BEIRUT: With the announcement this week that Iran is planning to donate military equipment to the Lebanese Army, the Islamic Republic made the seemingly unusual move of backing the same armed force as its foes, the United States and Saudi Arabia.
It also marks the latest in a number of pledges from these countries specifically meant to help the Army in its fight to protect Lebanon from belligerent extremist groups lurking on the border, including ISIS.
But is this burst of aid from various directions merely an extension of the regional power struggle or a genuine effort to shore up Lebanon in the face of a common enemy? The answer is a bit of both, analysts say, with Hezbollah and ISIS major considerations for all sides.
“Lebanon’s and the LAF’s role in the fight against groups like ISIS and the Nusra Front has shaped an expansion in the scale, scope, lethality and quality of U.S. military transfers to Lebanon,” Aram Nerguizian of the Center for Strategic & International Studies told The Daily Star.
The American focus on building up the Army is “now principally driven by the U.S. imperative to preserve what little stability still remains in a shattered Levant security architecture,” he added.
Protecting Lebanon became all the more urgent following August’s battle for Arsal, in which Nusra Front and ISIS militants briefly seized control of the Lebanese border town, resulting in scores of deaths and the kidnapping of at least 30 soldiers and policemen, 21 of whom are still in captivity.
The militants are still there, camped out in the barren outskirts of Arsal, and with Hezbollah and the Syrian army consolidating their control of the adjacent Syrian Qalamoun region, it is only a matter of time until similar clashes break out again. At the same time, both groups – along with a third, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades – are believed to be seeking to build their support base in Lebanon in order to stir up sectarian unrest akin to that seen in Syria and Iraq.
As a result, bolstering Lebanon’s under-equipped and overwhelmed Army is now seen as so crucial that the U.S. is giving less importance to long-held fears that strengthening the Army could undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge.
“Many of the long-held concerns about transferring ever more capable combat systems to the LAF have grown increasingly moot in U.S. government circles,” Nerguizian said.
This has led to the transfer of “millions of rounds of small, medium and heavy ammunition for LAF ground troops” in 2014 alone, he added, including a sophisticated Hellfire missile variant that features a thermobaric warhead – i.e. one that uses oxygen from the air to create an explosion.
“As the LAF pressed on its fight against these jihadi militant groups, these and other ever more capable and sophisticated combat systems have become available to Lebanon,” he said. “The LAF and the U.S. government are discussing the fiscal feasibility of giving the LAF ground combat systems that many analysts would have dismissed outright as non-viable options for the LAF as recently as a year ago.”
With ISIS, a radical Sunni group that has sworn to persecute the region’s Shiites, at Lebanon’s back door, Iran too has stepped in to offer the Army help in fighting “extremist takfiri terrorism.”
“The donation comprises equipment that would help the Army in its heroic confrontations against this evil terrorism,” said Ali Shamkhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, during a visit to Lebanon this week.
The donation, which Shamkhani called “a token of love and appreciation for Lebanon and its brave Army,” is expected to be little more than just that, a token gesture. And that’s assuming that the donation is even approved by the Lebanese government – which is deeply divided over the idea – and proven not to be in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran.
Either way, Nerguizian said that the U.S. was not worried about any challenges to its own influence or ties with the Army: “Barring a shift that Iran can neither sustain nor resource under U.N. sanctions, it cannot be a competitor [with the U.S.] when it comes to building up the LAF from a conventional military standpoint.”
But even though it seems everyone is on the same page about protecting Lebanon from extremist groups, there is still an elephant in the room preventing the Army from receiving all of the pledged assistance: Hezbollah, and by extension, the Saudi-Iranian regional tussle for power.
“I really doubt it [the Iranian donation] will come through; they are already supporting Hezbollah to the extreme,” said Mario Abou Zeid, a research analyst at the Carnegie Middle East Center.
“Plus, Hezbollah’s main justification for having its weapons is that the Army is weak, so if the Army was strengthened there would be big questions over its [Hezbollah’s] arsenal. This could lead to another conflict. I can’t imagine them supporting two sides that may at some point conflict on the ground.
“ Hezbollah is also an integral part of Iranian foreign policy; I don’t think it would contribute to weakening it.”
Even more crucially, concerns over Hezbollah and over Lebanon’s four-month presidential vacuum are believed to be behind the delay in Saudi Arabia’s desperately needed $3 billion grant for French weapons, which was announced last December.
The Saudis “want to wait until Lebanon has a president who conforms to their interests and they can get guarantees that the weapons won’t end up in Hezbollah’s hands,” according to an anonymous French source cited in a story in Friday’s edition of Le Figaro.
Abou Zeid agreed that, for the international community as a whole, “Their main concern is about the end user of these weapons ... The international community is afraid that they will go to Hezbollah.”
He also pointed to something else: “The main obstacle in front of the Saudi grant is the absence of a president, plus Parliament is about to renew its mandate a second time, which is totally unconstitutional.”
Nerguizian echoed this point, arguing that the Saudi-French deal was in limbo “in part due to uncertainty surrounding who will be the country’s next president and, subsequently, the next LAF commander.”
The debate over who will fill Lebanon’s top Christian post, which has been empty since Michel Sleiman’s term ended in May, has reached a stalemate, with Iranian-backed March 8 and Saudi-aligned March 14 parties both putting forward rival candidates.
Many observers say that no resolution is expected before a thaw in Saudi-Iranian ties helps reach a compromise on a consensus candidate.
“Of course the Iranian versus Saudi offers is part of their geopolitical rivalry,” said Nadim Shehadi, an associate fellow of London-based policy institute Chatham House. “The difference is that before, Lebanon was the main theater of this confrontation, whereas now it is only one of the theaters and the less intense.”