A Case for Iranian Involvement
Stratfor* is officially off the fence now regarding the Hariri assassination, and it appears that the announcement of the formation of an Iranian-Syrian united front to counter so-called "threats against them" tipped the scales. They now seem to believe that the assassination was carried out under both Syrian and Iranian sponsorship (partially due to the timing of the announcement), most likely through a Hizbullah proxy. In fact, Iran's involvement by itself may somehow let Syria off the hook:
Since Syria is trying to mend its relations with Washington, the idea of a united stand against the United States was probably Iran's. Syria likely agreed to the idea in return for Iranian help in getting rid of al-Hariri using Iranian proxy Hezbollah. If this can be proven, then we can expect to see not only a successful U.S.-led effort to free Lebanon from Syrian control but also an escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions.
For Iran, Syria and Lebanon (under its current leadership) represent allies and instruments to achieve Iranian foreign policy objectives in the region and beyond. Tehran sees that the growing U.S.-led international demand for Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and restore Lebanese sovereignty will alter the status quo. It fears that a more independent-minded regime will come to power in Beirut and that the Alawite-Baathist state in Damascus could collapse after a military pullout from Lebanon. Such a scenario leaves Iran without partners with which to push its policy in the region and to protect itself from an encroaching United States.
So Iran probably presented the idea of a common front to the Syrians as a means of creating a bulwark against Washington's aggressive policies toward both. The Syrians likely responded that they were very much interested in such a plan but feared being bombed by Israel if they assumed a hostile posture. The Iranians likely argued that this could happen even if Syria did not team up with them.
And why would Syria do this? Well, perhaps Lebanon is just geo-strategically and economically important enough to make just about anything possible. However, Syria would still need an environment of give-and-take in which to proceed:
If it accepted the argument, Damascus would have demanded a token of good faith that Tehran would stick with Syria no matter what. Syria could then have asked Iran for Hezbollah help in eliminating al-Hariri, who the Syrians saw as a growing threat to their position in Lebanon. It is no secret that Syria views Lebanon not only as a geopolitical prize but also as an immense economic benefit to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. The Iranians likely accommodated the Syrians and moved Hezbollah against al-Hariri.
So the question remains - where's the evidence of Hizbullah involvement? If indeed the assassination were carried out by a suicide bomber, this would certainly render some plausibility to the arguments that this is Hizbullah's area of expertise, and therefore it may well be them. However, this may well not be the case - sources here have indicated that the crater and debris field pattern are more consistent with that of a bomb planted beneath the pavement, possibly within the drainage system beneath the road, rather than a bomb detonated above the pavement. The crater is, after all, somewhere between eight and ten feet deep. There are other indications as well, such as positions of cars left standing up and stuff like that - I'm not the expert here (I'm currently looking for the link I found yesterday on this). If an investigation turns up that the bomb were definitely planted beneath the pavement, this instead increases the likelihood of the bomb having been the work of intelligence services or state-sponsored organs, since this would have required very sophisiticated planning. Still, this does not completely absolve Hizbullah - a group capable of sending an unmanned reconaissance plane into Israel certainly does not lack sophisticated capabilities. Regardless of how all this investigative and speculative stuff turns out, the end result is the same - increased U.S.-Iran tensions. Considering this set of circumstances, the problem between the U.S. and Syria may well only be a single step in a much larger process.
*Want a copy of the entire report? Email me here.
Since Syria is trying to mend its relations with Washington, the idea of a united stand against the United States was probably Iran's. Syria likely agreed to the idea in return for Iranian help in getting rid of al-Hariri using Iranian proxy Hezbollah. If this can be proven, then we can expect to see not only a successful U.S.-led effort to free Lebanon from Syrian control but also an escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions.
For Iran, Syria and Lebanon (under its current leadership) represent allies and instruments to achieve Iranian foreign policy objectives in the region and beyond. Tehran sees that the growing U.S.-led international demand for Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and restore Lebanese sovereignty will alter the status quo. It fears that a more independent-minded regime will come to power in Beirut and that the Alawite-Baathist state in Damascus could collapse after a military pullout from Lebanon. Such a scenario leaves Iran without partners with which to push its policy in the region and to protect itself from an encroaching United States.
So Iran probably presented the idea of a common front to the Syrians as a means of creating a bulwark against Washington's aggressive policies toward both. The Syrians likely responded that they were very much interested in such a plan but feared being bombed by Israel if they assumed a hostile posture. The Iranians likely argued that this could happen even if Syria did not team up with them.
And why would Syria do this? Well, perhaps Lebanon is just geo-strategically and economically important enough to make just about anything possible. However, Syria would still need an environment of give-and-take in which to proceed:
If it accepted the argument, Damascus would have demanded a token of good faith that Tehran would stick with Syria no matter what. Syria could then have asked Iran for Hezbollah help in eliminating al-Hariri, who the Syrians saw as a growing threat to their position in Lebanon. It is no secret that Syria views Lebanon not only as a geopolitical prize but also as an immense economic benefit to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. The Iranians likely accommodated the Syrians and moved Hezbollah against al-Hariri.
So the question remains - where's the evidence of Hizbullah involvement? If indeed the assassination were carried out by a suicide bomber, this would certainly render some plausibility to the arguments that this is Hizbullah's area of expertise, and therefore it may well be them. However, this may well not be the case - sources here have indicated that the crater and debris field pattern are more consistent with that of a bomb planted beneath the pavement, possibly within the drainage system beneath the road, rather than a bomb detonated above the pavement. The crater is, after all, somewhere between eight and ten feet deep. There are other indications as well, such as positions of cars left standing up and stuff like that - I'm not the expert here (I'm currently looking for the link I found yesterday on this). If an investigation turns up that the bomb were definitely planted beneath the pavement, this instead increases the likelihood of the bomb having been the work of intelligence services or state-sponsored organs, since this would have required very sophisiticated planning. Still, this does not completely absolve Hizbullah - a group capable of sending an unmanned reconaissance plane into Israel certainly does not lack sophisticated capabilities. Regardless of how all this investigative and speculative stuff turns out, the end result is the same - increased U.S.-Iran tensions. Considering this set of circumstances, the problem between the U.S. and Syria may well only be a single step in a much larger process.
*Want a copy of the entire report? Email me here.