You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Syria's Harsh Message to Lebanon
2007-02-13
Hidden bombs exploded in two minibuses in a Christian area near Beirut on Feb. 13, a day before massive rallies are expected to commemorate the two-year anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. The politically motivated attack likely is connected to the Syrian intelligence apparatus, which aims to instigate violent clashes between Lebanon's heavily armed factions in order to justify a Syrian intervention.

Analysis

Bombs exploded in two minibuses exactly 10 minutes apart at a bus stop in a mountainous Christian area near Beirut, Lebanon, around 9:30 a.m. local time Feb. 13, killing three people and wounding at least 18. The explosive devices, one containing the equivalent of about 6.6 pounds of dynamite and the other about 2.2 pounds, were planted at night in a privately owned parking lot with minimal security. The buses, which originated from Bteghrine, exploded on a road in Ain Alaq, some 12 miles northeast of Beirut. Most of the victims were Greek Orthodox.

The attack took place on the eve of the two-year anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, an event that resulted in the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon in the summer of 2005. Lebanon's rival factions have been preparing for this day by ensuring that each group is well-armed and trained to defend itself in the event that violent clashes break out when thousands of pro-government al-Hariri supporters and members of the Hezbollah-led opposition take to the streets Feb. 14.
Tomorrow should be a interesting day

Though the planners of the Feb. 14 rallies have taken precautions to contain the protests, there are a number of players in Lebanon that would like to see the situation spiral out of control, namely Syria. The buses that were attacked originated in the hometown of Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr, who on Feb. 8 seized a truckload of explosives belonging to Hezbollah and containing more than 120 mortars, Katyusha rockets and scores of mortar shell cases. Murr's refusal to return the weapons to Hezbollah, which was transporting them from the Bekaa Valley to stockpile in Beirut's Shiite-controlled southern suburb, was an embarrassment for Hezbollah's leadership.

The perpetrators of the bus bombings likely are attempting to draw a connection between the confiscation of Hezbollah's weapons and the attack in order to draw the group into a violent conflict. The Bteghrine area in the upper Metn is part of the domain of influence of the Syrian Nationalist and Socialist Party, which has direct links to Syrian intelligence. While Hezbollah is unlikely to have carried out this attack against civilian targets -- since doing so would bring political repercussions while it is in the midst of a heated protest campaign -- members of Syria's intelligence apparatus would have an interest in skyrocketing tensions in Lebanon and ensuring that the Feb. 14 anniversary is marred by violence. Doing so would give Syria the justification to intervene in the affairs of its western neighbor to restore order and reclaim its military position in the country, which was lost in the aftermath of the al-Hariri assassination.

The series of bombings organized by Syria in the aftermath of its withdrawal from Lebanon was directed primarily at anti-Syrian political and journalism targets in Lebanon. The attack against civilians in this latest bombing is a grave warning to Lebanon's rival factions that the country's downward spiral is only beginning -- and that Syria will remain central to stability in Lebanon.
Posted by:Steve

#7  SW: One of the successes was the 1953 riots/coup that overthrew the socialist Prime Minister of Iran and installed the Shah

The Shah was head of state throughout all this. He had appointed Mossadegh and dismissed him. It was a coup only in the sense that it involved some violence. A contemporary example would be that of the recent coup in Thailand, where the King of Thailand was involved in the dismissal of the existing administration. The point is that the CIA did not topple Mossadegh and bring the Shah out of an obscure exile to assume the reigns of power. The Shah was a major (if not the major) player from the git-go. More likely than not, the CIA exaggerated its role in the Shah's removal of the usurper Mossadegh. The exaggeration of its role served both the CIA's purposes in demonstrating its supposed competence and effectiveness and the left's purposes in demonstrating America's devilish plots and omnipotence, against which any countermeasures, including mass murder, were acceptable.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2007-02-13 19:35  

#6  Otherwise, you get stuck in a country like Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, or Iraq for 10-15 years rebuilding the damned place. And if you think the Dems have gone ape shit over Iraq, what do you think they would do about Syria? Lebanon? Somalia? Or Iran? All of those places need to be cleaned up and guarded for 10-15 years, in order for the necessary social changes to take hold; very few countries have the wealth, the means, the military forces, and above all the patience to do that. And with the whining about Iraq, I am not sure that the US has suffered enough of the horrors of terrorism on its own shores to be generally resolved to keep the military actions going overseas, to keep the terrorists and terrorism over there.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-02-13 18:15  

#5  Because in real life, the circumstances for a relatively bloodless coup are few and far between. One of the successes was the 1953 riots/coup that overthrew the socialist Prime Minister of Iran and installed the Shah : it involved a very smart CIA agent, a very large suitcase of cash, and several very large rent-a-mobs in the local marketplace in Tehran. And all that the riots/protests were supposed to do was put pressure on the PM; however, once the on-the-ground man saw how well they were going, he kept the money flowing and viola, the Shah was suddenly in power as the "choice of the people".
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-02-13 18:10  

#4  a: Somebody remind me why we tolerate Baby Assad.

We tolerate him because changing foreign governments isn't as easy as Hollywood movies make it out to be. The regime changes that did not involve US invasions were going to happen anyway - all Uncle Sam did was line the pockets of the winners.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2007-02-13 16:53  

#3  We tolerate Assad because he keeps a lid on things in his neck of the woods. Yes, he's a pain in the neck when it comes to the Lebanese, almost as much a pain in the neck as the Lebanese themselves, who couldn't agree on a paint color if there were only 1 color available.
Posted by: Perfesser   2007-02-13 13:41  

#2  The people who make this sort of thing go on and on are the Lebanese who are fence sitters, opposed to Syrian meddling, but willing to live with it as long as their immediate family / fortune are not at stake. In the end, they are silent, passive collaborators...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2007-02-13 13:34  

#1  Somebody remind me why we tolerate Baby Assad.
Posted by: anymouse   2007-02-13 13:32  

00:00