The New York Times has a brief item:
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah, said Thursday that he had been told that members of the group would be indicted by a United Nations tribunal investigating the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, left.
There’s very little more in the Daily Star:
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said his party expected the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) would charge some Hizbullah members with involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Speaking via video link during a news conference he had called for in the Beirut southern suburbs on Thursday, Nasrallah said he had information that such an indictment had been decided upon before 2008, but its announcement was being postponed to await more suitable political circumstances.
He expressed surprise that the decision to indict had been made
And there’s this little bit:
Nasrallah said that Prime Minister Saad Hariri had visited him prior to his trip to the United States and informed him that “undisciplined†Hizbullah members would be indicted.
What does “undisciplined” mean?
Nasrallah added that Hariri had assured him that he, too, was convinced Hezbollah as an organization had not been involved.
If that is true, it just goes to show that politics is thicker than blood – for Hezbollah is well known for its rigid hierarchy, iron discipline and involvement of senior officials in all decisions at the field level. That makes it highly unlikely that Hezbollah operatives would have been involved in such an incident without the senior leadership’s knowledge.
But Hariri’s political survival depends on Hezbollah’s acquiescence, something evidently more important to him than his family honor. He may also have concluded that if he supports the international probe, he will share his father’s fate – or, alternatively, that doing so could risk renewed civil war between Hezbollah and his own March 14 movement. In such a face-off, Hezbollah would certainly win. Thus Hariri hopes to resolve the problem by distinguishing between the operatives and the organization.
Apparently it’s in Sa’ad Hariri’s best interest to maintain the distinction. But why does Nasrallah fear indictments? Michael Young answers:
Indictments would throw Hizbullah’s strategy into disarray. For a start, the party cannot maintain Lebanon’s readiness for war if it chooses to go on the offensive domestically in order to pressure Hariri and the government into denouncing the special tribunal. Nasrallah would either have to opt for domestic instability, which would only divide the country, or avoid that path, so as to preserve some sort of united front against Israel. The secretary general could not do both.
That is why Nasrallah is now focused on rallying the Shiite community behind Hizbullah, by saying the tribunal is an Israeli weapon. No one else will buy that argument. But even the Shiites are not keen to see their villages turned into parking lots, especially on Iran’s behalf. Nasrallah would have his work cut out for him in holding the ground psychologically and politically for a war with Israel if indictments are issued. Shiites would still be wary of war, understandably, while Sunnis would be looking for revenge against the party they believe murdered their late leader.
Young also explains what else the investigators need to do. Apparently, despite his powerful and ruthless masters, Nasrallah still has to maintain the fiction that he’s independent and puts Lebanon’s interests first. And while Syria and Iran are both masters of Hezbollah, they each have slightly different interests in how they manipulate Nasrallah.
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.
