Over at the American Conservative, Daniel Larison, a leading foreign policy realist, has a smart take on recent political developments in Lebanon:
Here in the U.S. we have hysterics talking about the “conquest of Lebanon by Iran,” when what we are seeing is something more like a Saudi-Syrian settlement in which a candidate favorable to both governments becomes prime minister. For those who assume Miqati is nothing more than a yes-man for Hizbullah, the [Lebanon Daily] Star article goes on to say this:
"Because of his Saudi and other external support, [Prime Minister-designate Najib] Mikati will have a significant say in selecting the ministers for his government, Hanna added. “He is in a stronger position vis-à-vis March 8,” Hanna said. “They need him.”
The point here is not to cheer for a March 8-led government. Properly speaking, none of this is America’s concern, and it has little to do with American security. However, we should observe that a lawful, basically peaceful change in government in Lebanon that benefits a political coalition Westerners dislike is not the end of the world, nor is it even necessarily that bad for Lebanon. No one has “lost” Lebanon, because Americans never possessed Lebanon. It is not ours to lose.
Like I said, a calm, un-breathless take.
It would be good if Larison could "save-get" this formulation for the next Israeli election. Imagine realists imagining the following:
The point here is not to cheer for a Likud-led government. Properly speaking, none of this is America’s concern, and it has little to do with American security. However, we should observe that a lawful, basically peaceful change in government in Israel that benefits a political coalition liberals and realists dislike is not the end of the world, nor is it even necessarily that bad for Israel. No one has “lost” Israel, because Americans never possessed Israel. It is not ours to lose.
