Ahmadinejad's ambiguous visit to Lebanon
Beirut (AsiaNews) – Bint Jbeil is a town in southern Lebanon severely affected by fighting between Israeli forces and Hizbollah in the summer 2006. Here, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad once more called for the disappearance of Israel and praised the anti-Israeli resistance. At the same time, he announced the arrival of the Mahdi who will back Jesus Christ.
During his meetings with the president, prime minister and the speaker of Lebanon’s National Assembly, Ahmadinejad played the card of full support for Lebanese institutions and national unity.
Before he arrived in Lebanon on a two-day visit (14-15 October), the Iranian president also spoke by phone to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah of Jordan.
According to a Lebanese expert, in doing so the Iranian leader wanted to join the “pact of stability” that the Saudi King and Syrian President Bashir al-Assad established last summer during visits to Beirut when Hizbollah’s role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was coming to the fore, weighing heavily on Lebanon’s political life.
Both gestures, one for official consumption, the other for the masses, reflect Iran’s dual game in Lebanon. In his two days in Lebanon, Ahmadinejad made in fact two visits, one to the Lebanese state, which had invited him, and one to Hizbollah.
The two, as indicated by Ahmadinejad’s speeches, are glaringly in contradiction with one another. One cannot back the Lebanese state and its policies, whilst considering the country an outpost of the rejectionist front (along with Syria, Hamas and Iran) against Israel, as the president said during his conference at the Lebanese University.
In fact, Lebanon is officially bound by the Arab peace initiative adopted at the Arab summit of 27-28 March 2002. The League’s final statement read, “Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council [. . .] Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option [. . .]. Further calls upon Israel to affirm: [. . .] Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon. [. . .] Consequently, the Arab Countries affirm” that once its conditions are met, they will “Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region”, as well as “Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.”
Ahmadinejad’s interference in the domestic affairs of Lebanon, as well as those of other members of the Arab League, is for all to see. The statements of the Iranian president equally contradict United Nations Resolution 1701 calling for the creation, south of the Litani River, of an area under the exclusive control of the Lebanese armed forces, backed by UNIFIL. This is why his visit and political message are in inherently ambiguous.
As for Iran’s eschatological message, its roots are found in a religious vision that deserves a separate treatment.
.png)
22/07/2008
