Congress’ Lebanese Kneejerk Could Have Serious Consequences

Guest post by BritinBeirut

The recent blocking of funding for the Lebanese Army by Congress following the clash with the Israeli Defence Forces earlier this month serves to undermine the US position within the country.

The clash occurred due to the uncertainty surrounding the exact location of the UN-imposed border, known as the Blue Line, between Israel and Lebanon. The Israelis erected a security fence on the Israeli side of the line, within the rules set down by the UN. However, the fence has soon come to be informally recognised as the official border line by both sides.

As a result, when Israeli forces removed a tree just beyond the fence, the Lebanese treated it being with Lebanese territory and, after giving warning, opened fire. The result was several dead on either side, including a reservist Colonel in the IDF and aerial attacks launched from an Israeli helicopter.

The Lebanese requested that the IDF halt their activities as, they claimed, not to have been informed ahead of time, as per the unofficial operating procedures.

The situation still calmed, yet the border has been the source of tension in the past year with both sides regularly complaining about movement around the contested area. It is worth noting at this point that the IAF frequently violates Lebanese airspace by carrying out reconnaissance, often at low level.

The UN later claimed that they had indeed warned the LAF. Furthermore, they later verified the fact that the tree was located on the Israeli side of the Blue Line.

Regards, as it is wont to do, the situation quickly calmed down. However, there is reason enough to think that events like this will reoccur. Most political analysts hold the view that this was a simple error on the part of the LAF.

Which brings us the crux of the issue: the suspension of funding to the LAF.

Lebanon is the beneficiary of US funding in the realms of internal security, through the supply of equipment to the Lebanese police, military training and equipment for her army and through organizations like USAID for the development of impoverished communities.

Cutting off the funding to the LAF is problematic for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, on a meta level it undermines Lebanese faith in the US’ motives. One of the primary duties of any national army is to defend the sovereignty of its lands. That is precisely what the LAF did on the day of the clash. Clearly, mistakes were made, however cutting off funding is not the answer. The lie to US foreign policy regarding Lebanon has been made abundantly clear to the Lebanese – Your armed forces are not funded in order to combat external enemies, but rather to fund something else.

The obvious answer is that the US funds the LAF in order to prepare them for a clash with Hizballah.

Any clash, however unlikely, between the LAF and Hizballah would be the first step toward civil war.

The idea that the US policy regards this potential event as something worth supporting, as it must if money is being spent on the LAF, is an anathema to the average Lebanese.

Yes, any rational analysis of the situation would probably arrive at the same conclusion regarding the US’ motives, however, it is now out in the open for all to see. At least, that is how the Lebanese have perceived it and, frankly, that’s all that matters. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizballah, specifically discussed this in a speech on Tuesday night.

Secondly, the withdrawal of US funding leaves the door open for other states to step in. The obvious candidate being Iran. Iran possesses a domestic arms industry that, while incomparable to that of the US and her allies, nevertheless would be more than capable of outfitting an organization the size of the LAF. The Iranian government has already announced that they are willing to step in.

The idea of the Iranians gaining more influence within the country should be of great concern to the administration. The Iranians already fund Hizballah and the group proved more than capable of frustrating, arguably defeating, the IDF in the war of 2006.

Thirdly, Iran has, traditionally, relied upon Syrian aid when shipping equipment into Lebanon. A cursory look at a map should make the reasoning obvious. At present there are hints of rapproachment between the US and the Assad regime and there have long been rumors of Israeli and Syrian third track diplomacy.

However, Syria will be forced to choose whether or not to assist the Iranians in arming the LAF should the US block become reality. Any refusal would be seen as a severe loss of face and tantamount to choosing the West over the East. The political pressures from both internal and external forces would be immense.

The resulting fallout could well result in the return to the informal Syrian-Iranian pact of cooperation that existed three years ago; at present, such cooperation has put on the backburner by the Syrian regime.

All this is entirely possible with the introduction of Iran into Lebanon as an official supplier of arms.

Floating around in the background to all of this is the assumption of the “Hizballahization” of the LAF. The argument runs as follows: There are large numbers of Shi’ia in the Lebanese Army. The Shi’ia support Hizballah. Senior officials have, reportedly been in cahoots with Hizballah.

The above is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Firstly, approximately one third of all Lebanese are Shi’ia. Traditionally, the ranks of any nation’s armed forces are made up of the lower income sectors. The Shi’ia are, generally speaking, among the poorest people in Lebanon. It makes perfect sense, given the size of the Shi’ia population, and their economic status, that there are a lot of Shi’ia in the LAF. Secondly, there is another very popular political group, AMAL, that serves the Shi’ia community, to say that all Shi’ia are Hizballah supporters is simply not true. It is true that some individuals are unashamedly pro-Hizballah, however, it’s also unsurprising given the above.

Given that the LAF has, to date, stayed out the various internal clashes that have occurred in the country, more often than not involving Hizballah, the charge that the organization is inherently for the group seems to be wishful thinking on the part of their opponents.

To conclude, the reasoning behind the funding issues are straightforward. However, unless you claim that the LAF opened fire out of a desire to create a conflict – which would odd, given that there’s a constant state of strain with (thankfully) few episodes on the border – then the organization is being punished for a one-off error.

The real threat here is the potential loss of influence that America would face in Lebanon. The only state to have expressed an interest in funding is Iran. The potential issues are clear to see. At a time when tensions between Iran and the West are running high, giving them an easy “in” is pure folly. Furthermore, Iranian involvement will surely further alienate the US within Lebanon, pushing them toward to the “other side”.

BritinBeirut is a long term resident of Beirut, he blogs about Lebanese life and politics at britinbeirut.blogspot.com