Iran's mission in Lebanon

Lebanon is afraid. And yet there is so little awareness of the trap laid inside the Lebanese homeland following  another round of meetings with Iranian officials – ever more surprising at a time when the whole region is on fire. The Iranian regime is playing on internal divisions inside Lebanon. It is using them to control the country, fragmenting it along sectarian lines - as if to prove that losing Syria does not necessarily mean losing Lebanon as well. Helping the Iranians towards their ultimate goal, Christian parliamentarian Michel Aoun has suggested a so-called Orthodox Meeting in the run-up to parliamentary elections, which are expected to take place in under six months. First of all, Lebanon’s orthodox community has nothing to do with this new use of “orthodox.” The man behind the project, Aoun, is a Maronite well known for his close links to Iran’s Hezbollah. The group itself makes no bones about its links with Iran, boasting that its authority is in Tehran. Aoun is hiding behind words like “orthodox” to pass a bill that would ultimately destroy the Taif Agreement and eliminate Lebanon's Christians: a plan Hezbollah took up a long time ago. Aoun, a tool of Iran, wants to turn the country’s Christian community into a minority, cast out of Lebanon despite the country's characteristic as a nation of several denominations and doctrines. There would be no benefits in Lebanon becoming a confederation rather than a home for its citizens. This was the case before 1970, the date when Hafez Assad came to power in Syria and began a direct and brazen intervention in Lebanese affairs, in order to destroy its national unity. Turning the Christians of Lebanon into a small, indefensible group afraid was always the target of the Syrian regime. Syria’s Alawite regime began to form in 1966. It always wanted Christians to be isolated in Lebanon, planting the seeds of sectarian division. First it used armed Palestinians to confuse Christians and push them to form militias. Then it used the Shiites, widening the rift between them and the Sunnis. It always worked in two clear directions. Firstly, destroying any prominent Sunni political figure; and secondly, dominating and marginalising the Druze. This explains to a large extent the assassination of Kamal Jumblatt in 1977 and Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. This goes far beyond any debate over electoral laws. We are facing an Iranian regime that has taken it upon itself to transform Lebanon into a protectorate at a time when the Syrian regime is dying a death. Iran will promote the Orthodox Meeting to force all of Lebanon under its control. There are four parties now being targeted by Iran. First, the Lebanese Sunnis, whom Tehran wants to bring into open confrontation with the Christians. Then, it is necessary for the Christians to be in conflict with all the different components of Lebanese society who will be under the protection of Hezbollah. Thirdly, the Druze must become a minority, always seeking others’ protection. Fourthly, the liberal Lebanese Shiites [or at least what’s left of them] will be turned into a sectarian militia, after they have refused to join Iran’s project. Christian fears emanating from events in the region are real and justified. We must remember these concerns, instead of allowing Iran to exploit them with the help of Hezbollah. This is in the interests of Lebanese people as a whole. Is it time to change the face of the regime? The mountain invasions of May 2008 were the first stage in a coup aimed at prolonging the power of Emile Lahoud, followed by the assassination of Rakik Hariri, right down to the formation of the current Hezbollah government led by a Sunni from Tripoli. The whole of the Middle East is going through a crucial stage now. All Lebanon can do is stay away from Iranian manouevres as much as possible. But that depends on an understanding of the significance of Iranian intentions, perfectly symbolised by a stamp issued inside Iran which represents a map of Lebanon, at the heart of which is Hezbollah’s flag. It is understandable for Christians, as well as the Lebanese people in general, to ask: “What’s the alternative to a sectarian project before the next election?” It is even more understandable to ask: “Is it time to change the Lebanese regime by fragmenting the country along sectarian and ideological lines?” Who would benefit from the fragmentation other than Hezbollah armed with Iranian weapons? Where do the Christians fit into this new equation? Are they required to move away from Syrian influence [which Lebanon’s Christian community has always rejected] and under the influence of Iran instead – just like Michael Aoun wants? If Michel Aoun knew the exact meaning of what he is talking about now, as well as the meaning of the words he parrots, he would have been a resident of Haret Hreik [his hometown], not the Mound. That journey, between Haret Hreik [from which Christians were deported so that it could become a Hezbollah hotbed] and the Rabyieh Mound [located in the Christian Metn], minimises the tragedy of Lebanon’s Christians. The basis of this tragedy is Christians’ inability to understand the nature of the former Syrian regime, and therefore compare it to the current Iranian regime. Its only concern is trafficking them away from their homeland. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.