On Friday, President George W. Bush signed a presidential proclamation barring entry into the United States of Syrians and Lebanese deemed to be destabilizing Lebanon. The decision affects individuals “who deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon’s sovereignty, its legitimate government, or its democratic institutions, contribute to the breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, or benefit from policies or actions that do so, including through the sponsorship of terrorism, politically motivated violence and intimidation, or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon.” More damagingly, it also affects their families. 

The State Department is responsible for preparing a list of such individuals. However, an unofficial list has been circulating in the media, and the targeting of several on that list has been confirmed by American officials. We find usual suspects from the days of Syrian hegemony: Abdul Rahim Mrad, Asaad Hardan, Nasser Qandil, Michel Samaha, and Assem Qanso. Several are former ministers, but perhaps more interesting, several might also be expected to participate in a Syrian-engineered parallel government if that project ever sees the light of day. Most will not suffer irreparable damage from the US decision (it’s hard to imagine Assem Qanso canceling his season ticket at the Metropolitan Opera or Nasser Qandil lamenting that he never saw Mount Rushmore); however, the American move is, more importantly, a first step that can be extended to other Lebanese figures who do have stakes in the U.S., and who, thorough their alliances or actions, have perpetuated the Lebanese crisis. 

The case of Michel Samaha is the most interesting. In the gallery of Syrian operatives, he is echelons above the rest. It was he who used his friendship with the American journalist Seymour Hersh to help get out Hersh’s controversial story in The New Yorker last March that the Hariri camp was financing Sunni Islamist groups in Lebanon. It was Samaha who, along with the Lebanese ambassador in Washington, Farid Abboud, and others with ties to the old regime, helped organize several of Hersh’s Lebanese interviews for that article. According to one reliable source, Abboud called some of Hersh’s interviewees ahead to ensure that everyone was on the same page when meeting with the journalist. And it was Samaha who reportedly handed Hersh the plum of his visit: a meeting with the secretary general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

Is Samaha being punished for that incident? Probably not, as there is a great deal more to the man than stage-managing visiting journalists – even if the Hersh affair was a masterstroke for the opposition, far more sophisticated than anything Qanso, Mrad, or Qandil could have planned. 

However, with Samaha’s naming by the White House comes a question: What does it say about Hersh’s assertions? It would be absurd to ask that the journalist recant his arguments on the grounds that the administration has targeted an old friend of his, and a much-used source. However, it would be fair to ask The New Yorker magazine to review Hersh’s article and determine if his use of sources was suitable, and if the magazine itself was strict enough in editing its content.

Sources play journalists for saps, and Hersh has gotten great stories by channeling the leaks of those playing him. However, if a source is being targeted by the US government for, in this case, advancing Syria’s agenda, then it makes sense for Hersh’s employer to explore if Samaha unduly shaped the journalist’s copy, and if Hersh went too far in allowing this. That Samaha and Hersh are close, that Hersh relies heavily on anonymous sourcing and that specific accusations in his Lebanon piece about alleged Lebanese government aid to two Sunni Islamist groups went virtually unsourced, that Hersh relied on Samaha for a major interview with Nasrallah, and that Hersh arrived in a divided Lebanon plainly in the embrace of one side in the dispute, all suggest that a second look at his final article might be advisable, for accuracy’s sake.

The rumor is that Hersh is preparing a new piece on Lebanon. We look forward to reading it. But we hope The New Yorker reads it too, at least carefully enough to ensure that its prize journalist has not been – we are confident, unwittingly – turned into an agent of influence.