Question One:
We know that Russia entered Syria through an agreement with America, or by its order, to preserve the regime and prepare the atmosphere for a political solution with the opposition... However, it has been observed that America almost boycotts Russia's attempts to bring the regime and the opposition together in Astana, Sochi, and elsewhere; if it attends, it does so as an observer, like Jordan! What is the explanation for this, and thank you?
Answer:
The explanation for this can be summarized in two words: America's arrogance and Russia's stupidity... Here is the clarification:
1- It is true that Russia's intervention was with the approval of America, or by its command, and for America's interest... We have previously clarified this matter in a leaflet issued on 11/10/2015, which stated: (...And here was the calamity; America portrays itself as being with the rebels, making it difficult for it to fight them openly. They had caused damage to the regime, and the American alternative had not yet matured. So, there was that dirty firework game where Russia would carry out the task. Its role is to support the regime openly and stand against the rebels openly, and the war against them is justified in its view. The regime was ready to summon Russia by America's order, and that is what happened... Russia agreed to play this evil, dirty role in Syria to serve America!...) We clarified this further in a Q&A issued on 18/11/2015 entitled: (The Latest Developments on the Syrian Arena), which stated: (...a- Russia’s aggression against Syria on 30/09/2015 was preceded directly by the meeting between Obama and Putin on 29/09/2015, which lasted 90 minutes... The Ukrainian crisis occupied the first part of it, while the two presidents focused on the situation in Syria in the remaining part. The results of this meeting appeared immediately: “On 30/09/2015, the Russian Federation Council unanimously approved Putin's request to use the Russian Air Force in Syria... Russia Today 30/09/2015”...
b- Even the sites that Russia was striking in Syria were mostly by agreement with America. CNN reported on 04/10/2015: “General Andrey Kartapolov, a military official in the General Staff of the Russian Army, said on Saturday evening, 03/10/2015, that the areas targeted by the Russian Air Force in Syria had been previously defined to Moscow by the American military command as areas harboring terrorists only...”).
Thus, America brought Russia into Syria to support the regime and prepare the ground for an American solution; it did not bring it in to formulate a solution as if it were the one in control of affairs in Syria... But Russia's stupidity, after it committed brutal acts and succeeded in preventing the regime's fall, led it to think it could manage the political solution. It did not see that America might oppose this; rather, it thought America would agree as long as it, Russia, performed the brutal role in Syria as requested by America and protected the regime from collapse...
2- Based on this flawed assumption, it called for the Astana and Sochi meetings, invited the factions, and drew up projects... It invited America to participate and play an active role with it: (Peskov said today, Saturday, that there have been positive developments regarding the Syrian settlement recently, “but that requires joint efforts to bring it to a qualitatively new level. All of this requires interaction between Russia and the United States in one way or another”... Orient News 04/11/2017). Russia was hoping for a summit meeting between its president, Putin, and US President Trump in Vietnam during the APEC summit on 10/11/2017. It publicly demanded a meeting between the two presidents several times, and continued to demand it even during the summit in a manner that indicates the extent of Russia's need for coordination with America regarding their bilateral relations and regarding Syria. However, America did not respond and only agreed to issue a joint statement by the two presidents as if the meeting had taken place, even though it did not reach the level of a meeting, but rather a statement prepared by experts from both sides and a handshake between two presidents. This is an example of the Russian appeal to America, which borders on groveling.
3- Russia realizes at the same time that it is incapable of doing so without America, so it sends appeal after appeal in the hope of a response. A kind of subservience appeared in its demand for a meeting between Putin and Trump.
Because Russia is in a hurry for a solution in Syria, its president, Putin, invited the criminal Bashar to a meeting in Sochi on 20/11/2017, then contacted Trump on 21/11/2017 to inform him of the discussions that took place with Bashar: (Russian President Vladimir Putin held a telephone conversation today, Tuesday, with his American counterpart Donald Trump, focusing on discussing the crisis in Syria and the results of his meeting with Bashar al-Assad. Russia Today 21/11/2017).
Thus, Russia strongly wants to accelerate the solution to the Syrian crisis, and imagines, as is its habit, that it is the superpower participating alongside America in solving the Syrian crisis. Therefore, we find it eager to seize the political solution today because it represents the ideal exit for it; the political solution stops its bleeding, especially the economic drain resulting from its military participation... For all of this, it took the initiative to hold meetings that suggest it is leading the solution in Syria. It summons Bashar, then summons Erdogan and Rouhani, and then plans to summon what it calls representatives of “all segments of the Syrian people” to come up with a solution to the crisis. It begs America to participate with it so that the solution matures quickly, as it has announced its intention to withdraw some of its forces (Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said on Thursday that the size of the Russian military force in Syria will likely be reduced “significantly” and that this may begin before the end of this year... Euro News 23/11/2017). Despite this, America is slow to respond to Russia's requests...
4- This is the American game with Russia regarding Syria: leaving it alone in the quagmire, ignoring its demands, and coordinating with it only minimally, often through subordinates. From this, it becomes clear that all of Russia's efforts to lead the political solution in Syria are doomed to failure due to Russia falling into a large American swamp in Syria. What America remains silent about and encourages is Russia's continued role as one of the tools of American hegemony used in Syria against the revolution and against the Islamic situation there. Russia has no leadership role in solving the Syrian crisis despite the scenes of meetings, conferences, and receptions it displays in Moscow and Sochi...
Before Russia's path with America becomes clear, all of Russia's initiatives for a solution in Syria will stand helpless, waiting for American participation. When the elements of a solution in Syria mature, it is expected that America will come forward itself through the United Nations, or through its subordinate countries in the region, to impose the solution in Syria.
5- This is what appears from the movements of Russia and America in Syria. These movements can be thwarted, Allah willing, if the armed factions straighten their path, break their links with America's regional agents—especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia—and then stand sincerely and faithfully against the regime, joining with the sincere ones in the Ummah, and holding fast to the rope of Allah... Then, Syria, by Allah's leave, will be a disappointment for America and Russia, and a back-breaker for both of them, and they will then exit trailing the tails of defeat, turning back for nothing... And that is not difficult for Allah.
==============
Question Two:
Hariri retracted his resignation, and the cabinet met under his chairmanship on 05/12/2017, after which he declared that the cabinet agreed on "disassociation" (an-na'y bil-nafs)... By following Hariri's actions, instability and contradiction appear: after years of presidential vacuum in Lebanon, Hariri went to Aoun on 20/10/2016 and agreed with him on the presidency and the government, knowing that Aoun and Hezbollah are one bloc and that the Party is the effective element... On 04/11/2017, Hariri announced his resignation while in Saudi Arabia and poured his wrath on Hezbollah... And now he has retracted his resignation and continued in the government while Hezbollah is in it! What is the explanation for this instability and contradiction? Furthermore, is there a direction to reduce the influence of Iran and its party? And is an aggression from the Jewish state expected against Lebanon or against Hezbollah, exploiting the current circumstances? May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
In order for the answer to be clear, it is necessary to mention the reality of the relationship between the Hariri family and Saudi Arabia, which is that Hariri is a subordinate to Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi ruler is loyal to the British, this is reflected in Hariri's actions and policies in Lebanon, and likewise if the ruler is loyal to America... In light of this, we can answer as follows:
1- The term of the former Lebanese President Michel Suleiman ended in May 2014. The ruler in Saudi Arabia was King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. Because Abdullah was loyal to the British... and because there was an insistence from Hezbollah that Aoun be the president—and it is known that Hezbollah and Aoun were supported by Iran, which is loyal to America... Therefore, King Abdullah did not agree to Aoun being the president of Lebanon. Consequently, he ordered Saad Hariri to oppose Aoun's candidacy for the presidency. Saad Hariri's policy was subordinate to Saudi policy, i.e., King Abdullah's policy. For this reason, the position of the Lebanese presidency remained vacant for about two and a half years, from the end of Michel Suleiman's term in May 2014 until Monday afternoon when the Lebanese Parliament convened and elected Aoun as President of the Republic on 31/10/2016...
2- What helped in this was the change of rule in Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah died on 23/01/2015, and his brother Salman took over. As is well known, he is loyal to America... This king began by clipping the wings of the British loyalists among King Abdullah's sons and his former supporters until he organized his rule... After things stabilized for him, and because America wanted to stabilize the situation in Lebanon in its own way by electing Aoun as President of the Republic, it asked Salman to order Hariri not to oppose! This is why Saad Hariri went to Aoun, agreed with him, and nominated him for the presidency. This means the opposition led by Saad Hariri during Abdullah's era ended now in Salman's era! (President Saad Hariri appeared from Beit al-Wasat nominating MP Michel Aoun for the presidency, in the presence of his bloc members led by President Fouad Siniora and MP Bahia Hariri... Then he delivered a speech stating: "Based on the points of agreement we reached, I announce today before you my decision to support the nomination of General Michel Aoun for the presidency of the republic"... An-Nahar 20/10/2016). After that, the Parliament convened on 31/10/2016 and elected Aoun as President... (...It is mentioned that the support of the leader of the Future Movement, Saad Hariri, for Aoun's candidacy is what facilitated the holding of presidential elections after a vacancy that lasted two years and five months since the end of the term of former Lebanese President Michel Suleiman in May 2014... Al-Arabiya 31/10/2017). Therefore, Aoun's visit to Saudi Arabia was to return the favor! As is clear from the above, Hariri is a subordinate to the ruler in Saudi Arabia, opposing or agreeing according to what the ruler of Saudi Arabia dictates to him.
3- After Trump took power in America, he visited Saudi Arabia on 20/05/2017. He made escalating statements about Iran and Hezbollah. By escalating these statements before a summit of about 50 Ruwaibidhah rulers of the Muslim lands, he aimed to divert attention from the issue of the Muslims in Palestine and focus it on Iran. This was a prelude to what he was planning regarding his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews... The intensive escalation was clear in those statements... Naturally, Saudi Arabia and others among his followers followed this path. Since Iran's central role in the region is dominated by Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon and its intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia asked Hariri to adopt another policy against Hezbollah and Iran. It summoned him to Saudi Arabia and asked him to resign there and deliver a statement explaining the reasons in strong terms against Iran and Hezbollah... And so it was; Hariri was brought to Saudi Arabia and made his "heroic" statements... and announced his resignation from there on 04/11/2017.
4- America realizes that its statements against Iran and Hezbollah do not mean a total break with Iran and its party, but rather an escalation to be exploited to frighten the people of the Gulf. It wanted statements from Saudi Arabia and Hariri to send a message, but not to go to the end of that path. In other words, America does not want to end the presence of the Party, but rather to send a message to a certain extent without uncalculated escalation in Lebanon... Therefore, it asked Saudi Arabia to calm down, i.e., for Hariri to tone down his language. It was stated on the An-Nashra website on 04/12/2017 (...Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not move except after full coordination directly with the White House, and after the fourth visit of the US President's senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the Middle East since President Donald Trump assumed his presidential duties. While this visit remained away from media discussion, Kushner and his accompanying delegation stayed in Saudi Arabia for four days, which included quick visits to Egypt, Jordan, and (Israel). About two weeks after Kushner's departure, the Lebanon crisis and the arrests inside Saudi Arabia exploded... During the acute political crisis that hit Lebanon, signs appeared in this framework; the understanding that existed between the White House and the Saudi Crown Prince regarding Lebanon fell under the title of pressuring "Hezbollah" to adjust its regional size after it became very large... Under this title, the Saudi Crown Prince launched his attack toward the Lebanese government through its head, Saad Hariri, and thus blew up the consensual settlement that arose with the arrival of General Michel Aoun to the Baabda Palace... But the Saudi style was violent and lacked diplomatic finesse, which threatened internal Lebanese stability, while American institutions were constantly repeating that the pressure targeting "Hezbollah" is governed by a specific ceiling that cannot be exceeded so that things do not explode... With things faltering, American institutions moved on the basis that Lebanese stability had become vulnerable to collapse... An-Nashra website: 04/12/2017).
5- Thus, Hariri began to tone down his intensified rhetoric based on Saudi orders... In order for there to be a face-saving exit, Saudi Arabia received the French President, talks took place, he met with Hariri, then Hariri traveled to France, then to Egypt, and created an atmosphere as if he were consulting to take the appropriate stance. However, the stance was drawn in Saudi Arabia before his travel, which was to tone down the language and not proceed with the resignation to its end... This is what happened; he returned to Lebanon on 21/11/2017, then announced the suspension of the resignation on 22/11/2017, then significantly toned down his language toward Hezbollah, declaring that Hezbollah does not use its weapons domestically—as if he were deceiving himself before deceiving others, forgetting the Party's use of its weapons in more than one incident internally! Until he announced the withdrawal of the resignation and the meeting of the government under his chairmanship on 05/12/2017, stating in his declaration (...that the situation has been settled after all members of the government agreed to remain aloof from the affairs of other Arab countries). He says this while Hezbollah militias are fighting in Syria day and night!
6- The conclusion is that Hariri is a subordinate to the rule in Saudi Arabia; the policy and loyalty of the ruler in Saudi Arabia are reflected on Hariri as a command and a prohibition... This matter is not hidden from anyone with eyes, and deception in it is of no avail!
As for whether there is a direction to reduce the influence of Iran and its party, this is possible, but it is expected that this will occur after the solution in Syria reaches the degree that America wants. At that point, if Iran and Hezbollah have exhausted their role, a withdrawal from Syria and a reduction of the military role of Iran and its party could occur... For the record, Hezbollah is a subordinate to the rule in Iran just as Hariri is a subordinate to the rule in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is expected that if the Syrian issue ends with certain arrangements for Iran's withdrawal, it will be followed by certain arrangements for its party in Lebanon.
As for whether an aggression from the Jewish state against Lebanon or Hezbollah is expected, this depends on the arrangements of solutions in Syria, i.e., it depends on the existing and emerging circumstances...
21st of Rabi’ al-Awwal 1439 AH 09/12/2017 CE