Where does Lebanon fit into a possible "Grand Bargain"?

There has been a game afoot since President Obama took office last January. While much has been made of Obama’s sweeping domestic agenda, his foreign policy ideas are no less ambitious. In the end, his foreign and domestic agendas are closely related, as the goal of both is to protect and improve America.

In the international realm, this means addressing the most pressing concerns to US interests,  one of  the most important of which is the stability of the Middle East, and the biggest threats to that stability are (1) the festering Israeli/Palestinian situation, and  (2) a possible conflict between Israel and Iran.

Israel an Iran

Since 1979, America’s policy towards hostile Iran has been a strategy of isolation and sanctions, the purpose of which was supposed to lead to domestic instability and eventual regime change. But that has not happened, and Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guardsmen that run the country are still as powerful and defiant as ever.

This policy of isolation and sanctions could have gone on for a very long time and might have actually worked someday in the distant future if it had not been for one thing: Iran’s nuclear energy program. The Iranians claim that the program is for peaceful purposes; Western nations are not inclined to believe them.

The United States can tolerate hostile regimes, but hostile regimes having nuclear weapons is hard to swallow. And it’s infinitely harder to swallow for Israel.

Israel and Iran are practically neighbors. America has the Atlantic Ocean and Europe between it and Iran,  but Israel only has Syria. Also, the bellicose rhetoric of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad does not help to assuage Israeli fears when he threatens to “wipe Israel off the map”.

When you throw in the possibility of Iran possessing nuclear weapons, it’s easy to understand Israel’s position on the matter, which is basically this: Under no circumstances can we allow our greatest enemy to pose a real existential threat to us by possessing nuclear weapons.

Coming back to America (and to make a long story short), a conflict between Israel and Iran would destabilize the Middle East, which would harm US interests in the Middle East, disrupt US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and drive up oil prices to a level that threatens the world’s fragile economic recovery.

So it is in America’s best interest (and arguably the world’s) to see that the conflict does not escalate to war.

Israel and Palestine

Settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been high on the US agenda at least since 1967 and is seen by many as a top factor of destabilization in the region.

Some governments act hostile towards Israel to play to the anger and frustration of their constituencies at home. In the Arab world, it’s popular to denounce Israel and proclaim your support for the “Palestinian cause”, while governments who have made peace with Israel- Egypt ,for example- are deeply unpopular amongst a large portion of their populations who view their leaders as collaborators who only add to the plight of the Palestinians.

For the Israelis, letting this problem fester for so long has only added to the hostility that they face from their neighbors. It is in the United States’ interest to see that the situation is resolved peacefully because the conflict threatens the stability of the Middle East- an area of great strategic importance to America.

Another reason for America to advocate for a quick and peaceful solution to the problem is because it is used by terrorists to recruit more terrorists, with the sales pitch being that the Palestinians are our Muslim brothers and they are suffering greatly. Their land has  been taken by the Zionists who are supported by America. We must fight back.

Recently, top-ranking US General Petreus went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and testified that the United States’ relationship with Israel only adds to the danger that US troops face in the Middle East because of its usefulness as a recruiting tool. While this is hardly a revelation to those that follow the region, coming from that man- in that forum- is enough to make one wonder if the popular wisdom regarding Israel has not somehow been altered at the highest levels of US decision-making.

Today, Middle Eastern stability (read: oil price per barrel stability) is threatened by the brewing tensions between Israel and Iran, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And while these two conflicts involving Israel are nothing new, the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons puts a time constraint on the situation that didn’t exist before.

Grand Bargain

There is a high-level chess game being played by the Obama administration right now, and some analysts have speculated that it is all part of a grand bargain to secure America’s interest in the Middle East.

The concept of a  “Grand Bargain” with Iran has been around at least since the mid 1990’s. The idea is for the United States to reconcile with Iran in a lasting and meaningful way akin to the United States’ reconciliation with China in the 1970’s. At the time, relations between China and the US were very hostile. Not only were Communist China and Capitalist America diametrically opposed to each other, but China threatened America’s interests in Southeast Asia at the time by aiding the Viet Cong.

Nevertheless, the Nixon administration was able to persuade the Chinese that it was in their best interest to have a healthy relationship with the United States. Over the years, this has proved to be true and today the United States imports billions of dollars in goods from China, which strengthens the regime in Beijing because the jobs that have been created as a result add to Chinese domestic stability. It’s not unreasonable to think that something similar could be done with Iran.

However, there is a modern layer that has been added to the concept of the Grand Bargain in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which speculates that the United States could force Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians in exchange for an iron-clad security guarantee with Iran. Basically, the US would promise to protect Israel in the face of an Iranian attack (the scenario is examined here) if it comes to the table to reconcile with the Palestinians, comprehensively and finally.

Chess Pieces

Right now, it seems like this is Obama’s plan and slowly, like a turning cruise ship, history may be changing its course.

The level of diplomatic strategy involved is amazing. Corral close allies- such as Great Britain and France- to consolidate pressure on other nations. Pass a sweeping piece of legislation in America to exhibit the administration’s domestic strength. Bring Russia on board by recognizing their “sphere of influence” and conceding not to erect missile defense  systems in their neighboring countries. All of these may have occurred on their own as a separate end, but such events may also be seen through the prism of the Grand Bargain.

Another part of the mix is China. Due the amount of trade that takes place between the United States and China, good relations are very important, but the US will also need China’s help with any sort of meaningful sanctions against Iran (such as a gasoline embargo). The question is what does the US have to offer China, whose cooperation on Iran is crucial.

While a full examination of US-China relations is beyond the scope of this article, it’s it worth noting that, while China does import a significant amount of oil from Iran, it cannot compare with the hundreds of billions of  dollars in business done with the the United States. The Chinese may hold a staggering amount of US debt, but they also depend on America to buy their goods in order to keep their citizens employed and to maintain domestic stability- something that is always a concern of the Chinese.

In the short-to-medium term, being cut off from Persian oil is not a very pleasant possibility for the Chinese, but in the long run- and China almost always thinks in the long run- it might be worth the inconvenience to keep America happy and to ensure stability in the Middle East (and therefore cheap oil) for years to come. The alternative of using force against Iran is almost certainly a less attractive choice for everyone. Perhaps this is what President Obama is trying to convince Hu Jintao of right now.

Lebanon

There are many intricate moving pieces to  be assembled right now in order for it to actually happen, but where does Lebanon fit into this so-called “Grand Bargain”?

Over the course of the last year, as America has attempted to pry Syria away from Iran to further isolate the regime, US diplomats have repeatedly stated that an American deal with Syria would not come at the expense of Lebanon, and  so far Washington has remained true to its word.

The problem is that a deal has been made at the expense of Lebanon, only it was made by the Saudis instead of the Americans. The whole situation can’t help but seem disingenuous, but America’s relationship with Lebanon must be considered in the hierarchy of other American interests. The fact that Lebanon has been sold out like this indicates that its relationship with America didn’t rate very high at all.

The United States was a leading supporter of Lebanon in its bid to end Syrian occupation, but that was likely more due to Washington’s frustration (at the time) with Syria over its failure to secure its border with Iraq to the wave of jihadis that were pouring in to do battle with US troops.  In order to punish Syria for this, America picked up the cause, along with its allies Saudi Arabia and France, who were furious with the apparent Syrian assassination of Rafik Hariri.

For a few years, Syria was out (occupation ending 2005), Israel was out (occupation ending 2000), and Lebanon was free to exercise its full sovereignty. But over the following years, the geopolitics of the Middle East evolved in such a way that weakening the Persian-Syrian relationship became more important than Lebanese sovereignty. As a result, the United States likely had Saudi Arabia make a deal with Syria regarding Lebanon.

After Lebanon’s June 2009 parliamentary elections, Saad Hariri was selected as Prime Minister and was tasked with forming a government. In September of that year, King Abdullah invited  Syrian President Bashar Assad to Saudi Arabia to attend the grand opening of a new state-of-the-art university, and the two men used the visit to bury the hatchet.

Lebanon benefited immediately from the meeting. Ostensibly, this meant that the Shia factions in Lebanon (Hizballah and Amal) in the new minority government would  cooperate with the March 14 majority made up of Christians, Sunnis, and Druze. With the four major religious  sects on board, a government was swiftly formed.

At the time, the price for such cooperation had not revealed itself yet, but over the last few months, it has. In exchange for Syria’s cooperation, Saudi Arabia (and the United States) has removed its objection to Syrian influence in Lebanon. Illustrating this are the trips that both Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt – previously two of the most vocal critics of Syria- have made to Damascus recently to make nice with Mr. Assad. Hariri is said to be planning his second trip there right now, and Jumblatt had to make the rounds of public apology for months before he was able to get an audience with Assad. The whole situation is even more bizarre when you recall that both men (Hariri and Jumblatt) have publicly blamed Syria for the deaths of their fathers.

But if the US is to make a move on Iran, it is important to secure non-involvement from Syria if things get violent. If this is the case, then the move appears to be a success. Recently, Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad met in Damascus to discuss, among other things, each nation’s relationship with Israel and the West, and what would happen in the result of an attack.  Reportedly, Damascus declared that, while it is a friend and ally of Iran, it would not come to its aid if attacked. Every man for himself, so to speak.*

*There have also been reports that, through a high ranking French diplomat, Hizballah has communicated to Israel that the Resistance has no intention of launching an attack on Israel. It seems that Hizballah recognizes the benefits that stability has brought to Lebanon and that the group does not want to risk the significant political gains that it has made over the last few years in another war with their neighbors to the south.

It is not proven that US had a hand in this deal, but the results of it are so beneficial to the US and so congruent with US interests that it is hard to believe they did not play a major part. As mentioned, the cracks are appearing in the Persian-Syrian alliance, but Syria also wields significant influence in Iraq, where the US is trying end its seven-year occupation. With Syrian cooperation (along with Iranian cooperation, as the Iranians want the US out of Iraq as much as anybody), Iraq’s  parliamentary elections went relatively smoothly, and it appears that a government that is acceptable to Washington, Tehran, and Damascus will be formed, all of which helps facilitate the withdrawal of US forces.

For Lebanon, the tiny country just didn’t factor high enough in America’s interests to not become a casualty of this apparent “Grand Bargain”. However, Syrian influence may be on the rise again, but the troops will not becoming back and, over the long run, Syrian influence could have its benefits- if it helps maintain Lebanese stability (never a given) without having too much drain on the economy and national psyche, for example. But it does seem as though Lebanon has been sacrificed to some degree as part of all this geopolitical maneuvering that is going on.

Conclusion

Are all of these events happening on their own,  or are they all part of some ambitious Washington strategy to deal with Iran and force a Israeli settlement with the Palestinians once and for all? While things seems to be moving in that direction and various pieces seem to be falling into place, President Obama has not yet articulated such a plan (to the American public, at least).

On the other hand, it is hard to ignore what has been going on: Obama’s Cairo speech; bringing Russia on board; the Saudi-Syrian reconciliation; taking a firm stance with Israel; Jumblatt and Hariri’s trips to Damascus; Syrian cooperation with regards to Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; the successful Iraqi elections facilitating the draw-down of US troops…all of it seems like a cohesive strategy, perhaps with the goal of accomplishing some sort of Grand Bargain to solve many of the problems of the Middle East (or at least The West’s problems with the Middle East) in one fell swoop.

It is certainly an ambitious plan and it will be interesting to see if somehow the pieces harmoniously fall into place or if the whole  thing just goes all to hell in a hurry. But even  just the possibility that peace could break out at any minute is a tantalizing notion  to consider.