The tension in the Persian Gulf is building up, as one can almost sense and smell in the air. The dark clouds are gathering and so are the US naval fleets and long-range strike bombers. Sabre rattling by Iran has started to rise as well as the defiant tirades of its top brass. We shall, we will, we could….

This piece is not about facts, or hard analysis, but about a mountain of unanswered questions. Maybe from posing them one could decipher the possible outcome of this neo-classical tragedy where players (governments) and audience (civilian population) seem to be joined in a fatal embrace without the possibility of breaking away or stopping the music.

Could the scenario of the First Gulf War be repeated? On August 2, 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the rest is history. Would Iran attempt to rewrite history by invading a Gulf State, or the Gulf Waters, or the Gulf Skies? Maybe it could, but then what? What would ‘the day after’ bring to Iran, and what would be the outcome of such foolish adventure? Iran could opt to avoid such frontal combat and decide to activate its peripheral fronts: from Yemen onto Saudi, and from Gaza and South Lebanon against Israel. In such instances, and leaving the US aside for a moment, what would Russia, China and the EU do? Nothing is not an option, one must believe. But what is it that they will attempt to undertake, and would it be siding with some of the protagonists or preventing a war? In that option, what would the carrot be to prevent a war? More concessions to Iran, or more sanctions on it, or none of the preceding but rather a quiet return to the uneasy status quo?  

Could the US under the leadership of the self-declared non-interventionist Trump go to war? Now, in the midst of a heated trade war with China, a lukewarm relation with the EU, and lack of coordination with the Russians? Makes no sense. Trump wanted US troops to leave Syria and Afghanistan. He lost the most valuable Sec. of Defense Mattis to such a policy. He also declared many times that the Middle East had cost the US too much in lives and treasure (with an emphasis on treasure) for little or no returns. How could he renege on such public policy without paying the price with his electoral base? Why then moving all these aircraft carriers, and bombers and troops if using them is against POTUS' grain and beliefs? He could have built his Southern wall, or a good stretch of it, with last week’s costs alone.

Something

is amiss, but what is it?

What exactly is happening from across the waters of the Gulf?  A show of force, a potential armed conflict, or a prequel to the Grand Bargain regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict? If the US, Israel and the moderate Arab States fight on the same side against Iran would that bring them closer to concluding a lasting peace that would include a resolution to the occupied West Bank and non-occupied Gaza? If no such outcome is in sight, why commit so much military hardware and diplomatic software? A war over an Iranian nuclear program would be futile, since sabotaging the nuclear sites is sufficient to doing the trick without provoking an all-out war. A war over Iran’s missiles program is even less required if US Patriot missiles are deployed all over the GCC. A war against Iranian proxy militias is also not vital since choking their sources of financing would suffice to curtailing their activities to a great extent.

In short, if some uber outcome -like a lasting Arab-Israeli peace- is not the main objective or at minimum its calculated consequence, then any short or prolonged armed conflict would be a total folly for Iran and a total waste of lives and treasure for the US, yet again . That was not a question but an instinctive deduction, or was it?

Since time immemorial the Christians of Lebanon had to choose between the Mamluks and the Ottomans, the Crusaders and the Muslims armies, and between the West and the East. Should they be allied with a distant Christian West or with a nearby Muslim East? On the one hand, the Western powers have been unfocused at best, or uncommitted at worst. On the other hand, the East -a chaotic amalgam of Tribes with Flags- was and remains a region in turmoil, unsure of its role and message, in a modern world.

In 1943, at the Birth of the First Republic, the Christians, were divided between forming a country under French protectorate or forging a nation with their fellow Muslim citizens. A Christian majority distrusted the Muslim factions and wanted to live separately. Only a nationalist minority placed their bet on a unified country, and an independent State was born. The first Republic collapsed in 1975, when a vicious civil war broke out.

In the 1990s, at the birth of the Second Republic, the Christians, were torn between keeping their ‘enclave’ albeit surrounded by the Syrian army,or negotiate with their fellow Muslims over some constitutional reforms. A majority still distrusted their fellow countrymen and, abhorred Syria which backed a constitutional compromise named the ‘Taif Accord’. Again, only a nationalist minority backed the new ‘entente’ that ended a decade-long civil war and ensured an equitable redistribution of power amongst the various communities. This Second Republic lived from 1995 to 2005, the date of the assassination of PM Rafic Hariri by an Iranian-Syrian cabal.

Today, the Lebanese Republic, in all of its versions is practically dead. The Christians in their near totality -save a handful of diehard nationalists who are short of a minority- have made their choice to back Iran in an open challenge to the moderate Arab countries, and to the US. But why such counter-intuitive choice that is so disastrous for Lebanon and especially for its Christians?

Fear and greed are the answers.

Fear has been the first motivation. A sentiment that is heightened by Iran’s muscle flexing throughout the Middle East. Its militias have taken over the actual power in the streets of Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. Its proxy armies relentlessly battle with the Saudi and the UAE armed forces in Yemen, and its cronies in Gaza launch rocket attacks against Israel. In the meantime, the EU policy is one of appeasement, and Trump’s posture is yet untested under fire.

Then Greed, came to cement this Satanic choice. The Christian political class represented by the followers of President Aoun and the Lebanese Forces Party, an erstwhile staunch defender of Lebanon’s sovereignty, have been spellbound by the ascension of Iran. So, as a result, and in good mercantile form, they decided to throw their lot with the enemies of the State, who were much pleased to reward them. In practice, they traded the country’s independence in exchange for the nominal power of the Presidency and other key positions in government, as well as, the additional promise of maintaining kleptocracy as a means to enriching themselves at the expense of the State’s coffers.

One should remember that Petain was a decorated Marshal of France in World War I before becoming a Nazi collaborator in World War II, and the nominal President of the Vichy regime. The majority of the French political class followed suit, after watching the Wehrmacht legions invade a poorly defended European Continent. In France too, at such dire times, a less than a minority of nationalists, who formed the Resistance, fought a lonely battle for many years before the war of liberation.

Christian voices in Lebanon, even if in the minority today, must rise in numbers against the Iranian hegemony, and should, as they have in the past, rally fellow Muslims to their cry and form a peaceful but unwavering resistance movement.

Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Zein Al Abidine Bin Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Ali Abdallah Saleh, Omar Al Bachir, and Boutaflika, constitute an A team where ‘A’ stands for a mix of Assassins, Authoritarians, and Autocrats. The Arab Spring, in its first version, has been much mocked, belittled and disdained. True, the street protestors did not have a replacement plan in most cases, but protestors don’t usually have one. From the Brexiteers to the Gilets Jaunes, they have demands, anger, and claims, but not a succession plan especially, for regimes that have been in place for 30 years and more. True, the street protests have escalated into armed conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Syria, but that was expected in light of the brutality of the dictators who promised to wipe out -literally- all of their opponents.

The first version of the Arab Spring was filled with hopes and shortcomings, with enthusiasm and chaos, with civil society demands and with civil war consequences. The civil society that opposed tyrants in Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, Tripoli and Sana'a had no political agenda ready to project onto the post-dictatorship era. So, the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical versions of such venom-filled ideology, filled the gap.  The Internet-based activists, the pacifists, the women movements, the press, and the civil society at large were discarded, excluded, and taken over by an organized mob of men hiding behind their strict religious beliefs, and their repressive ideals which aim to keep the same people, who just claimed their freedom, under another serfdom. Finally, when such group of misfit theologians failed to govern, the army, the only other organized structure in said nations, took over and replaced the bearded politicians with crew cut officers. Not the best outcome, nor one that answered the aspirations of the young activists, but between a religious and a military junta, the population sided with the least ideologically harmful party namely, the armed forces.

In its second version, played out in Khartoum and Algiers, not only did the street protestors not succumb to the use of violence or to hurling Islamic slogans at the regime, but they have removed the long-serving so-called Presidents for Life, from office within days. They also have smartly rejected the musical chair game, of replacing an old military or ex-military dictator with a relatively younger one, in the form of an Armed Council or a Temporary Military Government. The protestors in the second version of the Arab Spring are making clear statements. They have claimed to oust the regimes of Bouteflika and Al Bachir not because of beliefs, or stands on ideology but because they have failed to deliver what governments should: economic prosperity, zero tolerance for corruption, safety to all and a guarantee of personal freedoms. They have rejected the interim military governments simply to avoid another Egyptian scenario. They see such an offer as disingenuous, a sort of a false promise to get them off the street and back home to worry about their jobs, schools and welfare. The trick does not seem to be playing to the benefit of the armed forces, this time around.

Maybe a civilian government which includes military appointees in the interior and defense ministries, civilian ministers with an impeccable human rights record, and other technocrats who are much needed to jump start the economy, could be the interim solution before the closest thing to democratic elections can be held.

In its second version, the Arab Spring is giving pause to others who survived the first one including, Assad fils, and the Mullahs in Iran. Lebanon might follow suit if the economic situation worsens and the Lebanese pound takes a nosedive shattering to bits against the mighty US dollar, which is the benchmark currency. Then, the current collage of a freak government would not last under the pressures of public sector employees, the armed forces going unpaid,

US Secretary of State, the Honorable Mike Pompeo will be visiting Lebanon this week. He will be meeting with State officials and members of government. The Secretary knows full-well that the parents who conceived this government, the mid-wife that gave birth to its composition, and the nurse that cares for its every need is a very possessive party, namely Hezbollah, the most powerful military-political militia in the country. Such party’s caring abilities are more akin to Dr. Mengele’ than those of Dr. Zeuss’, who would not hesitate to throw the baby with the bathwater and, conceive another one, should the baby misbehave especially, in the presence of visiting guests.

The Lebanese government will put up a splendid show for such an important visit, it always does. There will be official motorcades, military salutes, protocol-driven receptions and photo ops with hand shakings and smiles aplenty. Then the Sec. would be driven back to the airport, and life would resume as usual. Lebanon has been living a duplicity since 2008, whereby to the world, it is portrayed as one independent, sovereign nation, in possession of its official faculties, including the monopoly of political and military command. However, in reality it has sub-contracted its true authority to Hezbollah. This is not the first role-playing phenomena to occur, far from it. From 1995 to 2005, official Lebanon was naturally typecast in such role with the Syrian, not Iranian, regime, the then puppet master. Changing directors but keeping the same cast is the privilege of great actors and, for official Lebanon, theatricals on the world stage is something one gets used to and so does the audience whether foreign or domestic. And as a result, the game of smokes and mirrors continues endlessly. The reality of daily life in the country is not dissimilar. All Lebanese expect to receive their electrical supplies from EDL, the local Con Edison equivalent, which secures at tops 20% of their energy needs. In practice, they all invariably have to pay private contractors to supply them with the necessary output to get their domestic or commercial chores accomplished.  Whilst EDL is housed in one of the tallest buildings in the capital, has the most bloated work force, and the largest running deficit in the official budget, keeping it running helps with the appearance of a State energy company tending to the needs of the populace. In reality, private entrepreneurs run both the show and the most productive power-generation sets. So, government affairs are no different, and while the State agencies offer their services, and government officials their rhetoric, the country has, for some time now, been forced to seek in Hezbollah the real power supply needed to get by. This coerced relationship endures under the threat of destabilizing the fragile truce between fractionned religious group. Should anyone seek an internal compromise, or any regional or international aid, they run the risk of being chastised, if not meeting a more nefarious end.

Back to the visit of Sec. Pompeo, the duplicity of official Lebanon is met with the world’s official denial of this ongoing charade, including the successive US administrations. Pres. Obama’s team kept up with this farce as a means to appease its Iranian counterparts with whom it was negotiating a nuclear agreement. There was no need to upset the Mullahs in Tehran by exposing their proxies in Beirut. The Iranian portfolio, with all of its regional assets, had to be kept whole and undisturbed otherwise, the nuclear agreement would have been jeopardized, or so did Javad Zarif explain to the much-accommodating Sec. John Kerry. What is the point for this two-facedeness to continue under the Trump administration? Well, come to think about it, if Pres. Trump sees the world with the eyes of a NY real estate mogul, then the monetary yield on Lebanese real estate is currently negative and, not worth a try. However,

The

title is long and lays out the case before the readers as it prematurely reveals

the verdict of the writer. Let us not beat around the bushes and call a spade a

spade. US diplomacy in the Middle East has historically been wobbly and fretted

with more defeats and disappointments than successes, at the exception of the

peace treaties between Egypt, Jordan and, Israel. Before and after such milestones,

US diplomacy has been hovering between standoffs, tensions and the occasional

wars at great losses in treasure and lives.

Letting-down allies and rewarding foes, is how a cynical person would characterize, or caricature, the US diplomatic record in many nations between the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. Each administration dispatches its ‘newly minted’ team with no collective memory or consistent script except for undoing the job of the previous one. A kind of blood sport in Washington that has seen policies folded in great pomp and unfold in greater hurry, all in the space of 4, sometimes 8 years.  Unlike their counterparts from the former colonial powers of Great Britain and France, US ambassadors and political advisers who roam the Middle East give the impression that they are visiting for the first time, or maybe the second. They look bewildered by the beauty of the place, the abundance of its resources and; the rich and diverse culture of its people. While the beauty of the place is exaggerated (save Oman, Morocco, and Mount Lebanon), and the richness of resources overplayed (compared with the dearth of modern-day innovations), it is the cultural part that puzzles the most. The next appointed US diplomat, or visiting Senator (during a recess period), or former President (and wife) seeking a pledge for a foundation, need not screen a ton of data to understand what motivates people in the Middle East. Watching ‘Laurence of Arabia’ directed by David Lean, reading ‘The Dream Palace of the Arabs’ written by Fouad Ajami, and listening to hours of Egyptian comedy by Adel Imam, would permit them to capture Arab culture, in a week. Reviewing US policy papers for background, is counter-productive. Any diplomatic issue, from the crisis of the Western Sahara, to the Arab Israeli conflict, to how best to deal (if at all) with the Kurds, has its counter-policy paper and counter-papers, sometimes drafted by the same US administration, albeit at different presidential terms.

The

US backed the Shah till his fall and welcomed the Iranian Revolution upon its

advent, only to be faced with the takeover of its Embassy in Teheran for 444

days. Since, it has been downhill. The US sided with Gamal Abdel Nasser against

Britain and France during the Suez crisis of 1956, only to do an about face and

back Israel in the 1967, and 1973 wars against Egypt. The PLO was a terrorist

organization in the 1970s-1980s, that turned into a peace partner in the

1990s-2000s, then into a foe at present time. The US was with Mubarak till its fall

from grace, then with Morsi till the coup, then with SiSi ever since. Libya

under Kaddafi was a pariah State responsible for such atrocities as the downing

of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, till it morphed into the darling of roving

diplomats and private equity tycoons, till it was no more again during the Arab

Spring.  What lessons have been drawn?

Maybe being gullible about wooing avowed foes who declare explicitly that they

want to destroy the US is not such a good policy after all. Or, favoring long-term

allies who share fundamental interests (not opportunistic ones) despite their dubious

domestic records is not such a bad idea, when contrasted with chaos and the

loss of a valuable friendly nation?

There

is no method to this chaos except for the US diplomati...

Barbarians are often single handedly and wrongly so, credited with the fall of Rome. That has many benefits, for the Roman that is. As a starter it washes away their guilt and complicity in the decline, demise and ultimately the fall of their own Empire. It also offers a wonderful way out by blaming the ‘other’, the ‘foreigner’, the ‘Barbarian’. The gravest consequence of such thinking is -apart from the actual crumbling of the city walls before the hordes of invaders- the lack of any introspective, any self-assessment, and any lesson to be learned by the Romans or their successors.

Historians, with the benefit of time, have noted various internal reasons for the fall of the Empire, leaving to the Barbarians the dishonorable task of actually striking a decisive blow at a rotten and decaying structure. The Roman Empire had for decades prior to Barbary’s victory, lost its hold and reach over vast and disparate territories, and that for a plethora of reasons. The ineffectiveness and size of the Roman legions being one, followed by the weakness of the economy, the ineptitude of successive Emperors and their bickering progeny, the internal struggles for power inside and outside the Senate, the changes in the religious landscape of the times, and the corruption of the civil administration. The Barbarians did not conquer at once, or in one sweeping victory. Not at all. They gradually ate at the Empire’s dominions before not much of its power, strength or influence were left. Major territorial losses occurred in 376 with the invading Goths, which were never repelled decisively. In 395 further Barbarian groups crossed the Rhine and other frontiers, and like the Goths were not totally expelled. With time, Barbarian kingdoms rose while Roman influence declined, and the rest is, literally, Ancient History.

Modern-day Lebanon, the Republic born out of the sober compromise between the Western-influenced Christians and the Pro-Arab Muslims, did not fall to Persian-backed militias on 31 October 2016, date of the election of President Aoun. Rather like the Roman Empire, although the comparison is too farcical but telling nonetheless, Lebanon’s first step down the abyss occurred in 1842. At such time the internal conflicts between the feudal Druze families and the newly-converts to Christianity namely, the Shihab princes became irreconcilable, leading Metternich to devise and the Sublime Porte to gladly agree, to dividing Lebanon into two religious Districts or Kayam Makams. This ended 325 years of direct rule by a native Lebanese sovereign over Mount Lebanon. Since, and due to continuous internal conflicts over power sharing, Lebanese feudal leaders have invited all sorts of Barbarians to meddle between them and to settle their scores at the benefit of all, except the Lebanese themselves. No self-assessments and no lessons were ever learned.

At no time in 1958, in 1969, in 1973 and in 1975 did it occur to the Lebanese ruling classes that their ruinous internal struggles, the religiosity of their societies, the undermining of their internal unity, and their lack of willingness to ‘reform’ their system of government to suit the evolving aspirations of a growing population, could not be resolved by the political or military (or both) intervention of an outside power. Nasser, the PLO, Syria, Israel and now Iran, to name but a few of the direct ‘influencers’ over the internal affairs of Lebanon, never pursued any plan except their own, never benefited any interests except theirs, and left Lebanon and its communities in the throes of chaos awaiting the next ‘influencer’ that would administer the curing balms to their self-inflicted wounds.

On proper reflection, the house is too small to be divided and too large for one person only. To fit such a dysfunctional family into one abode some rules of ‘savoir vivre’ must be applied.

All politicians are engaged in this pernicious game and are equally caught into its vicious web.

President Erdogan talks about Turkey’s growing hemisphere of influence in the Middle East, North Africa the Western Balkans, and lest we forget in the EU over parts of Cyprus and the immigrant population in Germany. His grandiose plans saw Turkey on the cusp of reviving its Sultanate and becoming the leading light for people lost in the darkness of their local labyrinths. Such people, according to Erdogan’s rhetoric, are waiting for the torch of faith, held by the Caliph in Istanbul,to be their beacon for hope. According to recent economic reports, the Turkish economy slowed sharply in Q3 caused by high debt,currency volatility, and inflation. Annual retail sales were flat, industrial production was patchy and the unemployment rate increased significantly in July and August of 2018.

 President Rouhani and his puppeteers promised the creation of a Shia Crescent that would shine on the dispossessed masses of this sect from Tehran to Tartus. The Islamic Republic of Iran would bring them pride, a sense of belonging, and salvation into their wretched lives and, their after-lives too. According to the Financial Tribute, an Iranian economic daily,the rise in 2018 of the retail prices of goods that used the government’s subsidized foreign currency at a rate of 42,000 rials per US dollar (about three times cheaper than the market rate) was no less than in other consumer goods.  Mohammad Baqer Nobakht, the head of Plan and Budget Organization of Iran, announced that "as much as $14 billion will be spent on subsidizing the imports of essential goods as per the budget bill of next year[2019]". 

[President] Nassrallah of Lebanon has offered his community -and as a collateral effect – to all the Lebanese, the gifts of repelling terrorists on the Northern border,intimidating Israel on the Southern border, freeing Yemen from the yoke of the Saudis, and lend a helping hand to the Iraqis in  their war on terror. As per actual reports activity in the economy remained sluggish in 2018, against a backdrop of prolonged political deadlock. The real estate sector—a cornerstone of the economy—seems to have performed poorly in the period, with cement deliveries contracting year-on-year and construction permits dropping significantly, while the merchandise trade balance widened despite robust export growth. According to the World Bank, such difficult economic conditions in the medium term are likely to adversely impact poverty rates.

 Even President Macron promised a “European economic government”, a "European Army" in the face of Russia, China and ...the US (?), total adherence to the Paris Climate Agreement, continued cooperation with Iran despite the US exit from the Nuclear Deal, and all that rich international agenda coupled with higher taxes on fuel for all motorists to enjoy. The latest protests in Paris by the angry Yellow Vests have caused economic havoc. According to the FT food retailers are expected to take a hit of about 1 per cent this quarter, with hypermarkets down4 to 5 per cent. And, this week, the French central bank slashed its forecast for economic growth for the fourth quarter from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent.

  Atthe far opposite of this spectrum, President Trump promised to ‘Make America Great Again!” but through economic nationalism (not nationalization). He scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement because he judged it not in US consumers’ interests, re-negotiated the NAFTA deal to redress inequities that put US products and services at a disadvantage, is waging a tariff war on China, which has caused many US factories to de-localize  to catch up with cheaper labor and a manipulated Chinese currency; and has threatened the EU with severe consequ...

The killing of any human being is and should be labeled, an abject, horrible, despicable crime. Since Cain and Abel, at the dawn of time, there has not been any other way to describe the taking of someone’s life in a deliberate and premeditated act. The killing of thousands is an atrocity and the killing of millions is a genocide. Our language has evolved with volumes, but the atrocity remains unchanged.

There is another twist to this rather obvious and fault-free thinking about killing, and it resides in who is doing it. Whether it is an individual or a State, a person or a government. And then, what type of government: a democracy or a dictatorship, and where in the global pecking order is it ranked, at the top or bottom?

With individuals, personal motives are usually recounted to understand the reasons behind a murder. Whereas with States and governments, interests and national security rationales are used to explain such acts. Governments are so much more overwhelming than individuals that even their killings are viewed with some sort of acceptance and even understanding. Especially if a war is afoot, or a combat is ongoing, or a battle is raging. With individuals only one poignant motive gets a pass: self-defense. However, States also use such approach with the notions of preemptive strike, of proactive defense of the homeland, and of ensuring the safety and security of citizens, at all costs. Ever wondered what the term 'at all costs' really means in this context? Never mind.

The killing by a State is a mitigated affair and not all killings by all States are treated equally. On the one hand, killing by a winning State (North vs. South during the American Civil War, the Allies vs. the Axis in World I and II to take only few examples) is not only justified but glorified, in all of its methods whether dropping a nuclear bomb (called endearingly a ‘device’) on a civilian population, or carpet bombing an entire city, or spraying Mustard Gas or some other new/old trick for killing fellow humans. On the other hand, losers do not have their killings justified nor their dead honored. All of their combat actions, even if in self-defense, are viewed with scorn, contemptuousness and dismay. The winners at Waterloo were revered and their military tactics taught for generations at war academies, but not the losers even if both were engaged in the same senseless, empirical war. Dead Japanese soldiers defending Okinawa were not given the same weigh in history as the GIs battling in the Pacific theater. I think you get the gist of it.

So, if you are a State you need no motives but rather cold, rational interests to absolve your killing, and if you were a State you’d better be on the winning side for your murders to be viewed as the mere price for victory. Although that is not always true. The North Vietnamese won a war, but their actions were still vilified by Hollywood and accepted as conventional wisdom by popcorn-munching viewers all other the world. The nationalists in Algeria won the war of independence but there are no movies celebrating their feat. Is it an emerging market thing, versus developed markets? Without getting into any racial or ethnic arguments, who can kill with impunity and who cannot, remains the principal question.

This dilemma has come to the fore with the horrible murder of Jamal Khashogi. Rewind few months before such tragic event and zoom in on the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal a former Soviet spy, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury by agents from the Russian GRU service. Go back a few years to the actual killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London, by the same Russian spy agency and the murder and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax accountant, in a Moscow prison.  In the aftermaths of these tragic events, why no one is questioning whether Putin should attend the G20 or address the UN General Assembly or be afforded the diplomatic co...

The country is not really desert whilst being part of the Arabian Peninsula, with a terrain that offers some of the most astonishing beaches and coves that eyes could see. Less than few miles in-land and you can delight at the sight of proudly erected mountains and rugged terrains that stretch for miles on end. The country is not populated by a strictly Bedouin-like society but still camels are herded for labor as well as for commerce (especially for racing since the country produces the best kind ever). Tribal ties remain strong especially in the mountainous or Jebeli areas, and pride, which comes with the territory, runs very deep. The country has embraced Islam since the early times of the holy message, but it does not fall within the dichotomy of Sunnis and Shias. Rather, it follows a milder form of the Ibadi religion that rejects warfare in the name of God and uses dignity and persuasion to get its point across. Furthermore, it has been home to migrant Hindus and -at one time- to thriving Jewish communities and has many churches, temples and Jewish landmarks especially the Tomb of Job located some 45 miles away from the port city of Salalah. The country is no democracy or parliamentary republic rather it is an absolute monarchy whose supreme sovereign, the Sultan of Oman Qaboos Bin Said Al Said, has reigned since 1970. However, the whimsical, capricious, despotic, erratic, unstable, shifting, and many other peculiarities -or defects- of monarchies from Burma to Buckingham, have been vividly absent or at least significantly tamed in this oasis of stability.

The Sultan of Oman deposed his father in 1970 in a bloodless coup, save for the father having reportedly shot himself in the foot. This fact, if at all true, would be both anecdotal and telling about a casualty-free removal of a sitting monarch. The deposed Sultan then spent the rest of his days not locked-up in a donjon but at the Dorchester Hotel, in London. The United Kingdom saw the previous ruler as impermeable to modernity and hermetically closed to the outside world and in part to their oil-exploration interests. They backed the son in his bid for power and became the armed force behind the throne, for decades.

The new Sultan’s first order of priority was ending the Dhofar Rebellion (1962 to 1979) by offering amnesty to all those who had fought against his father. He then integrated Dhofar into Oman ending a distinction that had exacerbated rifts and secessionist ambitions. With the help of the British corps of engineers he launched a reconstruction campaign in the most destitute areas building schools and hospitals and digging wells. These gestures of good will were nonetheless accompanied by a resolute will to fight the Adoo (or enemy) in the rebellious province. Rebels took orders from their political bases in Yemen, backed by Maoist China and the Soviet Union. The Sultan’s diplomatic maneuvering to recognize Oman as a full-member Arab State helped rein-in the territorial ambitions of neighbors, and denied the rebels official recognition, if not sanctuary. The harshly fought counterinsurgency was led by Omani Firqats trained and assisted by British officers, SAS elite force specialists, and the RAF, but also by the Imperial Iranian forces (under the Shah) and the Royal Jordanian troops (under King Hussein). More territory was won as more defectors from the rebels’ ranks joined the Sultan’ forces and were pardoned before serving under his banner.

Oman has been portrayed as a neutral country, and one that does not appear to be working in tandem with its Arab neighbors or partners. But the evidence points in the wrong direction. A bloody civil war is not a neutral business. When the going got tough Oman, and its ruler, fought for over a decade to quash the rebellion, unite the country and modernize the infrastructure. In fact, the asphalt roads that one sees in the remotest areas of Oman are not the result of a corrupt pu...

The land known as Mount Lebanon and which constituted under the Maan and Chehab dynasties the political entity governed by a local ‘Prince’ after securing the sine qua non approval of the Ottoman suzerain, had few truisms inherent to it and embedded in its collective consciousness.  The truisms comprised the selection of a somewhat just ‘Prince’ assisted by a group of mostly loyal, but often perfidious notables. Within such mountainous elite the degrees of perfidy and corruption varied from one century to another and sometimes within the same decades.

The ‘Prince’ was generally viewed as a ruler with no official religion, and an arbiter of causes who is presumed to have an acute sense of equity and justice. He stood above all the rest since by birth he belonged to a princely line, and not to any particular feudal family, or a region or just a community. This placed him in a unique position of impartiality. The Maan’s were Druzes whereas the Chehabs were Sunnis and later converts to Christianity. The first were from the Chouf and the second from Wadi Al Taym. Little did these local differences matter. The justice and equity of Fakhr El Din II were exemplary. That of Bachir II less so, but it was well known that under his rule a mule carrying a stack of gold could travel throughout the mountain with no fears of being stolen. Fakhr El Din II belonged to the political faction known as Qaisi, not a religious party. His opponents the princely Alameddines  were the standard-bearers of the Yemini party, another non-religious affiliation. As far as religion was concerned it was noted that Fakhr El Din II, whilst a proud Druze, gifted Druze lands to the Maronite Church from as far as Nahr El Kalb to Jezzine. Prince Bachir II was born Sunni, lived like a Druze and died a Maronite, buried at the Armenian cemetery in Istanbul. Lineage, social status, and political partisanship were far more important affiliations than sectarianism.

On the far end, the composition of the country’s notable class was premised on  loyalty and bravery in battles, not on religious grounds. Notables were from all confessions and regions of Mount Lebanon and beyond. Druze, Sunnis, Shia, Maronites and Orthodox clansmen bound together, from the cliffs of the Kesrouan to the ridges of the Chouf to the high Metn and Bekaa Valley. The notables were chosen to assist the 'Prince' in ruling the country based on their closeness to said ‘Prince’: by allegiance to either the Qaisi or Yemini parties. Not by faith or remittances. No religion was favored and no gold in the world could buy a notable such a title, or a place at the Prince’s table. Gold was always useful -but not indispensable- for winning the favors of the ruler but not to acquire feudal status. In essence gold was best left to souk merchants, to rapacious Ottoman Pashas, and to insatiable tax collectors. The notables of Mount Lebanon, in reality a grouping of tax farmers whose role was to collect the yearly tribute and  raise a small army in times of war, had gained their status due, in part, to merit. Valor on the field (at the battles of Marj Dabik or Ain Dara) or loyalty to the princely household (Maan or Chehab), or both. This did not absolve this class from the sins of corruption and exploitation. Corruption was manifest, and exploitation was rampant in the treatment of peasants. These wretched souls toiled the land, worked menial jobs, paid their individual tax (the Miri), and answered the call of war without hesitation or much choice.

For the peasantry which constituted the majority of the populace, the government or rather the ultimate source of power was situated far away in Istanbul. The sole representative of said power was ‘the Prince’. He was the only manifestation of such authority on earth. The ‘Prince’ was in essence the government and vice versa. The notables were intermediaries between the former and the people.