Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have said, for over a year now, that the Lebanon will be the site of Iran’s victory over the United States. On May 6, when the Siniora government announced its decisions to call Hezbollah’s private network of landlines illegal and to remove the head of airport security, Wafiq Shqeir, from his post because of his alleged ties with the party, Iran may have seen a prime opportunity to put its plan into action.

Increasingly, prominent Middle East analysts and observers are suggesting that the past week’s events in Lebanon were part of an attempt by Iran to impose a new order in the Middle East through Hezbollah’s weapons. Raghida Durgham, al-Hayat daily’s reporter in Washington, wrote on May 16 that the party’s arms offer a doorway for Iran to enter Lebanon, one that does not require sending a foreign army like the Syrian troops that entered Lebanon after the civil war. “Iran today is like a border to Lebanon because of Hezbollah’s arms and Iran’s continuous support,” she wrote. “Syria is the important link between Iran and Hezbollah’s arms. However, the strategic decision is made by the Iranians.”

Durgham also quoted a high ranking Arab source who stressed that the best explanation for Lebanon’s recent crisis is that Iran feared a US military attack this summer, which it sought to preempt by mobilizing Hezbollah.

Iran itself was quick to frame the crisis as a Western creation. When the opposition launched its attack and Hezbollah-led armed men took over west Beirut in one day, Mohammed Ali Hosseini, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, blamed the “adventurous efforts and interventions by the United States and the Zionist regime.”

If Iran is truly putting into motion a plan to transform Lebanon into a battlefield to fight the US and Israel, what can be done to counter this expansion?

Iran’s military card

Former 12-year Hezbollah member and fighter Rami Olleik, now an instructor of Agriculture at the American University of Beirut, also suggested, based on his own experience with the party, that the past week’s confrontations are part of the war between the US and Iran. “The difference is that March 14 did not merge organically with the US project as much as Hezbollah did with the Iranian project. Hezbollah and Iran’s projects are inseparable,” he added.

Likewise, Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh also indicated to NOW Lebanon that the Lebanese opposition’s military operations last week were obviously an Iranian decision. “However, moving the front to Lebanon was a trial that has turned against Iran, as it opened the issue of [Hezbollah’s] arms,” Hamadeh said.

According to Hamadeh, the Arabs, led by the Arab League, have taken back the political initiative and decided to stop the military takeover of Lebanon. “The battle in the Chouf made [the opposition] stop and think, but even in Beirut, they couldn’t have stayed longer,” he stressed.

Nassir al-Asaad, a columnist at al-Mustaqbal daily, agreed with Hamadeh on Iran’s role, though his assessment of the outcome was less optimistic. “The [Iranian] nuclear dossier is in the background, and the timing is very much related to the negotiations over that issue. They feared a war on Iran or the Syrian regime, so they moved the front to Lebanon. They also need to topple or weaken the government because the government and the parliamentary majority would limit them. It’s a coup d’état par excellence.”

With the government revoking its two controversial decisions, Hezbollah’s quasi-state now appears stronger than the Lebanese government.

“Negotiations took place under pressure and threats of escalating the military operations. The government from now on will be under the command of Hezbollah, and it would never dare to make any decision that is not in Hezbollah’s interests, otherwise they will occupy the country,” Asaad stressed.  He added that dialogue should now focus on one issue: either the arms go, or Lebanon goes.

No more illusions
 
According to Olleik, Hezbollah has a very detailed plan for its future and that of Lebanon, while March 14 doesn’t. “The political course was in favor of March 14 and the US, until Iran decided to play its military card inside Lebanon. They did not fall into a trap. It was a choice, and they were aware of the consequences of their step,” he stressed.

Olleik rejected the idea that this means Hezbollah is committing suicide. Hezbollah has different considerations. “The Shia community is their only concern. They do not care if the rest of the country falls apart, as long as the Shia are united around them.”

He added that Hezbollah, ideologically, wants to change the fundamental structure of the Lebanese state, in order to eliminate threats to the party. “Although they do not want to rule, they certainly want to control the state.”

Olleik believes that is going to be a long process. Even if a temporary solution is reached now, Hezbollah’s project will continue. “The only solution is a new movement from the Lebanese community, which starts to create an alternative direction, with a significant number of Shia, and this is a red line for Hezbollah.”