Fabius Agrees to Link Lebanon with Syria

Johnny Munir

Before French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had set off for Tehran, French President Francois Hollande made a point to deliberately openly speak about the inevitability of his visit to Lebanon in the coming months, and about the presidential crisis in that country.

Hollande wanted through his words to give a strong push forward for the files that Fabius is bringing with him, at top of which is the Lebanese file. This while keeping in mind that the French Foreign Minister will open up the issue of Lebanon - along with the main regional issues - in sync with the five states that participated along with France in the nuclear negotiations. Simply stated, Fabius will come to Tehran as the representative of the six powers, and not merely as a representative of his country.

Hollande has publicly talked about a visit to Lebanon in the coming months, after he had told those whom he met - some of which were Lebanese - that a road map is being prepared for the various crises in the Middle East, from which Lebanon will definitely benefit. This means that his visit should culminate a settlement that has already been achieved.

In another sign of no less importance, is Hollande's invitation for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to visit Paris in November, which reflects France's intention to achieve decisive progress on Lebanon before the end of the year, because this visit should occur during a suitable political atmosphere.

France scored a breakthrough with Iran over Lebanon whereby its envoy Jean-Francois Giraud managed to gain Tehran's approval and support for establishing the government led by President Tammam Salam, and to downplay the objections that were being raised by ‘Hizbullah'. This same France employed over recent months various approaches with the aim of reaching a settlement in the Lebanese file, and this was done by forming a work group consisting of diplomats who are Middle East experts, specifically in Iranian affairs.

Of the findings of this work group was confirming the impossibility of untying the Lebanese knot and ensuring the help of Iran, except by tackling the Syrian file, within which Iran and ‘Hizbullah' hold vital interests related to concerns about their futures and existential security threats.

Paris and Washington agreed that Fabius assume the task of tackling the Syrian and Lebanese files side by side in Tehran, and to listen to the Iranian point of view in this regard.

French forecasts that preceded the arrival of Fabius to Tehran said that Iranian officials will give answers that generally call on French officials to meet with 'Hizbullah' officials and to listen to the party's point of view, since it is directly concerned with the issue. At the same time, French forecasts noted that Iran will try to help regarding ‘Hizbullah', and in return, it will call on France to try to work with Lebanese parties upon which it has influence.

Contrary to French statements that suggest a positive climate, Western diplomatic circles are still very wary of how things will play out, especially since the complications and crises appear to almost strangle the Lebanese scene and threaten the current governmental status quo.

While Washington has asked its ambassador in Beirut, David Hill, to postpone his departure for a few weeks, in order to follow up on developments related to the state of the government in Lebanon, Western ambassadors requested Salam not to take any step that threatens the status quo of the government, such as resigning. Meanwhile, these circles embarked on following up on the motives behind the protests taking place, in particular those that reached the residence of Salam, and whether there are political intentions aimed at embarrassing him and forcing him to resign.

In contrast to the assessments that were prevalent, these circles know that 'Hizbullah' interest that lie in "toppling" the government in light of the new regional equations, in order to expand the ‘scope' of the negotiations in Lebanon, and to search for a completely new formula in a parallel with the search for the new Syria.

It seems that the advice that was echoed by the US Ambassador, which pointed to the need to place the language of confrontation aside and deflate contentious items, was well in its place. On that day, the US ambassador said that it was better to deescalate the problem, rather than confront General Michel Aoun, and to help ‘Hizbullah' with placing the ‘Taif agreement' on the negotiating table.

Diplomatic circles are aware that diplomatic pressure alone may not be enough to accomplish progress in the Lebanese and Syrian files. There are those who place the Turkish intervention in northern Syria in the framework of placing pressure on Iran via the battlefield.

These diplomatic circles are expressing at the same time a fair amount of concern regarding the possibility of the internal stability of Lebanon being affected, since the game has begun to enter difficult junctures.

The veteran American diplomat and expert in Middle East Affairs, Martin Indyk, says in his lastest book ‘Innocent Abroad', that Washington saw an opportunity in the war between Iraq and Iran in 1980 to exhaust the power of these two countries, which pose a threat to the stability of the countries neighbouring them.

Washington helped Iraq in terms of intelligence and technology during several stages of the war, in order to defeat Iran. However, when Iran lost the war, Iraq found itself as a formidable military force with an army consisting of 1,200 000 soldiers, and so it was necessary to find new ways to once again weaken Iraq militarily, even if that required cooperation with Iran in order to ensure the policy of maintaining a balance of power, which is always required in the Middle East.

Iran emerges today as a great power after the signing of the nuclear agreement, and recognition of its huge influence, so does Washington still rely on the strategy of maintaining a balance of powers in the Middle East? In addition, will this mean the revitalization of the influence of Iran's influence rivals, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

Do not the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US army mean anything, when he said that the war on ‘Daesh' will continue for twenty years? More importantly, what is the impact of these words on the Syrian and Lebanese scenes?

Source: Al-Joumhouria, Translated and Edited by website team