The Counter-coup in Lebanon: Dumb, Dumber, and the Dumbest: I stayed until 3:20 AM (yesterday and the day before) watching the live press conference of Detlev Mehlis--head of the UN team investigating the assassination of a wealthy Lebanonese. I have been reading everything that I can about the investigation, and I have tried to collect information on the political developments leading up to the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. To be sure, I don't have any information that would help the investigation, but I have formed my opinions and drawn my conclusions after I talked to many people in Lebanon. Some were pro-Hariri and some were bitter rivals. Unlike the patriotic Lebanese who speak about "international legitimacy"--how much I hate that term, I am skeptical about whatever comes out of the UN and its "investigations" in the age of US Empire, under that most weak Annan, who did not know about the corruption of his son. I do believe that there was less injustice at the international level and at the UN during the Cold War. Bring back the Cold War, I say, and bring it NOW. And spy movies were more interesting then too. We know that the US was covertly interfering--if not--running the "UN" team that investigated Iraqi WMDs before the war. The New Yorker published enough articles on that, and how Israel was providing "useful"--to quote Mehlis in Le Figaro--information and tips to the inspection team in Iraq, not to mention the infiltration by US government agents. Mehlis manages to thank Jordan and Israel for their help in his investigation in his last report to UNSC: Jordan for providing Za`tar for the group to eat with olive oil, and Israel for more than the scenario of the assassination. And Yediot Ahronot just published a news item about how Israeli military and intelligence officials flew to Europe to brief the investigating team. And when right-wing An-Nahar and Hariri rag Al-Mustaqbal list the various nationalities of members of Mehlis' team, I snicker. As if the members from Egypt and Finland have the same clout as the members from US. How naive Lebanonese right-wingers can be about international affairs. They are not pretending, they really are that naive. Now on to the recent developments in Beirut. I have been of the view that the "truth" about Hariri's assassination (I care more about the truth of the Israeli bombing of the Qana civilian shelter in 1996, but that is a truth that is not a matter of concern for UNSC and the victims did not have billions to spend on propaganda) may not be uncovered. Those Lebanese generals, henchmen really, of the security apparatus (of the previous Lebanese-Syrian security order) are more dumb than I had thought if they are the ones who committed the crime of Hariri's assassination: they are dumb and criminal--even if they did not commit the crime of the assassination of Hariri, they have other crimes on their hands, and those crimes should be blamed not only on them but also on those who were part of the Lebanese government since the Lebanese-Syrian security apparatus was set up after Ta'if, and that includes Rafiq Hariri himself and his allies and his cronies. Those crimes will not be investigated for sure, because they will implicate Hariri, and their victims are not dear to the heart of Rice or Annan. Hariri, and those who were in his government, is responsible for the shooting at demonstrators in 1993 when Lebanese were protesting the Oslo process, and the shooting at labor demonstrators in 2004 in Hayy As-Sullum, and the assassination of a student leader of the Lebanese Forces, Ramzi `Irani (as much as I despise the Lebanese Forces). Hariri WAS prime minister and he ruled LONGER than Lahhud as he was running the government under Ilyas Hrawi (the most corrupt president in Lebanese history who was getting (allegedly) $75,000 from Hariri payroll a month). Mehlis deliberately said that there are no Syrian suspects because he wants first to achieve Syrian cooperation before he makes his characterization of Syrian suspects official. It is a matter of timing. Jamil As-Sayyid, the powerful former chief of Public Security, told earlier this year Ghassan Shirbil of Al-Hayat, that those who planned and executed the assassination of Hariri are "either Einstein or donkey." They are not Einstein--that is for sure. It is incredible how wide the network of planning of this assassination was, if the early reports are true. But the behavior of the suspects reinforce public suspicion. And don't believe for a second that if this group is guilty, that the chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon is innocent. I will tell you a story in that regard to indicate how those people were subordinate to Rustum Ghazalah, the Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon. A Lebanese political leader told me this story: there was a political rally being planned two years ago somewhere in Lebanon. Raymond `Azar (the former chief of Lebanese Army intelligence who is now in detention) called this political leader and urged him to cancel the rally, and told him: "you know that I just want to be nice, and you know who does not want this to happen" implying that it was Rustum Ghazalah. So this leader called Rustum Ghazalah and asked him bluntly about the matter. Ghazalah told him (deceptively) that he had no objections to this rally, and that he did not interfere in its organization. The leader called `Azar again, and explained that Ghazalah did not express objections. `Azar then said: "Please don't put me in an awkward position. Just understand that what I told you is correct." (regarding the objections of Ghazalah). Those top brass of the Lebanese intelligence apparatus would not dare plan or execute such an operation without a high level of Syrian cooperation and support--based on my knowledge of the politics of Lebanon and the nature of Syrian military and political domination in the country before the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. But there are questions to be raised: those former officials did not get along with one another. Jamil Sayyid thought that everybody else was dumb, except himself. And why would all those intelligence services be involved in the planning and the execution? Why not one service? Why widen the network so much to increase the risks for themselves? And Mehlis alleges that they rented apartments in which they planned the assassination. Now that is most bizarre. Ask Mr. Mehlis: did they also post a neon sign on the balcony of the apartment which read "The Official Headquarter for the Assassination of Rafiq Hariri"? Why did they not meet in their offices as to avoid raising suspicions? And what about the "news" that Nasir Qandil (a former pro-Syrian deputy) is implicated by writing a report in which he allegedly urged the Syrian government to assassinate Hariri. I do not believe that the Syrian government takes orders from Qandil, and did Qandil, according to Mehlis, sent that report by fax or did he post it on his blog for all to see? These details raise more questions than they answer. And I have suspected Rustum Ghazalah for the assassination, but would he involve EVERY SINGLE intelligence service in Lebanon? Now there is a possibility that they all are implicated but that would prove that they all are so dumb and so eager to being caught for some reason. I have noticed that only one intelligence chief from that past era was not arrested: that was Edward Mansur of the Security of the State Department (what a name, huh?) But members from his department were arrested. Was he a source? I noticed that his name is not mentioned. And the Syrian government has been acting very guilty from day one, it has become obvious. If the Syrian government was innocent it would not have withdrawn its troops so swiftly, and it would have addressed Lebanese concerns and suspicions very early on. And the interview with Bashshar Al-Asad in Der Spiegel (see another post) was most disingenuous when he indicated that they did not have disagreements with Rafiq Hariri. The Syrian government despised and detested Rafiq Hariri (I did too, but then again, I despise all of them, every one of them). I can share with you this account, which I know for sure, and which will be included in my forthcoming book on the Hummus Revolution:
The Syrian government has been concerned about Hariri's travels and adventures in the region. Hariri developed Napoleonic complexes and wanted to play a role in regional Arab politics: he was involved in Iraqi affairs (through his friend `Allawi), he was involved with Dahlan and `Abbas, and he wanted to emerge as a Sunni Arab leader. The Syrians posted a threat to his plans, and he most resented their support for Lahhud. The Syrian government--especially the new group around Bashshar including his brother-in-law, the powerful Asaf Shawkat who ran Rustum Ghazalah as the latter did not get along with Interior Minister Ghazi Kan`an, former chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon and a Hariri payroll guy (allegedly), on the other hand, never trusted him. They were suspecting him of various intrigues and of conspiring with the US against Syria. Hariri of course was playing on many ropes, lying and deceiving, which was his habit. And when he had that famous meeting with Bashshar prior to the extension of Lahhud's term in office, the latter did not (unlike what was alleged in the Fitzgerald report who based his report on the accounts and rumors of Hariri clients) threaten to "bring Lebanon" down over his head. That was said to Hariri by somebody else, and that person was not even Syrian. Bashshar had a 20-minute talk with Bashshar, who did not even invite him to sit down. While both were standing, Bashshar told him to "make up" his mind, whether he wanted to be with the US or with Syria. Hariri, typically, meekly told him that he was always with Syria. Bashshar told him to take 48 hours and then give his official reply to Syria. Within two days, Rustum Ghazalah summoned him and asked for his reply. Hariri said that he would agree to Lahhud's extension of term, but that he had his own "demands." Things only got worse at that point. Ghazalah humiliated Hariri, grabbing him by his shirt, and the latter was accustomed to being humiliated by the Saudi and Syrian officials in return for preserving political power. Oh, and Hassan Fattah of the New York Times is back, covering Lebanon from....Dubai of course, just as he covered Lebanon from....Jordan before, and just as I cover China from...California. It is almost cute how the neo-conservative journalists who cover the Middle East all quote and cite one another. Have you noticed? Hassan Fattah quotes Michael Young, Michael Young quotes Lee Smith, Lee Smith quotes Michael Young, and on and on and on. It is almost cute.