So, we’ve got some massive pro-Syria/Hezbollah demonstrations in Lebanon. By all accounts, much larger than those that prompted outing of the pro-Syria government. It seems to me that Hezbollah has allowed the recent shake up to let the world see how democracy loving Lebanon is; now they are letting people know Hezbollah is going to run that democracy.Or am I too cynical?
If Hezbollah does not relinquish arms beforehand (likely), will the US recognize the election as valid?
How will the US react if the coming elections sweep a declared terrorist organization into power? From stated admin doctrine, it would appear immediate and forceful action would be the order of the day. Lebanon is quite a different deal though, and a proximity to Israel makes for the optics of a US invasion.
The article opines that the next 10 - 14 days will be a better indicator about the real sentiments of the country and where the election results seem likely to be headed.
I think it’s still too early to tell but my thinking is that once Syria withdraws, and the rhetoric is calmed, the balance of power will likely shift away from Hezzbolah.
Unlikely to happen. How is Hezbollah going to LOSE influence if Syria exits? If they stay, then it’s pretty much status quo. Besides, that organization is popular chiefly (only?) among the Shi’a in Lebanon, who make up about 40% of the population. Even with 100% of the Shi’a vote (very unlikely), they still wouldn’t be a majority.
I doubt that many governments will recognize the election as valid if Syrian troops remain. OTOH, civil war is not out of the question-- that’s what got Syria involved in the first place. But you can forget about an Iraq style invasion by the US alone. Just ain’t gonna happen.
How much oil does Lebanon have? None? Okay, agreed, no US invasion.
A 40% share is enough to be controlling if the other 60% is disunited, of course. Either Hizballah wins outright or they keep control militarily anyway. Validity, you say? Who’s gonna do anything about it?
From the linked CS article(regarding Syrian withdrawal, Hezbollah’s position):
From yahoo report on Syrian President Assad’s weekend announcement:
and more positive, with a couple of caveats:
This “two stage” withdrawal plan (first redeploying to east, then maybe leaving someday) makes me think that Syria’s troops will remain a factor in the near and mid future.
I was watching one of the cable news programs yesterday (can’t remember which one) and one of the talking heads opined that (and I paraphrase): “Lebanon’s economy is more important to Assad than is Syria’s economy, so he isn’t going to give it up without a fight.” Does anyone know how accurate this is, and if it is, how Assad actually benefits from Lebanon’s economy?
Nutshell: Syria has cheap labour and products; Lebanon has a banking and services sector. Water supply is a factor as well (Syria needs it; Lebanon’s got it).
For more detail and current info, I recommend the Josh Landis blog Syria Comment:
BTW, it should be noted that Mr Nasrallah’s and Hezbollah support for Syrian withdrawal under terms of the 1989 Taif Accord can be seen as a broader strategy to support the document in full. Another aspect of that accord is the dismantling of the system of parliamentary representation by sect currently in place. This is seen as a boon to Hezbollah politically, as it has wide support d/t it’s social infrastructure arm.
Do you know that 200,000 workers of Syrian origin work in Lebanon? Combine this with Hezbollah, and there you have it, a perfectly orchestrated fake rally to show support for the Syrian Government which isn’t even representative of the Lebanese population on a whole.
