Who Has The Most To Gain?

After getting a hat tip on this theory from comments on the PBA site, I wandered to the source and got a different take on what happened in Lebanon on Monday.

Stepping back and considering the simple question "Who benefits?" allows us to throw light on the bombing on Monday in Beirut.

Looking at the geo-political situation, we see the United States and Israel working to implement their ongoing strategy to destroy the Arab world. For Israel, growing confusion and destruction means an opportunity to establish the mythical "Greater Israel" which, if realised, will stretch from the Mediterranean through Mesopotamia. Israel has already invaded and occupied portions of Lebanon. It has attacked positions in Syria under the guise of "fighting terrorism". Things are moving along nicely it seems.

France has been a strong opponent of the US agenda in Iraq and has been working to find a negotiated settlement over the issue of Iranian nuclear development. At the same time, the US is attempting to paint Syria as a "terrorist" state. By killing Hariri, one of Jacques Chirac's good friends, and pinning the blame on Syria, another wedge is driven between those who oppose the US presence in Iraq. It might also increase division between France and Russia, two of the key members of the anti-US imperialist coalition that also includes China.

As we see below in another article, Russia is going ahead with the sale of missiles to Syria that would be able to shoot down the Israeli fighters that now bomb Syria with impunity. Given that Israel has been waging a propaganda campaign in the Western media against the Russo-Syrian missile deal, the bombing in Beirut and the resulting public defaming of Syria could not have come at a better time for Sharon and his cohorts. "Who benefits?"

The bombing and assassination also threaten to throw Lebanon back into the chaos it suffered in the 1970's and 80's. That chaos gave Israel an excuse to invade and occupy southern Lebanon. Would the excuse work a second time?

Israel is well-known for its false-flag operations. Why should we think that this operation was any different?

The more I think about it, the more I agree. It just makes more sense for Israel to have had a hand in it than for Syria - especially now that there is hope for a bit of peace with the Palestinians.

But would the Syrians be rash enough to risk the international condemnation—or worse—that would follow if they were found to be behind the assassination? Already, the United Nations Security Council has passed Resolution 1559, demanding that Syria take its troops out of Lebanon. On Tuesday the Council ordered the UN's secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to investigate Mr Hariri's murder. A "shocked and angered" President George Bush has recalled America's ambassador to Syria and is pressing other Security Council members to take action against whoever was behind the assassination.

So far, Mr Bush has stopped short of directly accusing Syria. Nevertheless, America is likely to turn up the pressure on what it considers a destabilising rogue state in the Middle East. Some believe that increased regional tension, rather than internal Lebanese score-settling of whatever kind, was the goal of the attack. Silvan Shalom, Israel’s foreign minister, said the bombing “proves that there are organisations and countries, such as Syria and Lebanon, striving to undermine the stability in the region and prevent democratisation in the Arab world."

The Arab media has already accused Israel's Mossad and presents an interesting case from their perspective:

Israel and the U.S. seek to sever the spiritual and physical contacts between Syria and Lebanon in order to isolate Syria in the Middle East and check its political sway in the region.

Neither the Lebanese government nor the majority of its citizens want Syrian troops to quit their country.

However, if Syrian forces withdraw from Lebanese territory, it would surely pave the way for the political and military machinations of the United States and Israel.

The Lebanese and Syrian nations, due to their historical, ideological, and ethnic affinities, are in fact one nation in two separate lands. The regional and trans-regional powers must understand this and must realize that the two nations cannot be separated spiritually. Now, the question is: Who benefited from the assassination of Hariri, a man who played a constructive role in the reestablishment of security in Lebanon?

All the evidence indicates that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad killed Hariri, since it had previously plotted to assassinate important Lebanese politicians.

I just don't think it is a coincidence that no sooner than we have "elections" in Iraq and a ceasefire between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we start threat rhetoric with Iran and Syria (yet want to be diplomatic with N. Korea who has nuclear weapons). Our mission for oil can only be disguised by finding ways to justify attacking and invading these resource rich countries. But, fortunately - and maybe unfortunately too - I don't think that the rest of the world will stand by and allow much more of this. We may get more than we bargained for from places we never expected it from.