If you’re still wondering why Mr. Saad Hariri went to Washington, take a look at what Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post‘s editorial board has to say.


Big plans..

In “As Lebanon Goes,” Mr. Diehl argues that Mr. Hariri’s visit is about nothing less ambitious than “defeating [the Middle East's] conventional wisdom”. The conventional wisdom being this:

Middle East analysts and many Lebanese tend to shruggingly conclude that nothing can be resolved until the larger regional standoff is settled.

In a nutshell, what the article is saying is that Mr. Hariri is lobbying for an international moral clarity about Syria, similar to the one that existed right after his father Mr. Hariri Sr. was assassinated.

Hariri Jr. had noticed that the world is softening up on Syria and is tempted to engage with the Assad dictatorship, so he wanted to remind the movers and shakers in the west of the Lebanese promise:

Hariri argues implicitly for a different strategy, one that starts rather than ends in Lebanon. “It is possible to pressure Syria by threatening isolation,” he says. “When Rafiq Hariri was assassinated, the whole world talked with one language — and when the whole world said it, Syria got out of Lebanon, because they were afraid that the world would isolate Syria.” If the same coalition were to unite in demanding that Damascus stop interfering in the Lebanese presidential election, Hariri reasons, the Lebanese could strike a deal that would allow the choice of a president committed to the country’s independence, to strengthening its government and its armed forces, and to creating a state that would eventually crowd out militias such as Hezbollah.

Sounds a tad ambitious if not downright unrealistic to me. Thoughts?