New York- “Obamism” is facing the possibility of its utter failure in Lebanon, which has been witnessing a succession of developments dangerous for the country, for the region, for the US President's policies and subsequently for the United States. In Iraq, the Barack Obama Administration has struck silent deals with Iran and Syria, and has dealt several blows to the democratic electoral process and to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries that are its friends and allies. This has happened through implicit consensus over current Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki clinging to the post, despite the fact that his party did not win the majority of seats in Parliament. The outcome of this is that both Syria and Iran have become intoxicated by their implicit understandings with the US Administration. Syria has interpreted this as a green light for it to do whatever it wants in Lebanon to restore its influence. Iran interpreted what happened in Iraq as a shining example of the Obama Administration's retreat before Iran's insistence and its yielding to what Iranian political skill had outlined since the beginning. Iran thus felt that there was nothing preventing it from repeating the experience of Iraq in Lebanon, where those who have lost the elections hijack power from the winners, one way or another. In Lebanon, it seems as if the situation, in the view of Iran and its partner Hezbollah, requires overthrowing the government headed by Saad Hariri – with the help of Syria. The US media may think that the situation in Lebanon does not interest Americans because it is far away from US cities. Yet the obsession of Americans with each of Al-Qaeda, Israel, Iran and Hezbollah may lead to a qualitative shift in the battles and wars taking place on the Lebanese scene – that is the threat of a sectarian war in which Al-Qaeda would play multiple roles, including that of undermining US interests wherever they may be, and where Israel would be a close neighbor. Indeed, enmity towards the US will gather in Lebanon and Barack Obama must awaken to this threat, even if he has decided that justice must take the back seat in the name of a stability contingent on understandings detrimental to Obama's promises and for the region. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon surprised those who had wagered on his being understanding of the US-Syrian trade-offs and implicit understandings in Iraq and Lebanon. They thought he would bow his head and move on, but he was surprisingly insistent on justice and on clinging to the principle of non-impunity, despite the fact that Lebanon's President of the Republic and its Foreign Minister both tried to convince him to abandon the Special Tribunal. Syria's Foreign Minister also said that not annulling the Special tribunal would lead to undermining stability in Lebanon, and that this would be the responsibility of the Secretary-General and of the international community. Two days ago, on Wednesday, Ban Ki-moon determined his stance on those who had wagered on his weakness, after he had informed them in closed meetings that what they were asking for was impossible, that prejudging what the Special Tribunal will do is a dangerous matter, and that he clings to justice. He said in his press conference: “I urge all Lebanese and regional parties not to prejudge the outcome, nor to interfere in the tribunal's work”. In response to a question about the arrest warrants issued by Syrian judicial authorities, he added that “the work of the independent judiciary system should not be interfered [with] by any decisions or any measures taken by any country or any people in Lebanon and outside. (…) That is firm and clear. Nobody can interfere [with] or prejudge the decisions or proceedings of the Tribunal. Otherwise, you will never be able to see and achieve the end of impunity”. He also said that the Special Tribunal was “independent, with a clear mandate from the Security Council to uncover the truth and end impunity”, that “that work is important and it must go ahead” and that “the justice process should go on”. Ban Ki-moon has answered those who made him bear responsibility for the collapse of stability if he fails to annul the Tribunal and the progress of justice, saying: “peace and security and political stability in Lebanon should be different from this justice process, [which] should go on”. He also stated that “the United Nations position is very firm; we will support the work of the Tribunal” and that “the Lebanese Government has an obligation to fulfill [its] duty [of funding the Tribunal]”. This is how Ban Ki-moon resolved all the debate and haggling around upholding stability and undermining justice. Barack Obama has not yet made his decision regarding this issue, and the impression still prevails that his administration is showing its understanding of the requirements of undermining justice, under the pretext that the alternative would be to undermine stability. Barack Obama has not closely examined, as it seems clear so far, what is taking place on the Lebanese scene. He and his administration are in a semi-comatose state, not realizing the meaning of the events taking place in Lebanon. The US President might be clinging to the policy of embracement, rehabilitation and enticement with each of Syria and Iran, because he wants to quickly withdraw from Iraq at any cost. If that truly is what is guiding his policy, then he is heading towards some painful surprises. It would be better for Obama to realize that what is happening in Lebanon today is a process to make his policy fail. Indeed, it is on the Lebanese scene that Iran is launching its revenge against the UN sanctions imposed upon it, but such revenge will spread to the countries of the Gulf and also to Iraq. In Lebanon, sectarian and proxy wars are being summoned, and the fear of fears is for Hezbollah's weapons not to dominate alone, but for the various armed Palestinian organizations and factions – sectarian and ideological ones as well as those given the role of proxies – to enter the scene – a fact which could lead to calling on Syrian troops to return to Lebanon in the name of keeping the peace. Barack Obama the candidate raised the banner of justice and pledged to uphold it. Barack Obama the President seems quiet, hidden and frightened – and this is what Syrian and Iranian political skill realizes. This is why they have had the boldness to demand the annulment of a Special Tribunal which was established by the Security Council and pushed for by the United States and France equally. France is suffering from the floundering of its policy towards Lebanon, as it has worked behind the scenes and interfered in the Tribunal's affairs and in the work of General prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, until it heard from him that this matter was none of its concern. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his team have decided that Syria was the priority and that it held the keys to Iran, Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, making it feel that it could do whatever it wanted. France sold Lebanon under Sarkozy and implicated the Obama Administration with it in a policy based on splitting Syria away from Iran in order to contain Hezbollah. Syria has taken what Saad Hariri said, about his falling prey to the “false witnesses” making him level a “political accusation” against it, to the furthest extent and turned it against him, in spite of the Saudi-Syrian agreement that led him to agree to speak these words. And regardless of how much Hariri was mistaken, when he agreed to head the government after his coalition won the elections, to visit Hezbollah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and discuss the formal accusations that might be issued against Hezbollah members in order to contain their consequences, or to say that his accusing Syria in the past of having played a role in his father's assassination had been a “political accusation”, he does not deserve to be the object of revenge as is happening now. Yet that is not the core of the issue. The core of the issue is that Lebanon is today falling prey to trade-offs and proxy wars. And the United States, in the minds of people in the Middle East, seems not to be thinking or carefully examining what is happening and what clearly appears in the distance. Furthermore, Hezbollah is, together with Syria and Iran, waging a war against a Special Tribunal established by the Security Council and driven by the United States and France. The core of the issue is that the Obama Administration, just like Sarkozy's government, is trying to evade the Special Tribunal. Neither Barack Obama nor Nicolas Sarkozy is required to step in as party to the wars looming over Lebanon. What is required of them is to stop providing ammunition for interference in Lebanon, whether by Syria, Iran or Israel. What is required of them is to take a courageous stance, as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has, and make up their minds about the attempts to undermine the Tribunal and justice, and about trading in Lebanon's stability. Barack Obama is, more than others, required to clarify his position in Lebanon, because it was his policy that enabled the regional players to feel so extremely confident that they would demand the annulment of a tribunal established by a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Indeed, his policy was what made Iran feel that it was above being held to account in Lebanon, and that it was in a trade-off relationship in Iraq, one which shows that its political skill is capable of devouring Obama's emerging administration. Indeed, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are well aware that there is no way to annul the Special Tribunal, and in spite of this they escalate their campaign against it for reasons that exceed anticipating accusations. What they are doing is making use of the vacuum for a fateful coup against the entire Middle East region. And the time has come for the US President to take a look at what this qualitative shift means for the region, based on what is being prepared for Lebanon.
