Editorial – A New Beginning for 1701? But at What Expense?

Home
War in the Middle East
Editorial – A New Beginning for 1701? But at What Expense?

A meticulously negotiated political resolution, under the guidance of the United States, to revert to the strict implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; or a steadily mounting military escalation amplifying the risk of a large-scale conflagration, potentially surpassing the severity witnessed in 2006? For several weeks, the Lebanese people have been living under the looming shadow of the grave alternative, with heavy consequences. However, amidst the accelerated pace of assassinations and the resurgence of Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments, the situation seems to tip towards a potential escalation that, for the time being, remains somewhat "controlled."

As stressed repeatedly, the pivotal question in this scenario is whether the two main players, Tel Aviv and Tehran, genuinely see any benefit in entering into a widespread conflict. Currently, there is an undeniable "gathering of dark clouds" on the horizon, possibly indicating the troubling precursor to a perilous conflagration.
Nevertheless, a glimmer of hope for a political resolution emerges. Caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdallah Bou Habib mentioned, upon leaving the Grand Serail on Monday, that the return of the American mediator, Amos Hochstein, to Beirut hinges on positive developments. Coincidence or not, caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati mentioned in an interview, with the Arabic-speaking US al-Hurra television channel, that the US envoy is expected to arrive in Lebanon "this week."
Does this indicate a genuine crafting of an all-encompassing resolution in high-level diplomatic circles, as suggested by Secretary of State Antony Blinken's extensive regional tour and the recent mid-December visit to Beirut by (caretaker) French Minister of Foreign Affairs Catherine Colonna who also engaged in dialogue with her Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir Abdollahian?
According to scant information filtering through the press and the declarations of Israeli leaders, it appears that the political solution under consideration hinges significantly on the withdrawal of Hezbollah's militia to the area north of the Litani River. Simply put, this implies a robust implementation of Resolution 1701. However, there's a common tendency to swiftly forget that achieving this objective wouldn't truly be considered as "asset." As a matter of fact, the pro-Iranian party was under the obligation to comply with the provisions of the UN resolution from the very start, since the end of the July 2006 war.
Hezbollah may have indeed done so initially, but subsequently, it started encroaching on the territory to redeploy its militia within the UNIFIL zone, sometimes under the pretext of a doubtful and murky "ecological" association, and some other times through groups of "young residents," allegedly civilians.

At times, these groups carried out disruptive actions aimed at constraining the movement of UN Peacekeepers in order to enable the Iranian regime's henchmen to operate freely near the borders with Israel.
Should pro-Iranian militiamen reaffirm commitment to 1701, what would guarantee that such business of territorial nibbling and progressive and pernicious "re-conquest" will not reoccur? Since October 8, Hezbollah has established a new "fait accompli" of its militia presence in the South. Why would Iran compel it to withdraw without any political gain in return? And if this is the case, what would that gain be?
The whole problem currently facing Lebanon revolves around this ultimate question. Granting assets to Tehran's ally in terms of domestic politics and power-sharing (such as the presidency, a new government and sensitive appointments…) would not in any way resolve the issue of the party's warlike and militia-driven posture. Hezbollah would not hesitate to "grab" the gains and swiftly revert to its belligerent behavior by encroaching once more on UNIFIL’s zone of operations.
In order for a withdrawal of the "party of God" militia from the south of the Litani River to be based on solid and long-lasting foundations, the pressure should be exerted on regional as well as internal levels.
This can be done by making to the Iranian mentor, "an offer that he can’t refuse," akin to a scenario from The Godfather movie.
It is not just about Lebanon's stability, but that of the entire region. It is crucial to avoid a return to the mindset of the disastrous Munich Agreement of 1938, which did not prevent the Second World War.

Editorial – A New Beginning for 1701? But at What Expense?

Comments

Search

Tags

Latest news