Leave Lebanon to the Lebanese

The only viable future is one of coexistence and mutual respect


Leave Lebanon to the Lebanese
by sadegh

Lebanon breathed a heartfelt sigh of relief last week with the long-awaited election to the presidential office of army Chief of Staff General Michel Suleiman. After a rapid series of diplomatic toing and froing in the Qatari capital of Doha, a number of commentators opined the Levant was saved from relapsing into the clutches of another devastating civil war by a meager hair’s breadth. In hindsight it doesn’t appear that another civil war was on the cards, the domestic balance of power stood overwhelmingly in Hizbullah’s favor, and therefore allowed the vast majority of conflict zones to be quickly subdued and handed back to the army; in stark contrast to the prevailing situation during the Lebanese Civil War whereby a panoply of armed militias engaged in a protracted war of attrition, too weak to convincingly defeat one another and seize control of the country, yet strong enough to inflict serious damage and irreparable scars upon the Lebanese polity, many of which are still to mend.

The election by Lebanese MPs of a president after a stalemate of more than 5 months has been welcomed begrudgingly by some, and with rose-tinted spectacles by others, as the final outcome of

Lebanon’s political future continues to marauder in murky and nebulous territory. Though the current modus vivendi may certainly only be a band-aid solution, until the relevant parties have regrouped and sharpened their knifes till the next spate of hostilities, it also evinces the very real possibility of settling internal Lebanese disputes by diplomatic rather than military means. Michel Suleiman on more than one occasion has demonstrated his political acumen and suave ability to navigate the perilous and labyrinthine maze of Lebanese politics – his decision to not embroil the army in ethnic and sectarian struggles undoubtedly being chief amongst them – as the fragmentation of the army would surely have spelt disaster and undercut the painstaking efforts in recent years which have been made to depict the army as beyond the fray of partisan politics and as a symbol of national unity.

The turmoil witnessed throughout the course of May has now subsided, but with over eighty dead and more than 200 wounded this recent bout of strife marks the most significant case of intra-Lebanese conflict since the cessation of hostilities and the end of the Civil War which wracked the aggrieved Mediterranean state from 1975 to 1990; and which was finally put to bed as a result of the Taif Agreement of 1989. The Taif Agreement itself largely became feasible because of the collective exhaustion of the numerous competing factions and arguably had very little to do with the goodwill harbored by the respective parties – since that time, which can at one and the same time be considered a nadir and apogee in the history of modern Lebanon, the vast majority of Lebanese have assiduously sought to eschew a return to any such dire state of affairs. Only those on the fringe are yet to realize that no single party or group can single-handedly rule

Lebanon and that the only viable future is one of coexistence and mutual respect.

This most recent episode in the fractious relations of Lebanon’s Christian, Sunni and Shi’a communities[1] was initially sparked by two recent Cabinet decisions announced on the 7th of May in which the government removed the security chief of Beirut airport who is believed to have ties to Hizbullah, and decreed the Shi’a party’s communications network illegal, and which Hizbullah contends is integral to its ‘resistance activities’ to liberate Lebanese territory, namely the Sheeba Farms and Kfarshuba Heights, which continue to be occupied by Israeli forces. Even though few doubt that these actions were the immediate cause of Hizbullah overrunning

West Beirut, it’s patently obvious that the origin of the clashes resides in Lebanon’s tumultuous history, confessional politics and the plethora of unresolved issues therein.

The grueling civil war that claimed as many as 150,000 lives, where neighbor turned against neighbor and much like the catastrophic situation that has befallen Iraq today, people were arbitrarily executed at roadside checkpoints for having the ‘wrong’ name and belonging to the ‘wrong’ faith. Soon after the inception of the civil war the Syrian military with tacit American approval entered

Lebanon. Israeli forces first invaded in 1978 and went all the way to Beirut in 1982 in a bid to once and for all obliterate the Palestinian Liberation Organization led by the late Yasser Arafat, and who at that time used Southern Lebanon as a base of operations. The PLO was accused, as it had been years earlier in Jordan of creating ‘a state within a state’; a similar charge that has since been leveled against Hizbullah by its opponents.

The year 1982 saw the creation of the militant Shi’a group, the Hizbullah, with training, funding and ample materiel provided by

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in direct response to the invasion of Israeli forces that had besieged the Lebanese capital. Hizbullah quickly surpassed its Shi’a ally and sometime rival Amal as the foremost representative of the largely disenfranchised and impoverished Shi’a, who populate Southern Lebanon and poorer districts of Southern Beirut. Ever since then, the ideological and material links between Iran and the Shi’a organization have been strong and pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the present Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamanei, can be found peppered throughout Southern Beirut. Syria has long been integral to this relationship, as all materiel to Hizbullah must go via Syria before reaching Lebanon. The essential though functional role played by Syria in this arrangement has been vital to sustain Hizbullah; a fact that has been recognized by the Israeli government, which has recently re-opened the hitherto beleaguered Sryian-track along with Turkish mediation. By doing so the Israelis hope to pry Syria from Iran, not only to further isolate the latter, but to also stymie the Iranian succor to which the paramilitary group cum political party and sworn enemy of Israel has become accustomed.

In the advent of the first Gulf War, and in exchange for their support of the US-led venture, Syria was given the nod by the American administration of Bush Snr to wage an offensive in Lebanon in the name of keeping the peace between warring factions,[2] and there they remained until 2005; until the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri lit a fire beneath the Syrian forces and provoked nationwide protests against the Syrian presence in Lebanon, which over the years had come to be increasingly resented.

The watershed Israeli withdrawal took place in 2000, and was greeted by the vast majority of Lebanese as a great victory and farewell to a much-hated foreign occupation that had lasted 18 years. In the more recent conflict between Hizbullah and

Israel in the summer of 2006, many Lebanese were angered by what they saw as an unnecessary provocation that resulted in 1000 civilian deaths and massive casualties throughout the country. But as Israel’s response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers unfolded and proved to be evermore brutal and disproportionate to the initial provocation, the Lebanese steadily began to rally together and coalesce against what they perceived as a common enemy.

In the aftermath of the 2006 war which the US and Britain intentionally prolonged through their willful obstruction of a UN declared ceasefire, in the hope that something like what Israel had accomplished vis-à-vis the PLO could be effected with regards to Hizbullah, the Israeli strategy of ‘shock and awe’ in the aftermath of the conflict proved to be an abject failure, while Hizbullah proclaimed a stunning ‘victory’, thereby valorizing its self-depiction as the strong arm of the Lebanese ‘resistance’.

An important corollary of Hizbullah’s ‘Pyrrhic victory’, of which Western policy makers should take note, is that the party’s Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah rapidly emerged as one of the most popular political figures in the Arab world,[3] transcending the much exaggerated sectarian divide. Domestic attitudes toward Hizbullah, however, were ambivalent to say the least. As far as many Lebanese were concerned Hizbullah’s proclamation of victory was in bad taste and left a sour taste in the mouth. Hizbullah’s wary competitors for power, but also ordinary Lebanese increasingly began to question whether Hizbullah’s raison d’etre had in fact become obsolete since the major Israeli withdrawal of 2000. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army’s complete failure to protect key strategic sites and Lebanese civilians from barrage after barrage of Israeli attacks only confirmed in the minds of Hizbullah sympathizers that the ‘resistance’ was as necessary as it ever had been. There was also a fair amount of unease amongst the Druze, Sunni and Christian populations about the continued existence in their midst of a powerful Shi’a militarized force who many believe are beholden to Iranian leaders.

Though such reactions are understandable, it’s dangerous to the point of verging on a gross misconception to frame Hizbullah as a mere scion of

Iran. Such an attitude was at one time held by Saddam Hussein toward Iraq’s Shi’a majority and American politicians and military personnel have since perpetuated this same error with respect to Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army; ignoring the aspirations for representation and power of the Shi’a majorities in both Lebanon and Iraq. Much like Muqtada al-Sadr, whose ideological outlook is laced with a fervent brand of Iraqi-Arab nationalism, Hizbullah have repeatedly asserted their Lebanese-Arab identity and that Lebanon’s national interests take precedence over its obligations to external patrons. This may ring hollow for some, but such professions can’t be peremptorily dismissed without succumbing to arrogance.

Through Lebanon’s confessional system, established upon the state’s independence from French colonial rule, political power came to be distributed along sectarian lines in an unwritten agreement which has never been easy to maintain; the semblance of a Shi’a ‘state within a state’ has not helped the unstable balancing act which to this day has preserved the National Pact, nor have fears been allayed by the fact that Lebanon’s largest community, some 40% of the population, have de facto control of the country. If there was any doubt of this before, it has now been irrefutably confirmed as Hizbullah deftly unmoored the Future coalition’s militant Salafist allies and privately funded paramilitary groups, leaving them gasping for air.[4]

The pro-war pundit Tom Friedman in an editorial last month for The New York Times argued the recent strife in Lebanon displays all the trappings of a ‘new cold war’, the only difference is that now it exists between an Iran-Syria-Hizbullah-Hamas axis on the one hand and a US-Israel-Saudi Arabia axis on the other.[5] Though a hyperbolic and fanciful reading of the present geopolitical dynamic, since Friedman very consciously omits the fact that Iran’s and Syria’s military budgets combined are a mere 1.3% of the US’s, and that Israel possesses the fourth most powerful military in the world with approximately 200 nuclear war heads, it’s never been a secret that Lebanon has throughout its modern history been graced with the unenviable ‘fate’ of being the battlefield in which regional states vie for power and endeavor to achieve one-upmanship vis-à-vis one another. This is not a problem however that is going to be solved by means of even more foreign interference in

Lebanon’s internal affairs.

What has become clear is that throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve a thing, irrespective of whether its origins be Saudi, American or Iranian. Since 2006 the US has provided some 1.4 billion in aid to prop up the ailing Siniora government, 400 million of which was earmarked for the Lebanese army.[6] Suleiman wisely refused to mire the army in a conflict which might have fragmented the one touchstone of national unity and thereby astutely avoided a fire from transforming into a conflagration that may have engulfed the country. With the Future Movement’s confidence flagging as a result of their militias swift defeat, it remains unclear whether the Movement will accept the new status quo as laid down in the Doha Accord or whether it’ll decide to nurse its wounds until its forces are able to challenge Hizbullah’s present military edge. If this proves to be the case, with Washington’s barely suppressed blessing, then this month’s fracas will inexorably descend into an all out battle for the heart of Lebanon, with extremists potentially on all sides.

Equally, as Hizbullah fighters turned their arms on their fellow Lebanese, the group’s stature as the national ‘resistance’ movement has been inescapably sullied. No feat of public relations is going to be able to mend the wound which has consequently been inflicted on its adversaries and will almost certainly continue to fester, the pledge in

Doha not to use its weapons in the course of internal disputes notwithstanding.

The government’s decrees of May 7th, made under considerable pressure from Washington and in coordination with UN Special Envoy Terje Roed Larsen violated the ‘rules of the game’ the pro-government forces had agreed with the opposition, in which all decisions regarding disarmament would be made the subject of a future national dialogue and consensus in lieu of unilateral decrees and foreign meddling.[7] The solution to Lebanon’s woes has been a long time in coming and yet there is only one feasible albeit obscured alternative: that all outside powers refrain from perpetuating Lebanon’s tragic history as the theatre where regional and even global struggles are waged. The US, Saudis, Israelis, Syrians and Iranians have all played a part in stoking the flames of

Lebanon’s tragic ‘destiny’. Whether a politics often characterized by parochialism and sectarian sentiment can be surpassed is something, which is yet to be seen, nonetheless it’s high time that all outside forces left Lebanon to the Lebanese!

[1] It’s crucial to note that the recent conflict wasn’t purely along sectarian lines, as Hizbullah were supported by elements of Lebanon’s Druze community and Christian groups affiliated with Syria’s onetime nemesis, General Michel Aoun, who returned from exile in Paris after the Syrian military’s withdrawal of March 2005
[2] The 33-Day War: Israel’s War on Hezbollah in Lebanon and its Afermath, Gilbert Achcar with Michel Warschawski, Saqi Books, 2007, p16
[3] The 'New Middle East' Bush Is Resisting, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, The Washington Post, August 23 2006
[4] Lebanon's Sunni bloc built militia, officials say, Borzou Daragahi and Raed Rafei, Los Angeles Times, May 12 2008
[5] The New Cold War, Thomas L. Freidman, The New York Times, May 14 2008; Saudis, US grapple with Iran challenge, M.K. Bhadrakumar, Asia Times Online, May 17, 2008
[6] This Time, Avoid the Lebanese Quagmire, Doug Bandow, Antiwar.com, May 16, 2008
[7] What Next in Lebanon? In the Wake of the
Doha Truce, Karim Makdisi, Counterpunch, May 17/18 2008 © Sadegh Kabeer


Recently by sadeghCommentsDate
Optimism and Nightmares
Jun 18, 2009
The Quest for Authenticity
Mar 18, 2009
Thirty Years On
Feb 01, 2009
more from sadegh

Lebanese Hizb'Allah pre-dates 1979 Iranian Revolution

by John Carpenter III (not verified) on

Lebanese Hizb'Allah pre-dates the Iranian Revolution. Musa Sadr, an Iranian citizen left Iran to be a shia priest in southern lebanon. There he created the secular shia party known today as Amal. Hizb'Allah is a spin off of the Amal organization. In 1978, according to Queen Noor of Jordan's autobiography King Hussein of Jordan went to see Musa Sadr. King Hussein asked Musa Sadr for help in saving the throne of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1978, Musa Sadr said the Shah's government has already fallen. There is no reason for trying to reconcile the relationship between Ayat'Allah Ruh'Allah Moosavi Khomayni. There was so much political unrest in Iran. Literally 70 million Iranian were portesting in the streets of Iran. They were tearing up photos of the Pahlavi Monarchs and urinating on them. It is no surprise that Monarchy has been abolished in Iran forever.



by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

Actually many Iranians support us...you may not be one of them...but comments even on this page speak otherwise. YOu have a right to your opinion about Hezbollah as I have my right to say Iranians like yourself blame everyone except yourself for whatever problems you feel your country may have

People like you blame Arabs, Afghanis, Pakistanis, etc etc but never look in the mirror


Lebanon's hezbollah are not terrorists or parasites

by caramel on

there is no reason for anyone to view Lebanese Hezbollah as parasites or as a terrorist organization. They are Lebanon's freedom fighters. Hezbollah in Lebanon fought against Israeli oppression. No one is against Judaism, but the world should know about Israel's crimes against humanity. And unfortunately the international community continues to support Israel's right to "self-defense".


Judaism is not Zionism...

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on


Yes, so many so called

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

Yes, so many so called Iranians/Israeli agents call us parasites yet Israel isn't a parasite and I wonder how?? Without America Israel would be nothing...

How is it the Hezbollah are parasites yet Israel isn't?? Why is it ok for the US to support Israel and not OK for a middle eastern country to support another middle eastern country?? It's a double standard

Is violence acceptable by Israel and we don't have the right to defend ourself?

Was it OK for Iran to be attacked by Iraq by that bastard Saddam and Iran had to just take it?

Why was Iraq not a terrorist nation when it attacked Iran with chemical weapons in the 80's and 20 years later was in the "axis of evil"

Why was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand when Iran was attacked and hanging him for a false relationship with the Wahabbis??

To all you pro Israeli Iranians on here and there are a lot of you...would you want your country attacked and then be called a terrorist to defend your nation??

I thank God everyday for the Iranians that support us...



by Dariush (not verified) on

Without Hezbollah, there wouldn't be no Lebanon!!!


Lebanon has the right to defend itself

by Sadaia_qesa on


Iran has an obligation to support Lebanon to defend itself against Israel.


In fact, Iran is supporting Iran by supporting Lebanon .


Long live Lebanon and DEATH TO Zionism.





I really hope the true

by sdf (not verified) on

I really hope the true Lebanese (Sunni, Christians, Druze, Maronites, non-hizballah Shia) or Israeli get rid of Hizballah and the Parasitic South Lebanese once and for all.

The Southern Lebanese are the biggest beggers and free loaders in the Islamic world. They are supported by the criminal IR and those who live in Dearborn, Michigan...it's time to put an end to this once we get a competent adminstration in place.

K Nassery

Isn't this just "exporting the Revolution?"

by K Nassery on

I read roozonline.  There are clerics in Iran that would love to bring the entire planet under the control of the Iranian Shiite Theorcracy.  They believe it is Iran's destiny.  I'm not surprised that Iran is spending oil dollars and building the coffers of Hezbollah.

 Just one note: Israel was responding to the non stop Palestinian attacks from Southern Lebanon.  If Lebanon had not allowed these attacks, I doubt Israel would have invaded thus "creating" a movement that became Iran's Hezbollah in Lebanon.  At the time, Israel was responding to a threat, they didn't invade out of the blue. This is not a comment on whether or not Irsrael has the right to exist. It's just a fact of history.




I've been "fed"

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

I've been "fed" what Iranians or so called Iranians like yourself on here say. Tell me how exactly you plan on accomplishing this change??

When you speak this about regime change...do you think the Americans aren't listening??

I have said your best leader which was Mossadegh...Iranian agents along with their CIA counterparts got rid of him and placed the puppet Shah into power.

Unfortunately I don't know what you are talking about Lebanon not being "free". We are free...We are happy with Nasrallah...what made you think we were unhappy with him?? I don't think I ever said I was unhappy with him...there are sunnis that support him..there are christians that support him as well..so I don't know who's feeding you either...and we shiahs love him...

You are telling me nothing new about Nasrallah being supported by Iran....I said in my posts that Iran has supported us which would imply that you are not making any special revelation to me.

I don't think religious direction has anything to do with what country you are from. By that you are saying the Catholics in Mexico who take direction from the Pope are European?? That doesn't make much sense.

So now what I don't understand is WHY would you be making points that are absolutely pointless??

Next time please make some better points.

Allah Ma3ak (means Khodafez if you didn't know),




by Shahyad on








What if

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

What if the Iranians didn't support Lebanon...

Could this be us too???



"American Freedom"--the one spread by "elections" in Iraq


Do you really want these psychos in your country spreading their FREEDOM and making a better life for you and your daughters??????

I would rather have the "freedom" of Iran or Lebanon than this...



by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

I dont think elections really determine a democracy...I mean Al Gore won the popular vote in the US but Bush became president...

I dont think a country can stop you from being a Hooker...it's easy to be one in your home no matter what country you are in. The USA just allows you the freedom to be a hooker in public...if that is how you determine freedom I guess good for you


What are you talking about

by Sexy girl (not verified) on

What are you talking about Iraq has elections and Hizbollah don't respect the democratically elected government of lebanon. iraq will be better in the long term now that it is a democratic state and so will lebanon once they have gotten rid of the horrible hizbollah. they terrorize the other groups in lebanon and persecute them because the only good islamist is a dead islamist. i had to flee iran so i could be hot and sexy and now in the freedom of US i can be as sexy as I like hahahhahaha


we know that....

by caramel on

we know that americans do not have our best interest at hand. And in the event of an attack on Iran, I will stand in unity with my country.


The real question

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

should be why is it called freedom when American bomb and destroy and terrorism when an Arab does it? Is it also freedom that caused the US Navy to shoot down the Iranian passenger plane in the 90s???

Is there a difference??


What freedom

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

What freedom?? The freedom that is spread with missiles and machine guns?? I don't think anyone wants that kind of freedom...Iraq was better off under that bastard Saddam...

The brave US troops that raped a 15 year old girl and then killed her family and burnt her body? How about the brave ones that did what they did in Abu Ghraib??

The brave soldiers are more terroristic than the insurgents...no telling how many more women and children have been raped burned and killed by these people



by caramel on

hezbollah is good for lebanon. the shiite community of lebanon has been ignored for such a long time, and hezbollah has helped the shiite community there florish tremendously. and shia unity is also very important. Just as Iranians support the shias of lebanon, the lebanese shias should support us in our goal of achieving a better future for Iran.


ali the leb the sunni

by ungrateful iraqis (not verified) on

ali the leb the sunni insurgents in iraq are terrorists they blow up woman and children they are pure evil wake up the americans bring iraq democracy and they pay them back by killing brave US troops that's what i call ungrateful


Sadegh I agree you did a

by Bache poroo (not verified) on

Sadegh I agree you did a good job you show the fears and reservation of each group well for what is only an article after all u cover most of the history i a descent way from the civil war till now but have you thought that iran's relationship needs more attention we need to know where our tax tomans are going


Daryush and Taghuti are

by Akhund hater (not verified) on

Daryush and Taghuti are right as long as the IRI is in power there is be no peace for Lebanon Hezbollah are terrorists and the regime which funds them are the damn mafia as long as the mafia and terrorists continue to run thing iran and lebanon are doomed


Im happy

by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

that a lot of people agree with me. There are a some that don't and call Hezbollah a terrorist group but it is like calling "Sunni Insurgents" in Iraq terrorist...I mean they are defending their country from an outsider.

Iranians have already had outside help getting rid of Mossadegh so I am shocked that some people want more outside help...Dr MM was probably the best leader Iran could have ever had...but you can thank "the Great Satan" for destroying that...


You are right Xerxes

by Hairy Iranian (not verified) on

You are right Xerxes Iranians are just impatient look at the historical examples of France and Russia they went through bloody times and came out of it and Iran will come through it too we are a great nation and a great people the good people in this regime and bad like all governments


Hizbollah are terrorists and

by Zed e Hezbollah (not verified) on

Hizbollah are terrorists and should not be negotiated with they are a state within a state and should be shut down. they only represent their own islamo fascist agenda and want to impose islamic state on lebanon they must be destroyed and uprooted


Re: Ali the leb

by caramel on

ok, but thats excatly what I am saying. We need another Mossadegh!!! A leader that cares. It's not because most leaders are basically "a politician like another" that we have to put up with our current government. We need to see changes inside Iran, and we definetely dont need foreign intervention for that.

The people in Iran have been suffering for a very long time. The economy is bad, unemployment is high, and then we have the human rights violation issue, and so on. The fact is that we need a better government. And we are not singling out our country. Most of us are proud of our identity and heritage.

Look at it this way, these are shia muslims in Iran living in poverty, and being deprived of their basic human rights. This is why we need a leader that cares. And no that doesnt mean we dont want the shah back!


IR is a good system of government

by XerXes (not verified) on

They only need to work on their social freedom part, other than that, we are progressive, free and modern nation. AND more than that, Iran is independent and capable of doing anything technologically that they see as a challenge. Yes We Can Do It.

If women could wear anything they wanted and Googoosh could have her concerts in Iran, majority of Iranians would love this same regime.That day will come gradually, we are just not patient enough.


Iran has an obligation to

by Proud Shi'a (not verified) on

Iran has an obligation to help its fellow Shi'a in Lebanon and they support us in turn. We are united against common enemies who want to destroy our countries and then try and hide it with slogans about democracy and freedom. Ali the Leb is right they just want to rape our country for all they can while they save all their oil wealth in Alaska for themselves. Reagan was right, there is an evil empire and its the united states of america. long live iran, the iranian people and the lebanese united against tyranny and imperialism



by Ali the Leb (not verified) on

Honestly, has there been a leader other than Mossadegh that has cared for the Iranian people?? The Shah was a dictator and a crook and a CIA servant who ran away

Now the current regime has its faults as every regime does...but what you are describing is done all over the world not just in Iran...

Do think the war in Iraq was really to free the Iraqis find WMD and get rid of another ex CIA agent saddam?? Or do you think Bush's mentality was more like well we can kill a few million Iraqis thousands of US Soldiers so that we can become rich off the oil profits??

Think about it this way...in any country...Have you ever met a poor politician?? And if you havent how do you think they got their money...legally or illegally? Don't just single your country out


Re: Ali the leb

by caramel on

Hi Ali,
first of all, not all Iranians want to see Iran attacked by the US. In fact, most Iranians disagree with the idea of an attack on Iran. But, it is true that most Iranians want to see a regime change. You need to understand the needs of the Iranian people first. Iran's government doesnt share its wealth with Iranian people (inside Iran). Now with that said, this doesnt mean that I disagree with Iran's financial contribution and support to lebanese hezbollah. In fact, shias in Lebanon DO NEED our help, otherwise Israel would have destroyed Lebanon long time ago. But the problem lies within our own government, they give Lebanon and Palestine a fraction of the country's wealth, then they take the rest of the country's wealth and put it in their own pocket. THAT IS WHATS WRONG WITH OUR GOVERNMENT, they are thieves and crooks...and the time has come for Iran to be governed by people who actually care abt its people. But, i would still expect any new government in Iran to continue to support our fellow shia community in Lebanon. And Iran's ties to the Lebanese shia is not a result of the Islamic rep...in fact, even before the Islamic rev., Iran had ties with the shia community in Lebanon, and Shias must contnue to support each other.


If Kourosh ideas were alive

by Daryush on

Then we would've had a free Middle East. Bring back his ideas and free the world from Ahriman (Evil). Today he would've freed the Palestinians and the Jews, Lebanese and the Iraqis.