Not long ago, a senior-level meeting was convened in Damascus. Supported by key Arab states, it explored the reassertion of Syrian influence in Lebanon.
For almost three decades, from 1976 to 2005, troops from Beirut’s much larger eastern neighbour were stationed in Lebanon, only leaving after the assassination of popular Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. How, attendees pondered, could Syria re-enter the fray?
The ‘elephant in the room’ was Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah. A staunch ally of Syria, he had spent three decades making Hezbollah the most influential force in Lebanon, effectively assuming Syria’s former role. Indeed, when the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon in April 2005, Nasrallah even organised a ‘Loyalty to Syria’ march. It symbolised a transfer of the Lebanese crown.
What remained unspoken during discussions was that Nasrallah now represented an obstacle to Syria’s reassertion into Lebanon. The possibility of Israel removing Nasrallah from the equation entirely also went unmentioned at the meeting, yet it will have been on more than one mind.
That outcome has now come to pass. Analysts now wonder whether his absence will weaken the two decades of influence that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has had in Lebanon. If so, could it let Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reprise the role first initiated by his father Hafez?
Sniffing an opportunity
Israel’s operational objectives in Lebanon include dismantling Hezbollah’s leadership, severing its communications networks, eliminating the missile stockpiles, launch sites, and production facilities, and disrupting supply lines from both the sea and Syria. Arguably, it is achieving its aims.
At the time of writing, Israel is also weighing up a ground incursion, as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to let 60,000 displaced Israelis return to northern Israel by creating a threat-free zone north of the border.
