Irrespective of who was behind the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, it seems his murder will give impetus to the difficult developments in that country and push what the US likes to call 'democratic reforms in the Middle East.'
After the 9/11 the US fundamentally revised its approach vis-a-vis global developments giving priority to the strategic consideration of transforming threats into opportunities when unexpected developments emerge.
The superpower managed to transform one of the biggest threats against its security into an unprecedented opportunity by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.
With increasing US military presence in the Middle East, the urge to transform threats into opportunities became more tangible. Death of the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat was an unexpected but key development which America and its allies capitalized on to solve the protracted problem of Occupied Palestine.
The point here is not whether US Middle East policy is on the right or wrong track. What matters is that its policy in this part of the world is devised in a manner that each and every contingent crisis can be handled.
If this hypothesis does carry weight, then the removal of Hariri could be viewed as part of a series of moves and plans by Washington to rupture traditional Syria-Lebanon ties.
Hariri was killed on his way to parliament for revising and rectifying election laws. A key parliamentary election is scheduled in Lebanon in the spring. It is believed that candidates opposed to the extended Syrian military presence will emerge on the top.
After resigning from the post of prime minister last year due to differences with President Emile Lahoud, a close ally of Syria and its military presence, Hariri tried to use his sociopolitical clout and find ways to expedite SyriaÕs withdrawal from Lebanese territories. Under the conditions, it was natural that President Bashar Assad denounces the assassination to avoid accusations against his country. However, Syria has been accused by Lebanese sources, the opposition in particular, of having a role in HaririÕs murder. The charges are premature because investigations have not even started and there is nothing to indicate Damascus will benefit from such terrorist attack.
Anti-Syrian sentiments built up in Lebanon when HaririÕs family went so far as to say that Lahoud, Interior Minister Suleiman Franjieh and Prime Minister Omar Karami, all three close to Syria, will not be welcome at HaririÕs funeral.
After HaririÕs assassination, the US also increased pressure on Beirut. A few hours after the murder, Washington summoned its ambassador to Damascus and reiterated that Syria has a role in the unrest in Iraq, supports terrorism and must immediately get out of all Lebanese territories. Now there are signs that as pressure mounts on the embattled Syrian leadership, Assad could finally decide to bring his troops home.
Pressure on LebanonÕs Hezbollah is also on the rise. Now that it is possible that Israel and the Palestinian Authority are getting closer to some agreement, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is trying to convince France to include Hezbollah in the European UnionÕs list of terrorist groups.
The Zionist media recently reported that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has called for ratification of a resolution by Arab states to condemn and stop all suicide attacks. This is while Paris is working hard to dislodge the Al-Manar satellite network, which is affiliated to Hezbollah, and has indicated that it wants to open a new chapter in its ties to the US.
France was a strong opponent of the US invasion of Iraq, and still insists on a timeframe for the withdrawal of the occupation armies from the Arab country. It is reportedly holding talks with all Iraqi parties with the aim of rebuilding bridges with Washington and doing its share in pushing the US-engineered reform agenda in the volatile region.