings of the literary works of James and Fitzgerald and Nabokov quietly defy the Islamic Republic and their fundamentalist beliefs with characters of independent thought and individualism; a stark contrast to the image of the ideal Muslim, an ideal which Nafisi and her secret students come to describe as "irrelevant". Reading her memoir has aroused my interest to learn more of what lies behind the headlines.

If you peer into the past you will see that these headlines are just a continual reincarnation from decades past. Since as early as the sixties the controversy has been boiling in two pots; Moujahedin's modernism and the totalitarian, anti-American ideologies of Khomeini. The intrinsic difference behind the two ideologies is democracy and human rights.

Up until 1979 Iran was a monarchy; that is until that monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was given status of Supreme Leader. Since that time these headlines have dominated many newspapers throughout the world. The reason is because of the totalitarian principle of velayat-e-faqih, the basis upon which Khomeiniism stands. Velayat-e-faqih is the principle of absolute theocratic rule. Khomeini believed only in the religious rule of the clergy or Islamic government.

Khomeini earned the support of many Shi'ite Muslims by earning the title of Ayatollah. The title itself, Ayatollah means "God's exemplar on earth", and Shi'ite Muslim fundamentalists believe this literally. This religious fervor and emphatic support made it easy for Khomeini to create an atmosphere that forced his opposition to acquiesce.

Khomeini preached the strict adherence to the Islamic government or "God's government". His word was absolute, and disobedience was considered a "revolt against God". In a talk at the Fayzieah School in Qom, August 30, 1979, Khomeini warned opponents: "Those who are trying to bring corruption and destruction to our country in the name of democracy will be oppressed. They are worse than Bani Ghorizeh Jews, and they must be hanged. We will oppress them by God's order and God's call to prayer." This threat of oppression wasn't just aimed at Bani Ghorizeh Jews, but targeted Iranians as well. An example is Azar Nafisi's expulsion from the University of Tehran after years of teaching because of her refusal to wear the veil. No longer were women in Iran allowed a choice; the religion became law. (Wikipedia, 2009)

Reading Azar Nafisi's memoir changed my perception of Iran. How Azar Nafisi remained passionate about literature before her expulsion was my first step to understanding the unrest in Iran. Imprinted on my mind is the tornado atmosphere that Nafisi managed to dodge for so long. She seemed to weather the storm up to this point by standing in the calm-eye of the storm, a calm which she created by immersing herself and her students in the fantasy world of Lolita, the honest world of The Great Gatsby and the passionate world of Daisy Miller. All the while, fundamentalist banners were being hung all over the walls of the university, protests were resonating from outside the classroom windows and the worst image, a student who set fire to himself running through the halls. Our most humble respect must go to Azar Nafisi for persisting to teach Western literature in such a convulsive climate where the leadership considered those teachings to be "of the devil". Nafisi held on longer than any other self-respecting free person could expect.

Even more etched in my mind is the reason why immersing herself in Western literature would surround her in calmness amidst the turbulence of a revolutionary Iran, and strike such a universal chord with her readers and her students. To illustrate this point we must go into Nafisi's class where The Great Gatsby becomes controversial enough to be put on a mock trial. Representing the book itself Nafisi defends Gatsby against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its trouble with the novels morality. Nafisi's response:

"You don't read Gatsby...to learn whether adultery is good or bad but to learn about how complicated issues such as adultery and fidelity and marriage are. A great novel heightens your senses and sensitivity to the complexities of life and of individuals, and prevents you from the self-righteousness that sees morality in fixed formulas about good and evil." (Nafisi, 2004)

The message I take home from that is the attribute of empathy. All of the books Nafisi studies with her students have one thing in common. The characters are all flawed. There is no clear hero or a clear villain. Their portraits are in watercolor, blurring the hero and the villain. You have empathy for both. Zarrin, Nafisi's student, after very ably defending Gatsby in the mock trial said to Nafisi: "This is an amazing book. It teaches you to value your dreams but to be wary of them also, to look for integrity in unusual places." Zarrin has no sense to act immorally after reading the book. Instead she sees through the characters eyes and learns from their flaws. And reading these books under the context of a revolutionary Iran seems to awaken Nafisi's students to the fact that morality cannot be forced upon people. These books do not have some mystical power to entrance someone into acting out evil as the revolutionaries claim. I am convinced that the reason why these books strike such a chord with the reader is because of the characters freedom to choose. Ideals and religious laws are not things that can be forced upon an individual because the truth is they will never be accepted, just as with Humbert or the blind censor. It's ironic actually that these books are considered by the Khomeini supporters to be powerful enough to force the ideals of its characters on the reader. Ironic because that is exactly what the revolutionaries are doing, enforcing "morality" on its subjects with its Revolutionary Guards. It is in true narcissistic form, accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of. But the individual cannot be fooled.

"Neither Humbert nor the blind censor ever possesses his victims, they always elude him, just as objects of fantasy are always simultaneously within reach and inaccessible. No matter how they may be broken, the victims will not be forced into submission." (Nafisi, 2004)

Nafisi's memoir is a call to every man and woman that Iranians want democracy. They want the freedom to choose without the fear of death and oppression from the Khomeini supporters. She wants us to know that despite Khomeini's death in 1989, his ideologies and oppression rage on. In fact his death only shows how much of a hold he had on his supporters. "Iranians poured out into the cities and streets to mourn Khomeini's death in a "completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief." Since then, the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried to stay faithful to his ideology. (Wikipedia, 2009)

There is a majority that does not agree with absolute theocratic rule. Today their anti-government protests play out on the streets of Iran. The most active opposing anti-government group Moujahedin, seek democracy, human rights, liberty and grace and compassion versus violence and vengeance; a stark contrast to the oppressive and absolute theocratic rule in place now. We can read the result of their efforts in the declaration of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. A summary of the declaration can be found in Chapter 15, Modern, Democratic Islam: Antithesis to Fundamentalism of the book Islamic Fundamentalism - The new Global Threat:

"The program of the National Council of Resistance of lran recognizes the "individual and social rights of all citizens as stressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It guarantees general freedoms, including freedom of association, thought and speech, the media, parties, unions, councils, faiths and religions, and professions. The NCR program also calls for "the abolishment of military and extraordinary tribunals, the investigation of political offenses in civil courts with juries present," and guarantees the "right of the accused to defense and to the choice of the defense counsel, and the right to appeal" It emphasizes "the banning of torture under any pretext,"' and stresses "the judicial and professional security for all citizens and abolishment of Komitehs and the Guards Corps." (Mohaddessin, 1993)

This National Council of Resistance of Iran has given hope to the many Iranian's, especially women, who suffer the oppression from the absolute rule of the Republic of Iran. But will we ever see the end of this battle? Will Iran emerge from the clutches of Khomeini's terrorist-religious tyranny? The Mojahedin believe so; in fact they believe it is a necessity. Perhaps it may be in your lifetime, or perhaps not. As for now one can only cast a glimpse into the future to see what Iran will become (should the democratic liberating Islam triumph) by reading the words of the Mojahedin's Massoud Rajavi:

"We shall live in peace and coexistence with our neighbors. Democratic Iran will not recognize any place for vengeance, blind hatred, or Khomeini's tribunals or brand of anarchy. We are responsible enough not to be involved in internal and international adventurism. We do not want an antidemocratic theocracy like Khomeini's. Instead of "exporting the revolution," we shall invite our country's experts to return to Iran. In democratic Iran no one will be persecuted for his ideology or religion. Tomorrow's Iran will be free of repression and religious hypocrisy. Women, workers, peasants, religious and ethnic minorities will not be oppressed. Kurds, Turks, Jews, Muslims, Armenians, Christians, Zoroastrians, and non-Muslims will enjoy equal rights. Iran will become a symbol of peace, stability, and friendship in the Middle East." (Rajavi, 1982)

I am a business student recognized as an outstanding business student and sit on the dean's list with a 3.9 grade point average. Currently I am an officer in the PBL (Professional Business Leaders) Club as webmaster. I am also the president of an Icelandic cultural association. I believe in giving back to the community and raising awareness. My strengths are in presentations, personal selling, customer service and developing systems and procedures that increase productivity.