The Problem of Lebanon and Iraq in Occupation and Withdrawal

Listen to the article. The audio text is automatically generated by a machine system.

Between Lebanon and Iraq, there is something of fate. A fate of harsh geographical proximity: a political fate that is unforgiving. And a fate of social diversity that is poorly managed, as it is a national wealth. An occupation leads to another and more. A withdrawal leads to incomplete sovereignty. Armed ideological sectarian factions operate outside constitutional legitimacy and at its expense under the title of "legitimate mandate" that comes from outside the borders. It is easy for internal and external forces to manipulate the two countries. But it is difficult for either of them to establish its role as a player in the crowded roles within an open field. The dangers are many, and the opportunities are few. And nothing is more dangerous than the absence of opportunities in extremely harsh stages for the people and the country, except for wasting a rare opportunity that comes in an exceptional phase.

The facts revolve and are managed almost simultaneously, even if each country seems to be living in more than one time. Israel has occupied Lebanon multiple times and withdrawn from it twice: in 2000 and 2006. In every occupation, Lebanon paid the price, and the loser was the Palestine Liberation Organization, while Syria and Iran were able, alongside Israel, to exploit the gains. After each withdrawal, "Hezbollah" became more armed and powerful under the pretext of needing a "reserve resistance" against the constant Zionist threat instead of ending the mission and abandoning the weapon as is the case with every resistance to occupation in the world, and it practiced dominance over power and people under the shadow of the expanding Iranian influence, of course.

As for the last occupation, it came during the support wars for Gaza and Iran that were launched by "the party". As for the supposed third withdrawal, it is in the state's bet on it within the supposed implementation of the "trilateral framework" agreement between Lebanon and Israel under American sponsorship, while the "Shia duo" rejects direct negotiations and bets on negotiations between America and Iran despite the fact that the "memorandum of understanding" is in a state of clinical death and the signs of renewed war are becoming stronger.

America occupied Iraq once and withdrew from it twice: in 2011 during Barack Obama's presidency and on September 30 of the current year 2026 during President Donald Trump's days after Baghdad called for help in fighting "ISIS" in 2014. The invasion was a strategic mistake made by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives, which led to the collapse of the dam against Iranian influence and handed Tehran a gift from the heavens. The justification is false on one hand regarding weapons of mass destruction, and illusory on the other. How?

Richard Perle imagined that "the fall of Saddam Hussein would motivate the Iranians to rid themselves of the mullahs' dictatorship." Robert Kagan said it would "liberate Iraqi Shiites from dependence on Iran and the dominance of Saddam." What happened was the opposite. During the interrogation of Saddam, conducted by the American federal investigator of Lebanese descent, George Piro, the Iraqi president said, "We do not have weapons of mass destruction, but we implied that we did so that Iraq would not be in a weak position, as Iran is our greatest threat, and Osama bin Laden asked for ten million dollars but we gave him nothing, and America was not an enemy of Iraq in the climate of opposing policies." Saddam then asked the investigator, "You are Lebanese?" He replied: Yes. Saddam said to him: "I love Lebanese people." In the first American withdrawal, Iran's role grew, Syria felt relieved, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS, and the Popular Mobilization Forces emerged. In the second withdrawal, which Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaydi considered a consolidation of "Iraq's sovereignty" and called for the disarmament of the factions, the factions linked to Iran insisted on refusing to give up their weapons, "just as Hezbollah's position" in Lebanon, even if the occupation withdrew, because the weapons are part of the Iranian regional project after the end of Israel and America.

The simplest description of the situation in Lebanon and Iraq today is President John Kennedy's expression of "the unstable bases of the status quo."

Quoted from "The Call of the Homeland"