Answer to a Question The Conflict in Lebanon Enters a New Phase
Question:
Is it true, as announced, that the conflict in Lebanon has entered a new phase? If so, what has changed in the "rules of the game" in Lebanon for this new phase to begin?
Answer:
The statement that Lebanon has entered a new phase is largely correct. To clarify the picture completely, let us review the matter from its beginning:
America has been the primary influence in Lebanon from the Taif Agreement until the assassination of Hariri. Syria maintained American influence in Lebanon since the Syrian army entered Lebanon with American permission.
After Hariri's assassination, France (Chirac) saw a golden opportunity to restore its influence in Lebanon. Chirac escalated events, mobilized his followers in Lebanon, and succeeded in inciting public opinion against America, Syria, and their followers until America agreed to the Syrian army's withdrawal from Lebanon, which Syria then executed.
The political struggle remained heated between America, Syria, and their followers on one side, and France and its followers on the other. Britain and its followers in Lebanon were supporting France from behind the scenes without public confrontation with America, in accordance with British policy, which does not openly show hostility to America but works from behind the scenes.
This situation continued until Sarkozy came to power in France. He is known for his friendship with the American administration, as became clear during his election campaign. Therefore, the heated conflict that existed between America and France (Chirac) vanished and was replaced by "sportsmanlike competition" between America and its followers and France and its followers. Sarkozy hoped to reach an "understanding" with America regarding a solution in Lebanon that takes French interests into account. Sarkozy's France became active in diplomatic shuttle missions to Lebanon, working diligently toward a solution.
It was expected that this solution would be reached. What hindered it was the dissatisfaction of Britain and its followers in Lebanon. Britain was not satisfied with America and France alone dividing the solution, leaving it on the margins of events. Because Britain is characterized by political cunning, its men in Lebanon would stir up a storm whenever any solution approached. However, this did not affect the two parties—neither France and the government, nor America, Syria, and the opposition. Therefore, the competition remained "sportsmanlike"; one side would stir things up, and the other would respond, then both would calm down without escalating to a heated political conflict, let alone a physical one.
This state of affairs continued—America and France and their followers in sportsmanlike competition, and "harassment" from Britain and its men—but without straining the relationship between France and America, and without Britain succeeding in changing the "sportsmanlike game" between the two teams. This continued until March 27, 2008, during the meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, following the American subprime mortgage crisis and the massive debt defaults it caused for European banks and companies.
It seems that Britain succeeded, through its political cunning and Sarkozy's political naivety, in inciting Sarkozy's heart against America regarding the massive losses suffered by European banks and companies as a result of the American mortgage crisis. This was reflected in the relationship in Lebanon, especially as France noticed that America was stalling on solutions to prepare the conditions for America to regain its full influence in Lebanon without allowing France even a small piece of the Lebanese "cake."
Since that date, it has been observed that the French-American relationship in Lebanon has moved beyond sportsmanlike competition. British actions were no longer just "harassments" ignored by French men in the government. While the government used to treat Jumblatt's provocations according to their size without affecting government policy and decisions, the picture flipped, and it began to take them seriously.
During April 2008, the issue of the telecommunications network and airport cameras took a preliminary path to choose the time for escalation to the boiling point... until Jumblatt's press conference and his provocation regarding the telecommunications network, airport cameras, and the head of airport security...
Instead of the government dealing with Jumblatt's "provocation" as it had before—merely as "harassment" that does not affect decisions—it responded this time due to the rapprochement between Britain and France. The government met and took the decision regarding the network, the cameras, and the head of airport security.
In conclusion, after exploding the issue of the telecommunications network and the head of airport security, Britain lured France into supporting it, on the assumption that the reactions from America, Syria, and the opposition would not be heated physical responses, especially as America is preoccupied at the height of election campaigns. Consequently, the problem would place the army in confrontation with the opposition, and then the solution would be a settlement in which France, Britain, and the "Loyalists" would have a significant share.
France and Britain miscalculated. America, Syria, and the opposition hold strong cards in terms of numbers and equipment. A wise politician realizes that reactions would not stop at sportsmanlike competition or even heated conflict but would exceed that to heated physical conflict. It is not unlikely that Britain was aware of this, but it is more probable that it triggered the matter to shuffle the cards between France, America, and their followers!
It is expected now that these events will end in a settlement, but it will likely be in favor of America, Syria, and the opposition in Lebanon; this side will be the dominant one. The side of Europe and the "Loyalists" in Lebanon will be the weaker, declining side. It is not far-fetched that the solutions will result in a new Taif, whether by changing its name and essence... in form and substance, or by changing its substance even if its name remains related to the first, such as being called "Taif 2"!
Therefore, the statement about a new phase is correct.
5 Jumada al-Ula 1429 AH May 9, 2008