[ad_1]
George Shaheen wrote in the Republic:
Diplomatic circles are waiting for what French President Emmanuel Macron can achieve with his recent visit to the region, to verify his ability to cross the minefield planted on the road between Beirut and Baghdad, a product of the same powers. Therefore, their integrated positions between the two capitals were monitored. After asking for the reactivation of the state in the first, he ignored the “sovereignty”, which made a title in the second. So what leads to this equation?
It was not difficult for diplomatic references to read the contradictory and growing tone expressed by Macron’s speech in Lebanon and Iraq, despite the fact that the language he used in Beirut differed from the one he used in Baghdad, despite the unity of objectives and his convergence. It is no secret to anyone that the similarities in the crises of the two countries are many in many types of daily suffering of citizens. In addition to their similar political and governmental aspects, as a result of the diversity in their political, tribal, sectarian and sectarian components, they live under the influence of the Arab-Persian and American-Iranian conflict, and between Arabs, Kurds and Turks. They also share what foreign interventions lead to, with military forces of different identities and nationalities. In the countries between the Tigris and the Euphrates, there is a shortage of drinking water in Baghdad and in the cities of the south and northeast of the desertified countries. The land that floats a few meters above huge oil reserves seeks “nuclear exits” to face an electrical crisis unparalleled in the history of Iraq. In addition to that, armed Shiite militias spread through the cities of Iraq, with legal cover granted by previous governments in some of them, and others live under their control, without any official cover, even if the Kurdish militias participate in different regions, from facto.
From this same window, an objective reading begins, to investigate the similarities between the two crises and the scope of the French preparations to enter its corridors, in search of a point of support, which would return to France what it had lost in the previous stages that accompanied the rise of ISIS and its sisters. So the United States of America advanced its military presence in Iraq and part of northern and southwestern Syria, and Russia, with all its military forces, reached the lands of “useful Syria.” And all this in light of the gradual absence of the rest of the regional and international powers, which have withdrawn their military forces and still maintain very narrow and limited interests and positions of influence.
In light of the impact of these various developments, diplomats paused in front of Macron’s “sovereign” speech on Iraq, in his appearance alongside Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi, when he highlighted France’s support for the Al-Kazemi’s efforts to “strengthen Iraqi sovereignty”, and what he called “reconcile conditions.” “All armed forces, referring to the Iranian-backed Shiite armed factions. As for stopping foreign interference in Iraqi internal affairs on the impact of what he called “the roadmap signed between the two countries in various military and economic fields.” With his direct and remarkable indication that “any military cooperation with Iraq must respect its sovereignty.”
Consequently, diplomats linked the concept of “sovereignty” in which Macron focused on Iraq and its “temporary” significance in Lebanon. Despite the fact that the objective in both cases affects the situation sponsored by Iran in them, he registered in Beirut an advanced position at the expense of “sovereignty” in the term “state”, presenting his political and diplomatic opinion on the presence of “Hezbollah” and its Lebanese and Arab orientations on its “sovereign” opinion of Role and practice. The party is a Lebanese political, parliamentary and governmental force, despite the fact that it said publicly in its press conference that it does not share or support its military practices in Lebanon and abroad on the territory of any other country. All this can only be explained by the intention to avoid any confrontation with Iran in the Lebanese arena, without taking this into account in the Iraqi arena.
Consequently, it is no longer hidden by the scope of the contradictions that Macron expressed in his foreign policy in the region. What he allowed in Beirut he did not prevent in Iraq, particularly when he rejected a series of proposals that harm Hezbollah’s interests, rejecting what he rejects in the Lebanese archives, starting with the search for the archive of “illegal weapons” until the “elections. early parliamentarians, “that the party cannot enter it, whatever the price, and if its results do not affect it, whatever the law adopted. However, he realizes at the same time that he can harm the size of the representation of his allies, and if his results touch the size of the parliamentary majority that he enjoys, a political weapon that strengthens his military strength, and there is no alternative. to her when she joins her alliance with the President of the Republic and the Free Orange Patriotic Movement, and others. Those who can pay a price for the result of any call for early elections, before the popular rejection of all those whose position has been linked to the failed authority, who has not been able to face any of the great files to alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese.
Based on the above, it cannot be ignored that Macron crossed between Beirut and Baghdad a group of mines laid by the same forces, and what remains to be determined is whether he managed to cross all his fields, or that the last mine passed, which it cannot be proved. Only when the Lebanese meet the deadlines set by them to form a government and enter the reform stage.
Source: The Republic
[ad_2]
