Who and What's Behind the Popular Uprisings?

Part One: The Muslim Brotherhood's Clever Disguise

David Eshel

Mass social movements are normally instigated, or even directed by key players, often operating behind the scenes, but  directing manifestations with very specific goals and intentions in mind. Of course the quick response from most of the press releases is, that the people of Tunis, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and as late, also Libya and Bahrain,  are just disgusted from decades of corruption and injustice by their political leaders and that it is merely a public response to years of  continued misery, mismanagement and power grabbing.  But digging a little deeper into the reasons surrounding these momentous events some interesting patterns are emerging.

We believe that there is a hidden hand shrewdly manipulating these historic events, with a definite strategy, carefully calculated in achieving a long aspired regional plan.

There are three major reasons, which are currently motivating the masses in the Arab world:

-   Popular discontent over lasting economic mismanagement by ruling corrupt despots and  unacceptable disparity in national wealth among a small upper class and the people

-   Decline in Western prestige in the region, diminishing support to moderate Sunni nations, pronounced through  its waning military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan and passive conduct in critical situations facing strategic challenges by Islamic subversive elements. 

- Unprecedented diffusion of mass media information technologies available to middle class citizens- who previously had no access to free uncensored information, all used to evoke large masses raising against the authorities.

The Internet , Facebook and Twitter have indeed been key mediums in organizing and directing the demonstrations, making these to appear as mere social movements.  While the same mass media also offers wide public dissemination around the globe in real-time, it is highly hypothetic to assume, that such contagious manifestations could incite simultaneous mass demonstrations, without some guiding force behind it. Organizing large-scale public events requires preparations, which are extremely dangerous in autocratic nations, constantly monitoring such activities closely, and striking home before they emerge.

The present series of such mass demonstrations, infecting others in unprecedented succession, is a new development in the Middle East. Rather than being a mere public response to injustice and corruption, which no doubt seem genuine under the circumstances, there appears to be a very specific strategy which has not yet been fully exposed.

Western media are engulfed by a wave of enthusiastic euphoria, describing scenes of cheering popular awaking- in revival of long gone romantic memories- like the fall of Communism, or the toppling of the Berlin Wall. But unfortunately, the Clocks in the Middle East are moving quite differently. Even in such momentous past events, in which kings and brutal despots were removed, the ultimate outcome proved worse than before and the peoples' misery and despair became aggravated by even more ruthless leaderships.

A strange phenomenon, which is missing in the present popular manifestations, is the obvious leadership directing the masses. This missing link is presenting a lucrative void to be exploited by highly organized, usually shrewdly operating elements, normally emerging from radical Islamic sources.

Someone is already lurking in the shadows, having waited patiently for the opportune moment to gain his coveted goal- Shia domination of the Sunni hegemony in the region: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader has already called the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia an “Islamic liberation movement”.

The Khomeini example could illustrate the dilemma confronting the Egyptian leaderless opposition. A missing dynamic leader may end up stunting their genuine revolutionary movement. But even having one has its own dangers. All too often, successful revolutionary leaders, once having tasted their power, may turn out to be even more despotic than their ousted predecessors.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the ongoing Domino effect, spreading like wildfire around the entire region, is the enigma of the Muslim Brotherhood- perhaps the only organized entity, which could recruit sufficient power to benefit from the popular uprising. But so far, the Brotherhood has kept invisibly hiding carefully in the shadows. Are they waiting until chaos is reaching unacceptable proportions, and only then step in to the gather the spoils?

The answer could already be in the offing. At the zenith of the "victory Parade" last Friday, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the ultra-radical spiritual father figure of the Muslim Brotherhood suddenly appeared on Tahrir Square, having returned from his long exile in Qatar. Holding a fiery sermon before the packed audience, the 84 year old sheikh lauded political Islam in a future role in Egyptian politics.

One of the strangest school of thought is also emerging from Washington. Testifying recently before the U.S. House Committee on Intelligence, retired air force general James Clapper (70), Director of U.S. National Intelligence and the overseer of 16 various intelligence agencies, actually made an unbelievingly startling comment, describing the Muslim Brotherhood as "largely secular", totally misplacing that this very organization became one of the founders of Osama bin Laden's Islamic Al Qaeda, with some of its members being active leaders in this global terrorist group!  How the top US intelligence director could misguide on such an important issue, which his very own organization is fighting for decades, is past comprehension!  No wonder then, that his boss, President Barak Hussein Obama is ignoring, or even misunderstanding most of the burning issues, which are already inflaming  one of the most explosive regions on earth.

Moreover, a recent translation of a book written by the movement’s fifth official leader  should shed light on just how Egypt’s Brotherhood views itself and its mission. Titled 'The Laws of Da’wa'  by Mustafa Mashhur,  details the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate. Reading Mashhur's and other such writings, which are in abundance, one must come to an uncontested conclusion, that any White House rambling over the Muslim Brotherhood being moderates is absolute nonsense. In fact, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is as radical as Hamas and Hezbollah. But meanwhile the Brotherhood is using a cunning guise to shield its real intentions. Leaving the "dirty" work to its affiliated terrorist group Al-Gama'a a Islamiyya, actually its military wing, the Brotherhood can hide behind a curtain of moderation.

But Al Gama, under the leadership of the notorious Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman,  imprisoned in the US following the 1973 World Trade Center bombing, engaged in a ruthless terrorist campaign during the nineties. During the present manifestations, the group's new spiritual leader, Muhammad Badi,  has publicly called for violent jihad, including against the U.S.

But matters are getting even more precarious, as Wikileaks tell us: Even as people in Washington  were officially supporting their staunch ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, American officials were secretly helping Egyptian dissidents interested in using social media to overthrow his regime. This astonishing news was revealed in a secret cable from Cairo Embassy, to the State Department dated December 30, 2008 noting: " A leader of the April 6 Youth Movement (a Facebook-driven group that has played a major role in Egypt's current upheaval)l  told U.S. officials that opposition groups had agreed on a plan to replace the autocrat with a parliamentary democracy". Virtually undermining their ally, U.S. officials helped this man to attend the “Alliance of Youth Movements Summit,” which took place that same month at  Columbia University in New York, in which speeches were held among others by a senior undersecretary in the U.S. State Department.

If this is not sufficient evidence of American ignorance, if not monumental stupidity, the result from this caper was that the same "April 6" Movement leaders, now affiliated to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood have expressed similar radicalism against the United States and the Egypt-Israel peace accord, which they defy and abolish.

The way in which the Obama Administration is handling the ongoing crisis in the Middle East leaves much to be desired, an understatement, if any.  It could, if not curbed in time, with an energetic change of strategy, bring to total disaster and inevitably to  Shia hegemony of the entire Sunni region.

Cairo 2011: Next Stop-an Islamic Republic?

Photo: AFP

There is a lot of confusion about the ongoing Egyptian crisis, yet it is vital that people understand what is really at stake here.

It all happened before, but unfortunately, the American leadership headed by Barak Hussein Obama seems to have a short memory- or is simply ignorant of the new Middle East-  already on its way becoming a radical Islamic caliphate.

Former US President Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran" a major US ally, trurning into a brutal Islamic state, destabilizing the entire Middle East. Now, thirty years later, President Obama is losing western oriented Turkey, Lebanon and now Egypt to the same fate. What started a few weeks ago in the so-called "Jasmine Revolution" in Tunis- has engulfed millions of Egyptians in their "Twitter Revolution" , with the epicenter culminating in Tahrir Square urging 83 year old President Hosni Mubarak to go, under Obama's obsessive pressure.

The collapse of the old regime in Cairo, once it takes place, will have a massive  on the entire region. The Domino effect, is  shaking the rulers in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Israel's thirty year long peace treaty with Egypt is questionable and will require a comprehensive strategic re-assessment, with significant military and economic repercussion.

Obama's incomprehensible  incompetence in foreign affairs has already become deadly for Middle East and for the entire western world- his present mishandling of the dangerous developments in Tunis, Beirut and now Cairo- seem catastrophic, to say the least. 
Within days, America's position in the "moderate" Arab world crumbled into an unprecedented abyss. So many carefully built relationships, which kept this volatile region on the brink of war, by careful crisis management and wise statesmanship in Washington, have evaporated, within days, into chaos and dangerous anarchy, from which only irresponsible elements, such as Islamic Jihad can benefit.

And so they shall indeed, sooner than later, as history teaches us here, for decades, but unfortunately, these trends remain strangely unheeded in Washington, as by many European leaders, which should know better, being already next in line, as targets of Islamic fundamentalism.

Freedom and liberalism are at the roots of western society and its culture and should be nourished by every democracy- but, as history in the Middle East has, time and again demonstrated, the Arab world has not yet absorbed the benefits of this domain and extremist elements exploit free elections as convenient instruments in gaining ruthless power for their Islamic ambitions. Hezbollah and Hamas are only two recent detrimental events.

Now the Washington's oppressive demand to dismantle Hosni Mubarak's thirty year rule, which may not have been based on liberal principles, but nevertheless kept eighty million people living in peace for three decades,  within a volatile region, in which thousands of  Egyptians lost their lives in three wars with Israel. Now, with Mubarak, the Tyrant gone, and with chaos and anarchy ruling the streets, with no reliable leadership in sight, the scene will soon be ripe for an Islamic take over, which will have serious consequences. These will not only be highly precarious for the Egyptian people, longing for freedom, which will be denied them, but catastrophic for the entire region. The big question asked by secular moderates is wether Muslim Brotherhood will hijack the "Twitter Revolution"?  Indeed, many of the Egyptian seculars demonstrating in the streets of Cairo, are fearing the Muslim 'fixers in the shadows'  may emerge as Egypt's new leadership.

So who are those Islamic elements, which are sofar carefully watching events, waiting in the background, only to make their move when the right moment arrives.

Introducing the Muslim Brotherhood

Being the most organized factions in Egypt, excluding the army,  the Muslim Brotherhood has a long history in Middle East politices and foremost in Egypt. Founded by Imam Hassan al-Banna in 1928, as an Islamic political social movement, its ranks swelled to nearly two million members, during WW2, supporting the Nazis, involved in agitation against the British, espionage and sabotage, as well as support for terrorist activities orchestrated by the Mufti Haj Amin el-Hussaini. The Brotherhood has been an illegal organization, but remains the largest opposition group in Egypt, advocating Islamic reform. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood's candidates, who had to run as independents due to their illegality as a political party, won 88 seats (20% of the total) to form the largest opposition bloc. However in last November elections, the Brotherhood was totally banned, which may have aggravated the tension already building up against Mubarak.

The Egyptian Brotherhood has also strong links with Al Qaeda. Dr Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, had joined al Qaeda in 1998 to become Osama Bin Laden's Second in Command. Several of Al Qaeda's prominent leaders were also members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Mohamed ElBaradie, the Nobel Laureate who ran the International Atomic Energy Agency, now aspires to serve as an interim leader, following Mubarak's regime.  He is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, and, in turn, tries to portray the Islamic organization as a moderate, social oriented faction, which should not arouse fear in the mostly secular majority, now demonstrating against the military regime. But once the Brotherhood will gain political power filling the vacuum, those very seculars will be in for a terrifying surprise, as happened to the  secular student of Tehran thirty years ago.

But there is an even more sinister scenario lurking in the shadows. The Mubarak regime has long been suspicious of the connection between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, based in large part on Iran's strong ties to Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Although most oriental analysts claim that Sunni Egypt is far from coming under the banner of Tehran's Shiite influence, it is perhaps lesser known, that Egyptians are more receptive and positively disposed toward Shiism than other Sunni Arabs. One reason is the Fatimid Dynasty that was established in Egypt in the tenth century as an offshoot of the Shiite Ismaelite movement. According to official estimates, the Shiites constitute less than 1 percent of the Egyptian population (approximately 657,000), but Muhammad al-Darini, a prominent Sunni who converted to Shiism, puts the figure at 1.5 million, However the Muslim Brotherhood, although being Sunni in its religion, has already long-standing relationship with the Shiite clerics in Tehran Following the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Egyptian Brotherhood openly sided with Khomeini's revolutionaries as they overthrew the Shah. Now ignoring  lessons from the past, Obama and his aides gamble  that an anti-American Islamist government in Cairo, allied with Iran won’t emerge from the chaos. But when polled only recently, 59% of Egyptians said they backed the Islamists, which should have raised alarm bells in Washington long ago. As the world now watches the present turmoil in Egypt, there is a palpable fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will eventually seize power. With Iran already deeply involved with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, there is little doubt that, given the opportunity, Tehran's Islamic specter will also target Cairo.

I've had my fill of the Israel-bashing

Enough is enough!

These days every half-witted political  penpusher in a sleazy second rate rag is blaming us freely for any mishap and misery occurring in the Middle East and sometimes, even in the whole world!
And the United Nations, is also joining the fun, whenever the occasion is ripe. The so-called   UN "Human Rights"  council having staged Durban II in 2009, with the agenda being to update all the wonderful progress it had made in eliminating racism, really culminated in this ludicrous  farce. Once more, the conference accused Israel of racism, for simply existing and singled out the Jewish state by name - making it the only country so targeted in that grotesque festival. Countries not named "Israel" could enslave minorities, sexually mutilate women and trample on human rights of every kind, without so much as raising an eyebrow by the United Nations. Sofar the US misguided policy, thwarting the UN's  "Israel Bashing" festival  was, at best ineffective, if not totally ignorant. It is therefore high time for  President Obama to lead a full-throated boycott on such deliberate UN actions ( after all Washington is carrying most of the UN payroll!) and make sure to all understand that no friend of Durban III can also be a friend of the USA.

We Israelis are not gun-toting offish brutes, nor brandishing knives in our jaws. We might have our share of Arab-haters, or criminals and,  as are present in most countries, corrupt officials and among these, count even prominent political leaders. But we are the only democracy in this region, where such criminals are brought to justice and even incarcerated, once found guilty by law.
Nevertheless, every time Palestinians are killed, the stereotyped left-wingers and  usual liberalist types,  immediately gather to cry out about 'Zionist oppression' and 'Israeli apartheid'. Yet, when Palestinian rockets fall on Israeli villages and children are murdered in mass suicide bombings, those same "well wishers' are always keeping strangely mum. It may be of interest, that Israel has an abundance of such homegrown liberals in store here. There are watchkeepers ready to pounce on soldiers and their commanders, whenever they suspect them to act out of order against Palestinians, wether guilty or not. There is a free press, virtually uncensored, despite Israel being under constant threat for the last sixty three years. No military, or police commander is immune from scrutiny by the ever inquisitive and prying media hunters, looking into every nook and cranny of Israel's behavior in the territories, or during military operations. Even the sacred intelligence agencies are coming under the public monitor, when slightest suspicion of misbehavior is presumed. Our enemies have benefited from this, to them apparent weakness, as a luctrative, totally freely-accessible intelligence source.
Although Israel is surrounded by millions of hostile Arabs, wishing to eliminate the Jewish State since its creation, we have unflinchingly remained a dedicated democracy, in splendid isolation, among this volatile and dangerous region.

We do not claim to be a perfect nation, far from it. But we can certainly match our skills and moralistic behavior with any other democracies, including those, who constantly encourage indiscriminate criticism of the Israel bashers.

To our enemies and their staunch allies, any intelligent explanation will  be futile and in vain. But I do hope that Israel has still many friends left in the world. To those friends, some of which could, by unfortunate misrepresentations of our own media,  be negatively influenced, I wish to try and portray Israel's present  situation in an unfettered and unbiased way. This is the goal of my forthcoming opinion blogs, the first of which you are now reading.


I shall welcome your comments, whatever they are and look forward to a stimulating dialogue sharing our views.

Hezbollah’s Gambit in Lebanon

The Shi’ite Lebanese “Party of God” Hezbollah, may be threading on the most fateful path in its thirty year history. On the face of the present situation, it may seem that Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah is calling all the shots in Lebanon, but events may turn out quite different as he planned. At the moment, with Hezbollah seemingly at the heights of its greatest power, the future facing it could also unveil its most glaring weaknesses.

And it already happened five years ago, when on his orders, in July 2006 Hezbollah triggered what turned out to be a disaster for Lebanon and the Shi’ite “hybrid’ guerilla army. The Mullah’s in Tehran were visibly unhappy, with all their huge investments in arming, what they planned to be their forward defense against Israel, went up in flames within hours.
No wonder, that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered Nasrallah a public slap in the face, when during his high-profile visit to Beirut he intentionally ignored meeting the Hezbollah leader in his subterranean bunker hideout.

Nasrallan meeting with Iran's president Ahmedinijad in Tehran

All this does not diminish the dangers lurking for Lebanon and the entire region, emerging from Nasrallah’s present gambit. Few dispute Hezbollah’s prowess in the dangerous standoff, which he created. The Lebanese in Beirut only remember too vividly how, in just a few days of fighting in May 2008, Hezbollah armed militias seized part of the capital and were then on the verge to take over most of the nation’s power sites.

The present situation holds tremendous challenges for all involved – not only in Lebanon itself. Should heightened tension escalate into a civil war, between Shi’ite, Sunnies and Christians, it might engulf the region into a much wider conflict, perhaps another war with Israel, from which the Lebanese people and foremost the Shi’ites – Nasrallah’s main supporters – will suffer. There are fears that Hezbollah may try to divert the Lebanese public’s attention from the international tribunal’s Hariri assassination findings, by prompting a flare-up on the northern border. Experience shows that such tensions may lead to an all-out conformation, even if the sides are not interested in one. At this stage, however, Hezbollah seems to avoid such confrontation, but this may change – if coming under internal pressure in Lebanon, or even within its own ranks, Hezbollah will feel threatened.

It is little known, that not all Lebanese Shi’ites actually do support Hezbollah. The poorest segment of the four million Lebanese people, have always bore the brunt of Hezbollah’s wars with Israel: Hundreds of thousands of South Lebanese are still displaced, close to 900 died in the last war, and scores more remain crippled and homeless. No wonder then, that these miserable have little to gain from another war with Israel. Moreover, among the Arab Shi’ites in Lebanon, as in Iraq, there is significant religious dislike against the growing extension of Iran’s foreign policy, using the Lebanese Arab Shia as an instrument of its foreign policy, in Persia’s quest for its Shi’ite regional dominance. Thus, while Lebanese Shi’ites support for Hezbollah is firstly in local interest, it does not necessarily translate into its allegiance to, or unequivocal support for a Persian shia Iran.

As for the immediate developments, Nasrallah’s strategic skills prove, no doubt, quite remarkable. As the political arena inside Lebanon indicates, Hezbollah has distinct chance to gain a majority in coalition with Christian Free Patriotic Movement led by former President Michel Aoun’s and Druze Progressive Socialist Party (led by Walid Jumbalatt) and, perhaps some smaller parties jumping on the bandwagon.

If this happens there could be a following potential development: Hezbollah will form a government and become involved, becoming a politically, local-oriented Lebanese patriot. This could bring about a similar development like the one already creating in Shia-ruled, post-US Iraq. It might even work in Lebanon, if Nasrallah will keep a low profile – avoiding a religious clash with the various sectarian groups.

But such a move would also become a serious backlash to Tehran’s investments, forwarding its ‘Shi’ite Crescent’ strategy, as both Iraq and Lebanon Shi’ites are Arabs and not Persian Shia. Hezbollah’s shift, from being Tehran’s loyal vassal, enhancing local political interest, against Tehran’s, will no doubt anger the Persian Mullahs, who may fear losing their strategic forward base, no longer under their full control. It might also encourage a policy shift in Damascus, towards the Sunni supporting west. With Iran’s waning power in Lebanon, Bashar Assad could hope to regain some influence in Lebanese politics, in the “new” administration.

However, the big question remains – how Saudi Arabia, the guardian of the Sunni Muslims, including Hashemite Jordan and Egypt, the Gulf States and perhaps even Sunni Turkey will handle the new situation. The extent of the Sunni concern over an Iran-sponsored political take-over by Hezbollah was already evident in 2008. WikiLeaks mentions a Riyadh meeting in May 2008 between US ambassador David Satterfield and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, saying that a “security response” was needed to the “military challenge”, then posed to Beirut by the Iran-backed militants. The Saudi prince feared a Hezbollah victory against the Lebanese government, led by then-Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, would eventually lead to Tehran’s takeover of Lebanon.

A high ranking Iranian visit in Damascus, 2008.

An interesting segment in any new developments in the Levant, might center in Damascus’ reorientation – with a possible move towards the Sunni leadership in Riyhadh. First signs of such a move became public through secret documents revealed by WikiLeaks, published in December 2009. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus then wrote a cable summing up the visits to Damascus, that month, of Iranian National Security Adviser Sae’ed Jalili, Vice President and Environmental Department chief Mahammed-Javad Mahamadzideh, and Defense Minister Ahmad Ali Vahidi. Being confronted with the demand to support any move against Israel, should the “Northern Front” escalate again, Damascus told the Iranians in response, not to expect Syria, or Hamas to take part in this war. In a moment of understatement, Iran’s reaction was reported as: “The Iranians, on their part, were not so pleased with the response”. It looks like Israel’s alleged attack on Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007 sent a strong message – one that was actually clearly received.

Syria – the Keystone in Iran’s Ambition of the ‘Shiite Crescent’

Syrian President Bashar el Assad welcomes Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his recent visit to Syria and Lebanon. Is Assad willingly paving the way for Iran's establishing the 'Shiite Crescent"?to Syria, last month.

For Syria, Lebanon presents not only a political, but first and foremost, a strategic and economic challenge. For decades, Syria’s economy has depended largely on the annual income from over a million Syrian workers living in its rich Levant neighbor. Hafez Assad, Bashar’s father, carefully nurtured the bi-lateral relations with Beirut, shifting from goodwill to brutal force, as became necessary to maintain his iron reigns.

The Iranian and Syrian relationship with Hezbollah developed from a combination of ideological, domestic, and regional factors. Both Tehran and Damascus found Hezbollah to be a useful proxy to further regional objectives. But ‘Father Hafez’ was a wise statesman. He kept bi-lateral relations between Damascus and Tehran on an even keel-carefully avoiding any official, binding signs of an alliance. He also kept a tight leash on Hezbollah, always preventing its entering into Lebanese politics.

But matters changed dramatically on June 10, 2000, when Hafez al-Assad died and his younger son Bashar took the reigns of power. Though Bashar sought to observe the rules, governing Syria’s relationship with Lebanon and Hezbollah, his political inexperience and lack of strategic foresight, caused Bashar’s irresponsible shift towards the charismatic Shiite leader Hassan Nasrallah, the latter just having ousted the Israeli army from its south Lebanese stronghold, a move, viewed throughout the Muslim world as a magnificent achievement. Also disregarding the dangers to Syrian’s hegemony in Lebanon, Bashar entered into a fully strategic alliance with Shiite Tehran, which President Ahmadinejad shrewdly exploited furthering the Shiite strategic dream. Washington’s geniality in pursuing Obama’s incomprehensible short-sighted pro-Muslim strategy astonishingly bestowed its encouragement to this dangerous move. The US inconceivable blindness to the developing danger in this regional turmoil is unbelievable.

For example, ahead of Ahmadinejad’s visit, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have actually deployed in force throughout Lebanon. Hezbollah was operating openly under the Revolutionary Guards Command. Such is not the behavior of an indigenous, Lebanese entity. It is the behavior of a wholly owned and operated franchise of Iran, foreboding of dangerous things to follow soon.

Tehran’s regional ambitions culminated with the recent visit to Beirut by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but were viewed with growing concern, not only by the Sunni Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, but also, alas silently, by the Sunni majority in Syria, who is watching in awe, the demise of Damascus’s traditional protectorate on Lebanese politics, shrewdly being taken over by Shiites, as result of the Alawite Bashar Assad’s shortsighted and, for Syrian interest, disastrous misconduct since 2005.

There are already first indications of growing discontent among senior Syrian officials, mainly belonging to Sunni sects. Feelings of suspicion and discomfort are apparently developing among the Syrian military and intelligence officers, watching with concern as Lebanon, once their exclusive playing ground is being dominated ostentatiously by Tehran’s brutal ‘Al Quds’ Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

The Bashar Assad Alawite-Ba’ath minority regime is strong and bolstered by Iran. But it remains a minority, ruled by force on a growing dissatisfaction within the Sunni majority and especially the Syrian Moslem Brotherhood, opposing the Ba’ath domination. Two issues, one religious and the other, national economic, could impose a change, if the Bashar regime continues its present trend: Tightening the Iranian sponsored Shi’ite alliance and its domination in Lebanese politics, denying Syria its traditional influence there and even the threat of Syria becoming a Shi’ite vassal of Tehran within the Sh’ite crescent spanning from Iran, via Iraq to Lebanon, with Syria being the key to the whole.

This move, if implemented could raise considerable disconcert among the Sunni community, not only in Syria, but in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and challenge the ongoing alliance between Islamic, but mainly Sunni Turkey with Tehran. Could such a trend eventually force a Sunni-backed regime change in Syria? Much will depend on Tehran’s ambitions in Lebanon and the Sunni Gulf states, but first and foremost on US Mid Eastern strategy – If America will continue to act indecisively and appear weak, the Shi’ite domination trend will continue, gain more power and weaken the traditional Sunni hegemony, a dangerous trend which can have serious consequences for the West and foremost Europe, in which the Muslim population is constantly growing, soon becoming a challenging political and dangerous security factor.

The Lebanon Crisis: A Simmering Powder keg about to Explode?

Outgoing Military Intelligence chief Maj. General Amos Yadlin warned last week that Israel’s next war would be fought on several fronts – causing far heavier damage and casualties than other recent conflicts. He was referring to mounting tension, fearing of a conflict in Lebanon following last week’s announcement by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah that he knew the UN tribunal probing Hariri’s 2005 murder was set to indict Hezbollah members. Nasrallah made clear that he would not accept any indictment of Hezbollah members and has questioned the credibility of the tribunal.

His announcement has sparked fears of a new sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Lebanon, similar to one that brought the country on the verge of civil war in 2008.

Last week, a Canadian report, quoting unnamed sources, implicated Hezbollah in the assassination of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri. The report was based on circumstantial evidence, having been unearthed by United Nations investigators, naming a former Lebanese intelligence officer, who was assassinated following these revelations. It is not surprising that Hezbollah leaders have immediately responded that it would not accept any indictment of its members in connection with the assassination.

Meanwhile tension inside Lebanon is already rising dangerously. Following the high profile visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Lebanon earlier this month, Hezbollah has gained substantial power status, strengthening both its political and military prestige, among an already weakened Sunni- Christian led, decade-long existing, sectarian-strifed nation.

According to undisclosed intelligence reports, aired by the Israeli media, early November,  Hezbollah conducted a secret command exercise  in all parts of Lebanon to test its armed militia’s readiness for, what its leaders called “zero hour”, asserting its grip on Lebanon by “cornering” Prime Minister Saad Hariri. The “zero hour” exercise demonstrated, “the quick implementation on the ground” of the necessary deployment. They claimed that in “less than two hours” they were able to “maintain a security and military grip of large areas of Lebanon.” These are no empty words either. In May 2008, Hezbollah actually seized most of western Beirut following a third day of clashes between opposition and government supporters. The “coup” was sparked by a government move to shut down Hezbollah’s secret telecommunications fiber network.

Back In 1975 Lebanon was plunged into a lasting, bloody civil war, in which the Syrian Army invaded the country and virtually controlled it for years.

These days, the situation in Lebanon is even more dangerous and if allowed to explode, could shake the Middle East beyond repair. Earlier this summer, Israeli chief of staff, Gaby Ashkenazi said that an earthquake was in store for Lebanon later this year, when the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) names Hezbollah in connection with the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

As usual in the past, events in this region much depend on the attitude of the United States. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has so far done very little to subdue the simmering powder keg, which is about to explode. In fact, the Muslim world and especially the extremist Islamic jihadist, regard Washington’s recent hasty withdrawal from Iraq and Obama’s untimely announcement of his intended disengagement from Afghanistan, as a sign of weakness in facing a serious crisis situation.

Should the Canadian report be based on genuine information from the STL, Hezbollah might act with force to take control over Lebanon. With the Hezbollah in power, Lebanon might turn into becoming an active part of the Iranian Shiite sphere of influence- the so-called “Shiite Crescent”. This will create a highly sensitive situation: Syria, which regards Lebanon as part of its geopolitical domain, never having accepted the colonialist post WWI Anglo-French agreement, which made Lebanon into independent statehood, will no doubt react negatively on any trespassing into its traditional protectorate.