Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

[webfact]

Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

By Tom Perry and Lisa Barrington

 

A poster depicting Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, who has resigned from his post, hangs along a street in the mainly Sunni Beirut neighbourhood of Tariq al-Jadideh in Beirut, Lebanon November 6, 2017. The Arabic on the poster reads, "With you forever". REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia accused Lebanon on Monday of declaring war against it because of aggression by the Iran-backed Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah, a dramatic escalation of a crisis threatening to destabilise the tiny Arab country.

 

Lebanon has been thrust to the centre of regional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran since the Saudi-allied Lebanese politician Saad al-Hariri quit as prime minister on Saturday, blaming Iran and Hezbollah in his resignation speech.

 

Saudi Gulf affairs minister Thamer al-Sabhan said the Lebanese government would "be dealt with as a government declaring war on Saudi Arabia" because of what he described as aggression by Hezbollah.

 

Faulting the Hariri-led administration for failing to take action against Hezbollah during a year in office, Sabhan said "there are those who will stop (Hezbollah) and make it return to the caves of South Lebanon", the heartland of the Shi'ite community.

 

In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, he added: "Lebanese must all know these risks and work to fix matters before they reach the point of no return."

 

He did not spell out what action Saudi Arabia might take against Lebanon, a country with a weak and heavily indebted state that is still rebuilding from its 1975-90 civil war and where one-in-four people is a Syrian refugee.

 

There was no immediate comment from the Lebanese government.

 

Hezbollah is both a military and a political organisation that is represented in the Lebanese parliament and in the Hariri-led coalition government formed last year.

 

Its powerful guerrilla army is widely seen as stronger than the Lebanese army, and has played a major role in the war in neighbouring Syria, another theatre of Saudi-Iranian rivalry where Hezbollah has fought in support of the government.

 

Lebanese authorities said on Monday the country's financial institutions could cope with Hariri's resignation and the stability of the Lebanese pound was not at risk.

 

But the cash price of Lebanon's U.S. dollar-denominated bonds fell, with longer-dated maturities suffering hefty losses as investors took a dim view of the medium- to longer-term outlook for Lebanon.

 

HARIRI FREE TO TRAVEL, SAUDI FM SAYS

 

Hariri cited a plot to assassinate him during his unexpected resignation speech broadcast from Saudi Arabia which caught even his aides off guard. He also slammed Hezbollah and Iran, accusing them of sowing strife in the Arab world.

 

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said he will not comment on Hariri's speech, calling it a "Saudi statement" and saying Riyadh had forced Hariri to resign.

 

The sudden nature of Hariri's resignation generated speculation in Lebanon that his family's Saudi construction business had been caught up in an anti-corruption purge and he had been coerced into resigning.

 

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir said it was "nonsense" to suggest Hariri had been coerced into quitting in a CNN interview on Monday. Hariri had quit because Hezbollah had been "calling the shots" in the government, he said. Hariri, a Saudi citizen, was free to leave the country at any time, he said.

 

Interior Minister Nohad Machnouk, a senior member of Hariri's political party, said he was under the impression Hariri would return to Beirut within days.

 

A meeting between Saudi King Salman and Hariri in Riyadh on Monday proved "rumours" wrong, he said - an apparent reference to speculation that Hariri was detained or forced to quit.

 

Earlier on Monday, President Michel Aoun, a political ally of Hezbollah, appealed for national unity.

 

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, another political ally of Hezbollah, said in a televised statement after meeting Aoun it was too early to talk about forming a new government.

 

The crisis could re-aggravate tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and afflict Lebanese government with paralysis once again. All of the sides have called for calm and there has been no sign of unrest since Hariri's resignation.

 

The Hariri-led government took office last year in a political deal that made Aoun president. The deal ended years of deadlock, and last month it produced Lebanon's first budget since 2005.

 

Hariri flew to Saudi Arabia on Friday after meeting in Beirut the top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader, who described the coalition as "a victory" and "great success" afterwards.

 

(Reporting by Ellen Francis, Tom Perry and Lisa Barrington in Beirut, Ali Abdelaty in Cairo; Editing by Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-07

[nausea]

As a layman it's difficult to keep up with all the machinations and see through the obfuscation; I tend to simplify it into a US, Israeli, Saudi alliance v. a Russian, Iranian counterweight, and interpret what happens through that prism.

[craigt3365]

Iran and SA should leave other countries alone.  Quit using them for proxy wars.

[craigt3365]

Just now, nausea said:

As a layman it's difficult to keep up with all the machinations and see through the obfuscation; I tend to simplify it into a US, Israeli, Saudi alliance v. a Russian, Iranian counterweight, and interpret what happens through that prism.

US and Russia?  Hardly.  This is Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.  Israel, the US and Russia are on the sidelines....

[Topdoc]

" the exit of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Saturday is the latest telling evidence of a growing US-Saudi-Israeli congruence. A relatively stable set-up in Beirut (involving co-habitation between Hariri and Hezbollah), which acquitted itself remarkably well in the war against terrorist groups, has been suddenly thrown into disarray. What follows next in Lebanon dovetails into the US-Israeli-Saudi strategy toward post-ISIS Syria and Iraq where the balance of forces currently works in favor of Iran. "

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/ 

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, Topdoc said:

" the exit of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Saturday is the latest telling evidence of a growing US-Saudi-Israeli congruence. A relatively stable set-up in Beirut (involving co-habitation between Hariri and Hezbollah), which acquitted itself remarkably well in the war against terrorist groups, has been suddenly thrown into disarray. What follows next in Lebanon dovetails into the US-Israeli-Saudi strategy toward post-ISIS Syria and Iraq where the balance of forces currently works in favor of Iran. "

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/ 

Not sure I'd give that author much credibility. 

[Rancid]

1 hour ago, nausea said:

As a layman it's difficult to keep up with all the machinations and see through the obfuscation; I tend to simplify it into a US, Israeli, Saudi alliance v. a Russian, Iranian counterweight, and interpret what happens through that prism.

That is pretty much correct, nothing happens without the major stakeholders noses being in there somewhere. Mind you there I was thinking the Saudis had no sense of humor, impoverished Lebanon, that doesn't even share a border, declaring war...good one.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, Rancid said:

That is pretty much correct, nothing happens without the major stakeholders noses being in there somewhere. Mind you there I was thinking the Saudis had no sense of humor, impoverished Lebanon, that doesn't even share a border, declaring war...good one.

I doubt Russia has that much influence over Iran.  Nor the US with SA.  Sure, they sell a lot of weapons, but dictate their policy?  I seriously doubt that.  Perhaps the other way with regards to SA as they've got the oil! And for now, the money. LOL

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure I'd give that author much credibility. 

Why not?

 

The man spent 29 years as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. He was ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001) before becoming a regular contributor to Asia Times. His  “Indian Punchline” blog is well worth a visit for its knowledgeable overview of major foreign affairs issues.

 

 

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Why not?

 

The man spent 29 years as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. He was ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001) before becoming a regular contributor to Asia Times. His  “Indian Punchline” blog is well worth a visit for its knowledgeable overview of major foreign affairs issues.

 

 

Peruse his articles.  Nuff said....

[khunken]

25 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Peruse his articles.  Nuff said....

Yes I have looked at some of them and he has had at least one article reprinted in the Bangkok Post recently. His writing is from a leftist Indian perspective.

Unsurprisingly you attack him, just like you do to some posters on TV,  because you don't like his (& their) opinion.

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Peruse his articles.  Nuff said....

I haven't found anything major objectionable in what I skiimmed. Care to link to specifics?

[craigt3365]

25 minutes ago, khunken said:

Yes I have looked at some of them and he has had at least one article reprinted in the Bangkok Post recently. His writing is from a leftist Indian perspective.

Unsurprisingly you attack him, just like you do to some posters on TV,  because you don't like his (& their) opinion.

I'm not a big fan of opinion pieces unless they are from really, really reputable sources.  Even then.  I prefer just the facts and I'll form my own opinion.  If you look at this guy's articles, they are mainly critical of the US.  Seems to be this person's slant.

 

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/10/16/trump-praises-pakistan-hallelujah/

Trump praises Pakistan. Hallelujah!

The Pakistani elites have shown once again that they can beat their Indian counterparts hands down in sucking up to the Americans. The manner in which they wormed their way back into the bed with the Trump administration takes the breath away.

Edited November 7, 2017 by craigt3365

[Topdoc]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure I'd give that author much credibility. 

I think the tide has turned on someone else's credibility frankly...

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm not a big fan of opinion pieces unless they are from really, really reputable sources.  Even then.  I prefer just the facts and I'll form my own opinion.  If you look at this guy's articles, they are mainly critical of the US.  Seems to be this person's slant.

 

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/10/16/trump-praises-pakistan-hallelujah/

Actually, what this guy's blog says is what most US intelligence analysts believe: Pakistani intelligence is in bad with the Islamists in Afghanistan and the border region. It was certainly a curious liberation since all the hostage takers got away.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Topdoc said:

I think the tide has turned on someone else's credibility frankly...

Did you research that person's articles?  Read them?  I did.  As I said before, I'm not a fan of opinion pieces.

 

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, what this guy's blog says is what most US intelligence analysts believe: Pakistani intelligence is in bad with the Islamists in Afghanistan and the border region. It was certainly a curious liberation since all the hostage takers got away.

Agreed.  But his articles are highly critical of the US.  I detect a bias there.  That's why some like his articles. LOL

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Peruse his articles.  Nuff said....

Which one in particular has got your goat?

[Morch]

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Iran and SA should leave other countries alone.  Quit using them for proxy wars.

 

Would the ME be safer if they actually went at it head on?  I dunno.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Rancid said:

That is pretty much correct, nothing happens without the major stakeholders noses being in there somewhere. Mind you there I was thinking the Saudis had no sense of humor, impoverished Lebanon, that doesn't even share a border, declaring war...good one.

 

The reasoning behind the statement does seem to be faulty. But then, so is Lebanon itself. We're talking about a country with a political system based on artificial sectarian balance, and in which one of the factions holds a military force not answerable to the government, and engaging in independent security and foreign policies.

 

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and represents Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia's claim isn't far fetched. If, on the other hand, Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon, then the Lebanese government can certainly be said to be responsible for curbing such activities. Obviously easier said than done given prevailing conditions and balance of power.

 

Hezbollah's current status allows it to eat the cake and leave it whole. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor a state of things that must be accepted.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Why not?

 

The man spent 29 years as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. He was ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001) before becoming a regular contributor to Asia Times. His  “Indian Punchline” blog is well worth a visit for its knowledgeable overview of major foreign affairs issues.

 

 

 

Umm...because he's a born and raised Kerala Communist. Mind, that's Indian communism, so the comment isn't about Reds Under the Beds, but more of an indication of the way he addresses things.He is definitely into supposed anti-imperialism, and a good USA bash, which some might find upsetting or biased. Whether one agrees with his views and analysis, his professional abilities and career are not in question. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Topdoc said:

" the exit of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Saturday is the latest telling evidence of a growing US-Saudi-Israeli congruence. A relatively stable set-up in Beirut (involving co-habitation between Hariri and Hezbollah), which acquitted itself remarkably well in the war against terrorist groups, has been suddenly thrown into disarray. What follows next in Lebanon dovetails into the US-Israeli-Saudi strategy toward post-ISIS Syria and Iraq where the balance of forces currently works in favor of Iran. "

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/ 

 

The relative stable set-up wasn't all that stable, really. It relied upon sides making concession, not pressing certain underlying issues and looking the other way when transgressions occurred. The last couple of weeks were marked by heightened tensions revolving around future relations with Syria and handling the refugee crisis (two issues that go hand in hand). Things were not resolved, as far as I understand, with the standoff possibly having to do with the current crisis.

 

As for acquitted itself remarkably well in the war against terrorist groups - not too clear what is referred to. If this is a reference to Hezbollah's involvement in Syria, then it's quite a controversial issue even within Lebanon, and actually not in line with the policy favored by Hariri. Considering that Hezbollah itself is labeled a terrorist organization (yes, not by all) may complicate this further. When it comes to terrorism within the country, nothing spectacular - there were some attacks, there were some successful efforts.

 

The last line is not clearly substantiated, and yet presented as a forgone conclusion.  

[khunken]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The reasoning behind the statement does seem to be faulty. But then, so is Lebanon itself. We're talking about a country with a political system based on artificial sectarian balance, and in which one of the factions holds a military force not answerable to the government, and engaging in independent security and foreign policies.

 

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and represents Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia's claim isn't far fetched. If, on the other hand, Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon, then the Lebanese government can certainly be said to be responsible for curbing such activities. Obviously easier said than done given prevailing conditions and balance of power.

 

Hezbollah's current status allows it to eat the cake and leave it whole. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor a state of things that must be accepted.

Accepted by who? They are accepted and supported by the majority Shias & their Christian allies so it is no business of SA, US, Israel or any other serial interferer in Lebanon's business. Yes Syria & Iran can be included too.

 

Hezbollah was basically set up as a group following the Invasion of Israel in the early 60's (when Sharon had the Phalange militia murder hundreds of Palestinians in 2 refugee camps in Lebanon). They (rightly) felt that the weak Lebanese army was no match for any invading force in Lebanon. The country has been almost destroyed by the various invasions over the last 60 or so years & it's about time other powers stopped using it as a political football. Given the distrust between the Sunnis & the Phalange on one side & the Shias & the FPN on the other, the country has (IMO wisely) set up a distributional system for major political posts - president. PM & parliament speaker. It has very likely averted all-out civil war given that there has been outbreaks of strife between factions (even Christion on Christian).

 

They are not just an armed militia but also an organisation supporting social services - again plugging a hole in the factionalised government's inability to provide all sorts of services in Lebanon. Of course they have been supported by Iran, just as Hariri's side has been supported by SA (& Israel & US).

 

Hezbollah's main activities don't extend to the US or Europe, unlike the SA covertly-supported AQ & IS.

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, khunken said:

Accepted by who? They are accepted and supported by the majority Shias & their Christian allies so it is no business of SA, US, Israel or any other serial interferer in Lebanon's business. Yes Syria & Iran can be included too.

 

Hezbollah was basically set up as a group following the Invasion of Israel in the early 60's (when Sharon had the Phalange militia murder hundreds of Palestinians in 2 refugee camps in Lebanon). They (rightly) felt that the weak Lebanese army was no match for any invading force in Lebanon. The country has been almost destroyed by the various invasions over the last 60 or so years & it's about time other powers stopped using it as a political football. Given the distrust between the Sunnis & the Phalange on one side & the Shias & the FPN on the other, the country has (IMO wisely) set up a distributional system for major political posts - president. PM & parliament speaker. It has very likely averted all-out civil war given that there has been outbreaks of strife between factions (even Christion on Christian).

 

They are not just an armed militia but also an organisation supporting social services - again plugging a hole in the factionalised government's inability to provide all sorts of services in Lebanon. Of course they have been supported by Iran, just as Hariri's side has been supported by SA (& Israel & US).

 

Hezbollah's main activities don't extend to the US or Europe, unlike the SA covertly-supported AQ & IS.

 

 

Hezbollah wears two hats, a political-social one, and a military one. Either plays by the rules (more or less) as the organization sees fit. The state of things in which such an organization acts both with and within government), while at the same time carrying out policies (which are sometimes at odds with government policy) dictated from without (by Iran) - is neither normal nor should it provide the organization and the government in question a standing excuse when facing the consequences of such actions.

 

If Hezbollah acts independently from Lebanese government policy, and under directions from a foreign power - and if such actions result in possible negative consequences -  who's to be held responsible?

 

In this regard, the issue isn't necessarily just about what's done within Lebanon, but how do the actions of a Lebanese organization (who's also part of government) abroad might effect the country. All the more so when the organization's actions and policies are decided by a foreign power.

 

Accepted, as in other countries effected by Hezbollah's actions may not buy into this play on dodgy distinctions. If things were limited to Lebanon's domestic politics, this would have been a minor issue (in ME context). As it is, most of the problems related to Hezbollah arise either from foreign influence (Iran) or Hezbollah's actions involving foreign players (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) at the behest of a foreign power (Iran).

 

And while Hezbollah does enjoy wide support among some of Lebanon's factions, this is not anywhere uniform with regard to all the spectrum of its actions. This goes back to whether Hezbollah is a representative of Lebanon or not.

 

As for you "historical" review:

 

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was in 1982, rather than the 60's. And, the massacre alluded to did not actively involve Israeli forces (not that this is much to do with the topic, but guess you just had to toss it in, eh?). Gaining prominence was due to a combination of Iranian support (from the very start, and with an obvious clear target in mind, supposed protection of Lebanon notwithstanding), and ruthlessly bringing other Shia outfits to heel. Unsurprisingly them other invasions which "almost destroyed" the country, do not get much of a mention. Who wants to hear about the Syrian occupation, right? Or the 15 years long civil war. for that matter (which you seem to claim the country somehow averted?).

 

Now here's a real gem - "about time other powers stopped using it as a political football". What then, of Hezbollah's Iranian patrons? While you do pay leap service to the notion that they are included in the list, no real insight offered as to Hezbollah's role and status with regard to Lebanon as a whole. And no, Saudi Arabia does not directly command anything resembling the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even more so, neither do the USA nor Israel. There is no equivalence on this point.

 

[khunken]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah wears two hats, a political-social one, and a military one. Either plays by the rules (more or less) as the organization sees fit. The state of things in which such an organization acts both with and within government), while at the same time carrying out policies (which are sometimes at odds with government policy) dictated from without (by Iran) - is neither normal nor should it provide the organization and the government in question a standing excuse when facing the consequences of such actions.

 

If Hezbollah acts independently from Lebanese government policy, and under directions from a foreign power - and if such actions result in possible negative consequences -  who's to be held responsible?

 

In this regard, the issue isn't necessarily just about what's done within Lebanon, but how do the actions of a Lebanese organization (who's also part of government) abroad might effect the country. All the more so when the organization's actions and policies are decided by a foreign power.

 

Accepted, as in other countries effected by Hezbollah's actions may not buy into this play on dodgy distinctions. If things were limited to Lebanon's domestic politics, this would have been a minor issue (in ME context). As it is, most of the problems related to Hezbollah arise either from foreign influence (Iran) or Hezbollah's actions involving foreign players (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) at the behest of a foreign power (Iran).

 

And while Hezbollah does enjoy wide support among some of Lebanon's factions, this is not anywhere uniform with regard to all the spectrum of its actions. This goes back to whether Hezbollah is a representative of Lebanon or not.

 

As for you "historical" review:

 

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was in 1982, rather than the 60's. And, the massacre alluded to did not actively involve Israeli forces (not that this is much to do with the topic, but guess you just had to toss it in, eh?). Gaining prominence was due to a combination of Iranian support (from the very start, and with an obvious clear target in mind, supposed protection of Lebanon notwithstanding), and ruthlessly bringing other Shia outfits to heel. Unsurprisingly them other invasions which "almost destroyed" the country, do not get much of a mention. Who wants to hear about the Syrian occupation, right? Or the 15 years long civil war. for that matter (which you seem to claim the country somehow averted?).

 

Now here's a real gem - "about time other powers stopped using it as a political football". What then, of Hezbollah's Iranian patrons? While you do pay leap service to the notion that they are included in the list, no real insight offered as to Hezbollah's role and status with regard to Lebanon as a whole. And no, Saudi Arabia does not directly command anything resembling the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even more so, neither do the USA nor Israel. There is no equivalence on this point.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Hezbollah wears two hats, a political-social one, and a military one. Either plays by the rules (more or less) as the organization sees fit. The state of things in which such an organization acts both with and within government), while at the same time carrying out policies (which are sometimes at odds with government policy) dictated from without (by Iran) - is neither normal nor should it provide the organization and the government in question a standing excuse when facing the consequences of such actions.

 

If Hezbollah acts independently from Lebanese government policy, and under directions from a foreign power - and if such actions result in possible negative consequences -  who's to be held responsible?

 

In this regard, the issue isn't necessarily just about what's done within Lebanon, but how do the actions of a Lebanese organization (who's also part of government) abroad might effect the country. All the more so when the organization's actions and policies are decided by a foreign power.

 

Accepted, as in other countries effected by Hezbollah's actions may not buy into this play on dodgy distinctions. If things were limited to Lebanon's domestic politics, this would have been a minor issue (in ME context). As it is, most of the problems related to Hezbollah arise either from foreign influence (Iran) or Hezbollah's actions involving foreign players (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) at the behest of a foreign power (Iran).

 

And while Hezbollah does enjoy wide support among some of Lebanon's factions, this is not anywhere uniform with regard to all the spectrum of its actions. This goes back to whether Hezbollah is a representative of Lebanon or not.

 

As for you "historical" review:

 

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was in 1982, rather than the 60's. And, the massacre alluded to did not actively involve Israeli forces (not that this is much to do with the topic, but guess you just had to toss it in, eh?). Gaining prominence was due to a combination of Iranian support (from the very start, and with an obvious clear target in mind, supposed protection of Lebanon notwithstanding), and ruthlessly bringing other Shia outfits to heel. Unsurprisingly them other invasions which "almost destroyed" the country, do not get much of a mention. Who wants to hear about the Syrian occupation, right? Or the 15 years long civil war. for that matter (which you seem to claim the country somehow averted?).

 

Now here's a real gem - "about time other powers stopped using it as a political football". What then, of Hezbollah's Iranian patrons? While you do pay leap service to the notion that they are included in the list, no real insight offered as to Hezbollah's role and status with regard to Lebanon as a whole. And no, Saudi Arabia does not directly command anything resembling the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even more so, neither do the USA nor Israel. There is no equivalence on this point.

 

62 was a misprint for 82 - I'm so sorry your highness. BTW I don't pay Leap service to any notion.

 

It is totally false to say Iran controls Hezbollah - that is the Israeli argument (lie) supported by the usual suspects. Iran did support the formation of Hezbollah and has always had an influence with it - but control, no.

 

The Israeli forces certainly did occupy part of Lebanon in '82 and still do occupt a small part today. I never shied away from both Syria's & Iran's influence in Lebanon (& Syria's occupation)  but in your reply you can't even mention Saudi's influence which has now been on display for all to see.

 

I didn't HAVE to throw in Israel's role - it is part of the history of the country and, at least in part, led to Hezbollah's formation. I don't care if that doesn't sit well with you with your obvious bias against any of Israel's protagonists.

 

Hariri is of course a dual Lebanese & SA citizen so it is no surprise that he is under their influence while I do admit that he may well be threatened with assassination given what happened to his father. The main thrust of my argument is for all offenders to leave Lebanon alone - influence by dialogue is one thing, war or threats is another & that's this thread is about - Saudi threats, not anti-Iran propaganda.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, khunken said:

 

It is totally false to say Iran controls Hezbollah - that is the Israeli argument (lie) supported by the usual suspects. Iran did support the formation of Hezbollah and has always had an influence with it - but control, no.

 

 

"Influence" or "control"? Some would say that you're nitpicking. Not me, I think you're making a valid point about the difference between those 2 words; but some wouldn't agree.

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Umm...because he's a born and raised Kerala Communist. Mind, that's Indian communism, so the comment isn't about Reds Under the Beds, but more of an indication of the way he addresses things.He is definitely into supposed anti-imperialism, and a good USA bash, which some might find upsetting or biased. Whether one agrees with his views and analysis, his professional abilities and career are not in question. 

What a bizarre ramble. My point is that Melkulangara Bhadrakumar knows his stuff -  which is more than can be said for some of the posters on this forum and the sources quote.

 

I'm sure he would be gratified, as we all must be, to learn that you consider his professional abilities and career are "not in question". 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, khunken said:

 

62 was a misprint for 82 - I'm so sorry your highness. BTW I don't pay Leap service to any notion.

 

It is totally false to say Iran controls Hezbollah - that is the Israeli argument (lie) supported by the usual suspects. Iran did support the formation of Hezbollah and has always had an influence with it - but control, no.

 

The Israeli forces certainly did occupy part of Lebanon in '82 and still do occupt a small part today. I never shied away from both Syria's & Iran's influence in Lebanon (& Syria's occupation)  but in your reply you can't even mention Saudi's influence which has now been on display for all to see.

 

I didn't HAVE to throw in Israel's role - it is part of the history of the country and, at least in part, led to Hezbollah's formation. I don't care if that doesn't sit well with you with your obvious bias against any of Israel's protagonists.

 

Hariri is of course a dual Lebanese & SA citizen so it is no surprise that he is under their influence while I do admit that he may well be threatened with assassination given what happened to his father. The main thrust of my argument is for all offenders to leave Lebanon alone - influence by dialogue is one thing, war or threats is another & that's this thread is about - Saudi threats, not anti-Iran propaganda.

 

I think you're pretty much on your own there arguing Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. Or alleging that it's "totally false" and nothing but propaganda. Doubt you could cite even one significant instance in which Hezbollah acted directly against Iranian wishes or interests. Doubt you could claim that all them arms supplies, financial support and religious guidance are fiction and do not come with a political price tag attached.

 

There wasn't a claim Israel did not invade and occupy Lebanon. The point made was that you highlighted it, while giving a passing mention to the Syrian occupation or the the civil war. The extra bit cited, does not relate directly to the Hezbollah, though, hence the comment.

 

My post was in reply to yours, which dealt with the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah's patron is Iran. And obviously that was the what my post centered on. The point stands, that while you call for foreign powers to lay off Lebanon's politics, there is no accounting of what this means as far as Hezbollah is concerned. With regard to Saudi Arabia's role in Lebanon, there was nothing said in support of it - and indeed, I'm all in favor of foreign involvement by all parties not being an issue - whether or not this is realistic is another story. But regardless, Saudi Arabia does not have the power (at least not currently) to mobilize a significant military force within the country on a whim, nothing which compares to Hezbollah's and Iran's relations. That doesn't amount to denying they play the field, just that it is of a different nature and scope than Iran's involvement. The Saudis are involved economically and politically, but not militarily. That's quite a difference, and to a degree, this is pretty much what this is about.

 

Your current post, and the previous one ignores Hezbollah status in relation to Lebanese sovereignty. The dual claim of it being both part of government and an organization acting according to other agenda, are problematic when it comes to addressing the latter. It was this issue to which "accepted" was applied - less to do with historical accounts and more with addressing an ongoing issue effecting current events.

 

The Saudi threats are not made in a vacuum, but in the context of the regional power struggle vs. Iran, and Hezbollah's actions. The question is whether Hezbollah's regional actions represents a Lebanese consensus regarding the country's best interests. 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

What a bizarre ramble. My point is that Melkulangara Bhadrakumar knows his stuff -  which is more than can be said for some of the posters on this forum and the sources quote.

 

I'm sure he would be gratified, as we all must be, to learn that you consider his professional abilities and career are "not in question". 

 

Always fun when posters get riled when some pet guru they just discovered is not properly venerated. The bizarre part would be that even a comment on the person's political orientation (which is by no means a secret) and it's role in his take on things (which I don't think he denies) can't be accepted.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think you're pretty much on your own there arguing Iran doesn't control Hezbollah. Or alleging that it's "totally false" and nothing but propaganda. Doubt you could cite even one significant instance in which Hezbollah acted directly against Iranian wishes or interests. Doubt you could claim that all them arms supplies, financial support and religious guidance are fiction and do not come with a political price tag attached.

 

There wasn't a claim Israel did not invade and occupy Lebanon. The point made was that you highlighted it, while giving a passing mention to the Syrian occupation or the the civil war. The extra bit cited, does not relate directly to the Hezbollah, though, hence the comment.

 

My post was in reply to yours, which dealt with the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah's patron is Iran. And obviously that was the what my post centered on. The point stands, that while you call for foreign powers to lay off Lebanon's politics, there is no accounting of what this means as far as Hezbollah is concerned. With regard to Saudi Arabia's role in Lebanon, there was nothing said in support of it - and indeed, I'm all in favor of foreign involvement by all parties not being an issue - whether or not this is realistic is another story. But regardless, Saudi Arabia does not have the power (at least not currently) to mobilize a significant military force within the country on a whim, nothing which compares to Hezbollah's and Iran's relations. That doesn't amount to denying they play the field, just that it is of a different nature and scope than Iran's involvement. The Saudis are involved economically and politically, but not militarily. That's quite a difference, and to a degree, this is pretty much what this is about.

 

Your current post, and the previous one ignores Hezbollah status in relation to Lebanese sovereignty. The dual claim of it being both part of government and an organization acting according to other agenda, are problematic when it comes to addressing the latter. It was this issue to which "accepted" was applied - less to do with historical accounts and more with addressing an ongoing issue effecting current events.

 

The Saudi threats are not made in a vacuum, but in the context of the regional power struggle vs. Iran, and Hezbollah's actions. The question is whether Hezbollah's regional actions represents a Lebanese consensus regarding the country's best interests. 

I'm going to side with Krataiboy and say Hezbollah is being influenced by Iran, not controlled.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm going to side with Krataiboy and say Hezbollah is being influenced by Iran, not controlled.

 

I got you trolling point the first time, before you misplaced the poster's handle. Thanks.