Last week Prime Minister Fuad Siniora announced that Hezbollah's telecommunication network is illegal, and made an attempt to shut it down. At the same time, the Cabinet demoted the head of the Beirut Airport's security service, a Hezbollah member. But later it agreed to concessions after consultations with an Arab League (AL) delegation.
Most observers called these concessions the government's surrender to Hezbollah. This was a surrender to a stronger enemy, but Mr. Siniora simply had no other choice - otherwise, a civil war would have broken out. The AL is a very weak mediator. It is only capable of holding consultations, not creating peace. It does not compare with the United States, Europe, or Russia, to which the Lebanese prime minister appealed for help. In a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Mr. Siniora openly said that the opposition Shiite movements Amal and Hezbollah attempted an armed coup in Lebanon in the interests of Syria and Iran, and that Lebanon needs Russia's help in restoring peace and tranquility.
Can Moscow save Lebanon from the pushy patronage of Syria and Iran? This is not an easy task, considering that Russia's relations with Damascus and Tehran are far from perfect. But why is the pro-Western Lebanese government appealing to Moscow? Possibly because Moscow still has levers for influencing Damascus and Tehran. This is true despite the recent chill in Russia's relations with Syria - it is enough to recall the latter's public statements on Russia's role in the Middle East peace process.
Bashar Asad visited Moscow twice - in January 2005 and in December 2006. After his first visit, Russia wrote off 70% of Syria's debt to the Soviet Union. Damascus promised to pay the rest in ten years. During the second visit, the sides discussed bilateral military-technical cooperation. For Syria, arms supplies are a state secret, but the veil of secrecy over it was lifted by the Russian and Western press. The Kommersant newspaper wrote that the sides agreed on supplies of the latest Russian fighters MiG-29SMT to Syria. Also, Syria bought 36 Pantsir air-defense systems from Russia, and hopes to receive Strelets and Iskander systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines.
I'd like to make a point that Russia is selling all these weapons to Syria without the right to resell or transfer them to a third side. This means that Moscow and Damascus have a subject for discussion. Russia has the right to demand that Hezbollah will not get this hardware.
The situation with Iran is more complicated. Russia has promised Tehran that it will complete the construction of a nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Moscow is interested in constructive cooperation with Iran in the oil-and-gas industry, the development of the Caspian Sea and other spheres. But Russia is supporting the West on nuclear security, and does not want Iran to develop its own nuclear weapons.
But there is a way out. In the Lebanese issue, Moscow can side with Washington, London, and Paris. This is what the Syrian and Iranian leaders fear the most. On this issue, Syria has found itself in almost total Arab isolation. Its only supporters are Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Iran is its only regional ally.
In the meantime, the Syrian president is going all-out to find ways of approaching Washington - Mr. Asad believes that the United States has all the keys to peace in the Middle East, and can help him get back the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967.
Israel is also seeking ways of making peace with Syria. It is ready to sacrifice the Golan Heights in order to protect its northern borders and the south of Lebanon, a major Hezbollah bulwark. In this situation, the West may promise Damascus to help regain the Golan Heights in exchange for its refusal of support to Hezbollah.
But Tehran will never agree to this formula of peace. Iran has already become a major regional power, and looks at Mr. Asad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as its vassals, which would not dare contradict their sovereign spiritual and financial leader.
There is another way out - to revise the Lebanese Constitution - namely, the system of quotas for state power, which requires that a Christian Maronite be the president, a Sunni Muslim the prime minister, and a Shiite Muslim the speaker of parliament, and that Christians and Muslims are represented in the government equally. This model was established in 1943 when Lebanon was gaining independence from France in an attempt to give all religions equal access to power.
True, the Lebanese population almost doubled in the last fifty years, and if this model is changed, Hezbollah, which enjoys substantial support in Lebanon, will only become stronger. Moreover, this will happen in a legal parliamentarian way, as distinct from the current attempts to do so by force.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
