Hey, Lebanon watchers, don’t be fooled by the commotion in Lebanese politics, the Hezbollah presentations and all that talk of war. These are simply the birth pangs of a final settlement that was already reached, argues Steven Heydemann in Foreign Policy:

The trade-off at the core of the settlement is the acceptance by all parties of the tribunal’s findings, the rejection by Hezbollah of any official role in the assassination and of any links that might emerge between individuals named in the indictments and the movement’s leadership, and acceptance by Saad Hariri of Hezbollah’s claims that to the extent its operatives were associated with the assassination, they were acting as rogue elements-perhaps under Israeli control — and not on behalf of Hezbollah’s leadership. Hariri might hope to use the tribunal to exact concessions on the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. This is unlikely to happen. Nasrallah and Syria, on their part, have hoped to be able to pressure Hariri to reject the tribunal’s findings and bring the investigation into his father’s death to an inconclusive end. This too is unlikely to happen. The most likely outcome is that the broad terms of this settlement will hold, the current government will remain intact, and the Lebanese political system will have moved, if only by a couple of notches, in directions that enhance the influence of Saudi Arabia and Syria and erode slightly the standing of Iran as a player in Lebanon’s political arena.

I’m not too sure though. We’re talking here about two huge concessions: P.M. Hariri sacrificing a tribunal that brings real justice to his family, and Hezbollah accepting that there are rogue elements within its ranks. Will these cancel each other? Who knows? Worse things have happened during grand bargains.