Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

No, I am not talking about the much heralded civil war in Lebanon.

The likelihood of an attack on Iran has been diminishing in the face of mounting opposition from the military, diplomatic and the oil elites. Tony Blair has broken ranks with Bush to suggest engaging Iran and Syria in future discussions on Iraq. The week before, Syria reestablished its diplomatic ties with Iraq after nearly a decade and a half. Israel’s long planned invasion of Lebanon resulted in a humiliating defeat that has strengthened Hizbullah’s hand in Lebanon. Leaders of the so-called March 14 movement have been discredited for having been abandoned by their erstwhile US-Saudi patrons during Israel’s brutal assault. All in all the Ziocon’s grand plan for the middle-east — eliminating potential challenger’s to Israel’s regional hegemony — had suffered major setbacks. Then comes the Pierre Gemayel assassination.

Before Gemayel’s blood had dried, accusations of Syrian culpability were flying. Evidence is deemed unnecessary for Zionist dominated US media to declare Syria the culprit. Stalwarts of the “Cedar Revolution” followed suit. The execrable BBC floated its own unedifying innuendo. In the din, what was lost is a clear analysis of who might have benefited. While even the Independent gave column space to Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, to pin the blame on Syria, the more plausible counterthesis was entirely overlooked.

Lets examine here how this assassination impacts the key players in the middle east.

Syria:

The best answer to this perhaps is provided by Robert Fisk:

Yes, all five leading Lebanese men murdered in the past 20 months were anti-Syrian. And it’s a bit like saying “the butler did it”. Wouldn’t a vengeful Syria strike at the independence of Lebanon by killing a minister? Yes. But then, what would be the best way of undermining the new and boastful power of the pro-Syrian Hizbollah, the Shia guerrilla army which has demanded the resignation of Siniora’s cabinet? By killing a government minister, knowing that many Lebanese would blame the murder on Syria’s Hizbollah allies?

It would be quite odd for Syria to undermine its own imminent return to the mainstream and the chance of playing a key role in the future of Iraq by assassinating an insignificant Lebanese politican.

March 14 Movement:

Israel’s assault on Lebanon earlier in the year had greatly damaged the pro-American March 14 movement which more recentlly was facing an imment collapse in the face of Hizbullah and Amal’s withdrawal from the National Unity government. In the meanwhile, the US, their prime sponsor, was considering a paradigm shift which included bringing Syria, their prime enemy, and Iran into the dialogue. As Charles Harb put it in the Guardian:

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel could not therefore have come at a more opportune moment for the March 14 alliance. Just two days before the planned start of mass public protests, the assassination halted the opposition’s momentum.

Israel/Neocons

With the plans for an attack on Iran being shelved and the bold plan to extend Israel’s hegemony over the whole region in tatters, this new turn of events could not have been more fortuitous. The Ziocons are aware that they can always rely on the credulity of the media to deem evidence superfluous in denouncing established rogues such as Syria or Hizbullah. In their powerplay against the old-guard of the Baker commission, this would clearly strengthen their position. This scuttles any future plan to bring Syria into the dialogue on Iraq. This also provides Israel and its fifth column in the US an opportunity to renew their efforts for enlisting American military power to batter its regional adversaries. Mostly importantly it serves as a useful distraction from Isreal’s horrific crimes against the defenseless Palestinians, evident in its most brutal manifestation in the recent murder of 19 sleeping men, women and children in Beit Hanoun.