Perhaps nowhere in the region outside of Syria is more anxious about a possible US strike on that country than Lebanon. Out of all of Syria's neighbours, Lebanon has endured the most problems thrown up by the Syrian crisis, and is bracing itself for the toughest times yet since the crisis erupted some two-and-half years ago. News reports, however, of a Russian proposal that the Syrian regime hand over control of its chemical weapons arsenal to a UN supervised committee in return for a halt to intended military operations were well received in Beirut, raising hopes that escalation could be avoided. Ever since US President Barack Obama declared his intention to launch military action against Syria, most Lebanese have been engaged in a guessing game on when the strike would take place. Already reeling from a number of car bombings that hit both Beirut and Tripoli in the last six weeks, leaving tens dead and hundreds wounded, with the majority of Lebanese staying home, the view has been that Lebanon could not escape unscathed from any US military action against Syria, no matter how limited in scope and duration. The Lebanese political scene, as one politician described it, would be “exposed to all possibilities”. The spill over from the Syrian crisis has already become manifest in Lebanon, a country run by a caretaker government and experiencing a security vacuum unseen since the end of the civil war during the 1990s. This added to an unprecedented influx of Syrian refugees — UN officials put the number at one million Syrians — which complicates an already volatile situation. Several schools reported that families were moving their children outside of Beirut for fear of shaky security, while a strike on Syria raised fears that all of Lebanon could become a battlefield. Worse still, news reports that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is considering a discreet evacuation of the families of its staff only confirm those fears. Statements by a UNIFIL spokesperson to Al-Mustaqbal newspaper suggested that the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 would be halted should the situation in the region escalate. The UN official confirmed, however, that UNIFIL “will not leave the south should the situation escalate”. Beirut saw two days of protest in front of the American embassy in Awkar where a group of activists, bloggers and intellectuals took part in protests against the strike. “The American spring,” said activist Ali Taleb, “will not be achieved through Damascus and certainly not through Beirut.” The protest reflected growing concern among Lebanese on the ramifications of a strike on Damascus. Editor of Assafir Talal Salman — in an op-ed on Sunday — was speaking in the name of many Lebanese when he said that there was a great deal of concern that “the Israeli enemy would seize the chance to launch another aggression on Lebanon to take revenge on the resistance”. “The Lebanese are left alone facing the winds of change with no state to fend for them,” Salman wrote. A majority of Lebanese commentators and analysts considered the strike a done deal and engaged in analysis of targets. Few were of the view that a strike was not going to take place, and that the language of escalation on the part of the Americans was covering up for a settlement being worked out under the counter. Analyst Sami Kleib, however, was of that view. On his Facebook page Kleib, Monday evening, wrote what he believes was the behind-the-scenes scenario of events leading up to the Russian proposal. The Syrian crisis, meanwhile, has further widened divisions and fault lines in Lebanon's political class, with the country divided into two camps — pro and against the strike. To make matters worse, the political class failed to form a new government that would be capable of tackling several pending issues in light of dramatic events in the region. A policy of disassociation from events in Syria, as former prime minister Najib Miqati puts it, has miserably failed as the country finds itself in the heart of the battle over Syria. Manifestations of division were reflected in verbal exchanges, with Minister of Energy Jubran Basil on Sunday warning that the rebel assault on the Syrian Christian town of Maalula was a “serious signal that the plot to displace Christians from the Levant has started”. Basil's statements reflect genuine fear among a section of Lebanese Christians that extremist groups will rise to power in Syria. Other Lebanese Christians, nonetheless, view that saving the Christians in Maalula and other places in the Levant would come through regime change in Damascus. The extremist right wing party, the Lebanese Forces, headed by Samir Gargea, himself a former warlord, is seen as a focus of support for a “balanced foreign intervention against the regime in Syria”. Of all Lebanese political actors, however, all eyes were fixated on Hizbullah and its response to news coming from Washington. The resistance movement has remained ambiguous regarding its plans in case of a strike. On Thursday, the party's Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc condemned plans for US-led military action against Damascus as an “aggression” and “organised terrorism”, warning that it would pose a “threat to regional and international peace and security”. It, nonetheless, did not elaborate on resistance plans. News reports published in the daily Assafir Tuesday quoted sources close to party circles as saying that party cadres in different parts of the country — particularly in bordering towns with Syria and Palestine — were “on full alert” vis-à-vis any potential attack.
