"No consensus exists on a vision for Lebanon. Hizballah’s strategic alliances with Syria and, more significantly, Iran make improbable a serious dialogue on disarmament, which the party’s leaders consider an existential threat. Nor does Hizballah feel an urge to compromise, since it retains support among Shiites. The Hariri-Jumblatt tandem, in turn, controls a slight majority in parliament, but suffers from the physical absence of Saad Hariri, who lives outside Lebanon, fearing assassination. Moreover, Hariri is said to be under pressure from the Saudis to be more conciliatory with Syria, since Riyadh does not want events in Lebanon to destabilize the Syrian regime. The sectarian contours of the Hariri-Hizballah rivalry are sharpening, and while violence remains unlikely, the fight for Lebanon’s soul will continue for some time to come." Michael Young
"Riyadh does not want events in Lebanon to destabilize the Syrian regime." Sound familiar? (See earlier post on this subject) Lebanon is now an even bigger political mess than it usually is. Riyadh does not want Syria destabilized since Saudi Arabia believes it is close to achieving a dominant role in Syrian policy, but the neocons and their Lebanese and Israeli political allies DO want to see regime change in Damascus in the belief that general change in the political culture of the "Greater Middle East" would be good for the "natives" and GREAT for Israel. There is a certain tension among these groups. Caught in the middle are the career officials of the State Department under the idealistic leadership of "Miss America" herself, the CIA, and the armed forces.
This should go well.