Trials and tribulations for Mr. Bellemare

The documentary aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation earlier this week has set in motion various conspiracy theories. However, the urgent question is what the information disclosed means for the case that will be presented by Daniel Bellemare, the prosecutor of the Special Tribunal of Lebanon, presumably in the near future.

The program provides compelling evidence of Hizbullah’s alleged involvement in the assassination of the former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, based mainly on telephone analyses. These analyses, the CBC contends, were significantly advanced by the doggedness of the late Internal Security Forces captain, Wissam Eid, who was assassinated in January 2008. Eid’s boss, Colonel Samir Shehadeh, miraculously survived an earlier assassination attempt in September 2006.

Several things can be said about the matter. The first is that the detailed information in the documentary was not handed over recently to the journalist who broke the story, Neil Macdonald, therefore is not tied into recent political developments, as some are contending. This I know because I had heard that such documents were circulating at the beginning of this year (although I was unaware of their content). If one had to guess, the highly sensitive documents were passed on to Macdonald by someone unhappy with the lack of progress in the investigation. It’s best to keep an open mind on the agenda of a leaker, or leakers, but much of what Macdonald says about the shortcomings of the United Nations investigation between 2006 and 2008 under the stewardship of Serge Brammertz, like his criticism of Bellemare’s investigative and management skills, has long been echoed by others working with the investigation or familiar with its progress.

But let’s give Bellemare the benefit of the doubt. Unlike Brammertz, he appears to have seriously tried to investigate, even if the results until now remain, at best, uncertain. However, on the basis of the CBC report, does the prosecutor have enough to make his indictments stick – bearing in mind that we may not necessarily see indictments soon. Bellemare must first earn the formal approval of the pretrial judge, and this will be determined by the strength of his legal arguments. If these are found wanting, the prosecutor may be asked to rework his indictments.

Assuming his indictments are accepted, however, and that the details provided in the CBC documentary represent the core of Bellemare’s arguments, could he easily win a trial? Surprisingly, the revelations, regardless of how forceful they may look, suggest the prosecutor has a tough judicial climb ahead of him. Here’s why.

If the telephone analyses are Bellemare’s best shot, then as Macdonald pointed out in an article posted on the CBC website, he will first have to prove that the telephones used in the Hariri assassination were actually in the hands of Hizbullah members. Unless he has witness testimony affirming this, or suspects in custody willing to speak up, providing proof will not be easy. In fact it seems increasingly likely that Bellemare will suffer from two major handicaps in convincing the judges: his case may largely be conducted with suspects tried in absentia; and because of the dearth of witness testimony, brought on by Hizbullah’s secretive nature and its refusal to cooperate with the tribunal, the prosecutor may be overly reliant on circumstantial evidence – in other words indirect evidence that leads to conclusions effectively reached through deduction.

In an interview conducted with the Now Lebanon website last August, Bellemare defended circumstantial evidence, declaring “I am strongly of the view that circumstantial evidence is more powerful than direct evidence.” Circumstantial evidence is doubtless important in certain situations, but most lawyers would count it as less persuasive, and more difficult to prove, than witness testimony and documentary or physical evidence. There is also the matter of how much circumstantial evidence a prosecutor relies upon. That is especially relevant to Bellemare.

In a vast conspiracy like the assassination of Rafik Hariri, there are multiple circles of involvement and different levels of decision-making. For Bellemare to win his case, he will need to peel back the many layers and identify who did what when, and who said what to whom. He will need to shed light on significant segments of the crime to expose the whole. The most effective way of doing so is to have suspects in hand willing to spill the beans, and physical or documentary evidence to lend credence to what they say. But to prosecute a complex political killing by relying heavily on conclusions reached through deduction against suspects most or all of whom are not in court can only favor the defense.

No matter how compelling is the material passed on to the CBC, it only casts light on a small corner of the Hariri assassination, and most probably not the one disclosing who ordered the crime. That is why Brammertz’s two years in office were so damaging. The former commissioner focused on crime scene analysis, failed to arrest new suspects, pushed the burden of telephone analysis onto the Lebanese, and more generally did not competently advance his investigation. This was perhaps unintentional, but I am increasingly convinced it was intentional.

Now we are hearing Hizbullah and its political allies stating that Israel has infiltrated the telephone network, as if that will somehow help discredit the CBC’s information. But what the party must now accept is that this latest information cannot be explained away by false witnesses. It is considerably more difficult for the prime minister, Saad Hariri, to dismiss the hard work of Wissam Eid – work that ultimately cost the ISF captain his life – and subsequently that of UN telecom analysts, than it is for him to swallow the insidious idiocy of the false witnesses claim.

But come to think of it, who did kill Eid? Was it the Israelis? If so, that makes no sense at all, since his conclusions were pointing in the direction of Hizbullah, which is precisely, one assumes, what the Israelis wanted. The more those opposed to the tribunal try to manufacture ways to undermine its work, the more absurd their contortions become. Most worrisome is that UN ineptitude or manipulation may have already undermined the possibility of a successful prosecution, when or if the trial ever begins.

Trial or error?

After more than a year of doing nothing to burnish its public image, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) has lately gone the extra mile to familiarize journalists with its activities. This hasn’t brought greater insights into the investigation of the Rafik Hariri assassination, but it has created a sense among Lebanese that things are moving ahead on the trial front and that success might follow.

It is a pity, then, that success might not necessarily follow, even though this would represent a letdown of incalculable proportions. The attention of the Lebanese is on the indictments that will be issued by Daniel Bellemare, the STL prosecutor. Their interest is largely political, particularly if Hezbollah members are accused. However, from a judicial standpoint, indictments are only a first step, after which a long and complex legal process will unfold. Success can only really be measured by whether or not Bellemare identifies, and the tribunal punishes, both those who commissioned the assassination and who facilitated it.

Anyone who seeks a measure of justice would wish Bellemare the best. The push to blame so-called false witnesses will fail, because what Hezbollah and its allies seek to impose is a charade that forces supporters of the tribunal to engage in monstrous self-deception.

Then again, party pressure can sometimes work. On Thursday, it was reported that the BBC had pulled a documentary on the Hariri assassination, allegedly because it had not complied with editorial guidelines. More likely, as The Guardian reported, the BBC climbed down after journalist Ibrahim Amin of the pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper wrote that the intention of the program was “to implicate Hezbollah in the crime.” If the BBC caved in, then that is disconcerting news. On the other hand, other foreign documentaries are soon coming out on the killing, and no amount of intimidation in Beirut will stop that.

More problematic is the kind of case that Bellemare puts together. It seems likely that he has enough evidence to implicate certain individuals, and if we are to believe Hezbollah’s secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, party members will be blamed. Since Nasrallah has threatened to cut off the hands of whoever tries to arrest Hezbollah suspects, and since the Lebanese state is unlikely to test his resolve on that vow, the chances of a trial in absentia remain very high.

If the trial takes place in absentia, Bellemare will probably be lacking in witness testimony. While United Nations investigators did collect testimony in 2005, it is no secret that the commissioner at the time, Detlev Mehlis, was working mainly on the assumption that Syria had ordered the crime. That hypothesis was never abandoned by Mehlis’ successors. However, the most compelling electronic evidence that landed in the lap of the first commissioner after Mehlis, Serge Brammertz (who apparently, sensing the dangers, ordered that it be handed over to the Lebanese), and then Bellemare – evidence based primarily on the analysis of telephone communications — pointed to one angle of the crime, namely the circle of people who facilitated the assassination by reporting on Rafik Hariri’s movements.

Bellemare still has the testimony that Mehlis collected, but if he is wanting in witnesses on Hezbollah’s potential involvement in the crime, he may have to rely inordinately on other forms of evidence. And while his documentary and physical evidence might be persuasive, it is unclear whether or not it would be enough to reconstruct the decision-making hierarchy and specifics of Hariri’s killing. If so, Bellemare might have to depend more on circumstantial evidence, which means evidence derived through deduction from other facts.

And if Bellemare bases his indictments largely on telephone analyses and circumstantial evidence, but does not have much testimony to corroborate his information, then it will be difficult for him to win his case. Indeed, his delay in issuing indictments, one suspects, may come from the fact that he has had to firm up the circumstantial evidence to remove all possible doubts about what he will contend.

Once Bellemare issues indictments, the defense will have several months to prepare a rebuttal. The initial passion among the Lebanese for and against his decisions will be lost in a haze of procedural jousting between prosecution and defense. Yet it is then that we will be able to say whether Bellemare’s efforts might bear fruit or not. More significantly, it is then that we will be able to determine whether or not the two years of Serge Brammertz between 2006 and 2008, when the second commissioner arrested no suspects and did relatively little to advance his investigation, was fatal to the prosecution’s endeavors.

Unfortunately, the indictments, when they come, will not in any way spell triumph. We Lebanese should step back and take a deep breath. Politics is one thing, but an accomplished judicial course of action is something entirely different. Our tendency has been to confuse the two, and we may end up, not for the first time, deeply disappointed.

Syria's sleight of hand gives it regional standing

If any relationship today speaks to the new dynamics in the Middle East, it is that between Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The volatile nature of those dynamics has complicated ties between Riyadh and Damascus, when the Saudi regime would have preferred more clarity. At the heart of Saudi worries is Iraq, while at the centre of Syria's preoccupations is Lebanon.

Earlier this month the two countries sought to reach an understanding that might advance their interests in both places. At a summit in Damascus, followed by a visit to Beirut, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Bashar Assad of Syria agreed to a deal that went something like this: Syria would collaborate with the Saudis in derailing the appointment of Nouri al Maliki as prime minister of Iraq, while the Saudis would push Saad Hariri, Lebanon's prime minister who is politically beholden to Riyadh, to end his government's co-operation with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established to try suspects in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains the major suspect in the crime.

In Lebanon, the two Arab leaders endorsed a statement that Lebanese disputes would be settled in the framework of the national unity government. This was regarded as an effort to avert violence in light of Hizbollah's threats that all options were open to the party to undermine Lebanese support for the tribunal, which its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, had described as an "Israeli project".

The understanding stabilised Lebanon, but not for long. Each side felt the other had not respected its engagements. Syria, with few means to shape Iraqi affairs and facing Iranian and American backing for Mr al Maliki's return, rallied to that option. In turn the Syrians accused the Saudis of failing to push Mr Hariri to abandon the tribunal, even though they had compelled the prime minister to make a statement to a Saudi newspaper casting doubt on the institution's work and virtually declaring Syria innocent of his father's killing.

Despite the strains, the Syrians and Saudis will probably try to preserve their understanding. The Saudis are deeply uneasy that Mr al Maliki may come back, and even more so that this was facilitated by Iran and blessed by the United States.

For Riyadh, the new situation only consolidates an Iranian-led Shiite order in Baghdad, even if one can dispute that Mr al Maliki is Tehran's stooge. Consequently, the Saudis hope to gain by maintaining open channels to Syria, since both need to retain a hand in Iraqi affairs as part of their regional leverage.

In Lebanon, the situation is thornier. The Saudis have effectively signed off on a Syrian political revival there, hoping this will contain Hizbollah. However, Riyadh holds a weak hand. The Syrians have spent more time undercutting Mr Hariri than they have treating him as an ally. Thanks to the tension over the special tribunal, Mr Assad has been playing Mr Hariri off against Hizbollah to Syria's advantage, while strengthening his ties with Iran. Indeed, last week the Syrian president made a much-publicised visit to Tehran, reiterating the closeness of the Syrian-Iranian relationship.

The Saudis are gambling that Syrian self-interest will prevail in Lebanon. Mr Assad wants to dominate alone, they believe, and seeks once again to make Lebanon more a Syrian than an Iranian card. That may be true, and it is why Mr Hariri continues to defend his reconciliation with Syria, even though last weekend the Syrian judiciary issued arrest warrants for Lebanese officials and journalists, most of whom are close to the prime minister. The problem with the Saudi calculation is that if Mr Assad does reassert Syrian hegemony in Beirut, Mr Hariri and the Saudis will be marginalised.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Saudis were at the heart of the Arab balancing game, their principal objective to ward instability away from the kingdom's borders while ensuring that no one rival gained the upper hand in the region. Syria took advantage of this, earning Saudi approval for its military takeover of Lebanon, while also aligning itself with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, against the Arab consensus. For Hafez Assad this served several purposes: it allowed him to counterbalance his great foe, Saddam Hussein; it made gaining Syrian approval more expensive for the Arab states; and it allowed Assad to manoeuvre between the Arabs and Iran, permitting him to exploit their enmities.

Today, Bashar Assad is replicating his father's policies, but he has more to play with. Syria's rapport with a powerful Iran has bought it valuable space with respect to the Arab states, so that in the past five years Mr Assad reimposed his writ in Lebanon over Saudi and Egyptian opposition thanks to his alliance with Hizbollah. Syria has also gained a stake in Hamas, along with Iran, and therefore can hinder Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations. And Mr Assad has opened up to Turkey, which has served as a mediator between Syria and Israel, allowing him to circumvent Arab or Iranian opposition to talks if required.

The irony is that Syria, on its own, suffers from glaring political vulnerabilities. Its influence in Iraq is largely restricted to subverting the country's security; on the Palestinian track, it is Iran, not Damascus, that is footing Hamas's bills; on the ground in Lebanon, Syria has had to depend heavily on Hizbollah during recent years, while its own partisans are feeble; and when it comes to Israel, Syria has consistently avoided a military confrontation, and remained silent when the Israelis destroyed an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.

Yet Mr Assad has persuaded one and all, including the Saudis, that Syria is a major player. Being a good illusionist can do wonders, but it also explains why Syria is so often difficult to trust.

For laughs

Just wanted to share the following e-mail from Amazon with the readers of this blog. If anything, it shows that readers of Michael Young have quite a wide range of interests:-)

Dear Amazon.com Customer,

We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated books by Michael Young have also purchased Circadian Rhythms: Methods and Protocols (Methods in Molecular Biology) by Ezio Rosato. For this reason, you might like to know that Circadian Rhythms: Methods and Protocols (Methods in Molecular Biology) will be released on November 2, 2010. You can pre-order yours by following the link below.

Product Description

This is an in-depth examination of circadian biology, presented by leading researchers in the field. Methods for analysis of rhythmic readouts in select model organisms are included. This cutting-edge collection of protocols is adaptable for research at every level, and represents the huge strides that chronobiologists have made over the past two decades. Circadian biologists at all research levels will realize tremendous benefit from this extraordinary collection.

An arresting development

Last week an amusing rumor circulated in Beirut. It went like this: The former head of the General Security Directorate, Jamil as-Sayyed, irritated the Syrians by using his meeting with President Bashar al-Assad to lend weight to his subsequent public attack against Saad al-Hariri. Assad had not appreciated being turned into a tool for the assault because he did not share Sayyed’s hostility toward Hariri.

Now we know better, given that Syria’s judiciary issued arrest warrants on Sunday for 33 people, most of them officials and journalists close to Hariri, as well as against Detlev Mehlis, the first commissioner of the United Nations team investigating Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination. Here is the other face of Syria’s double game in Lebanon: On the one side it claims to support Saad Hariri and appears reluctant to allow Hezbollah to politically cripple the prime minister; on the other, Damascus has systematically undermined Hariri itself.

Those around Hariri have questioned what Syrian behavior says about the Saudi-Syrian understanding over Lebanon finalized in meetings earlier this summer between King Abdullah and Assad. However, this attitude is naïve. Syria’s prime consideration in Lebanon for decades has been to rule alone, and the Saudis signed off on the understanding to gain advantages elsewhere, above all in Iraq, where Riyadh hoped that Syria might help it derail Nouri al-Maliki’s prime ministerial bid. That the Syrians failed in this regard was never going to make Assad reconsider the Lebanese part of the bargain.

The Syrian president sees open pastures ahead for resurrecting Syrian domination. The arrest warrants represent a new level of Syrian escalation, apparently in response to the Saudis’ inability or unwillingness to make Hariri give up on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Playing the Sunnis off against the Shia through the tribunal is Syria’s main ticket back into Lebanese affairs. While Assad may not sanction a military strike by Hezbollah against Hariri, as this would deny Damascus the latitude to continue playing the Sunni card, other options are open, including provoking tension on the ground.

What does this tell us about the Syrian-Saudi understanding? Is it finished? Things appear to be more complicated. The Syrians gain from the understanding and are likely to preserve it since they are now able to continuously reinterpret its guidelines to their own advantage. They have abandoned the anti-Maliki scheme; they are keeping Hariri weak; and Damascus has just reaffirmed its relationship with Tehran, days before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to fly to Lebanon on an official visit.

The problem for the Saudis is that there is not much they can do about Syrian behavior. They offered Assad a green light back into Lebanon, but never stopped to ask what would happen if the Syrians failed to fulfill their end of the bargain. As things stand today, the Saudis need Assad in Lebanon to stand as a barrier between Hezbollah and the Sunnis, while Assad needs the Saudis far less. Hariri is effectively Syria’s hostage, and his only means of leverage, a refusal to give up on the tribunal, is proving highly contentious.

Making matters worse is that even if Hariri does what the Syrians want him to on the tribunal, that will only invite onerous Syrian demands later. Once he loses the tribunal, the Syrians could easily topple his government by asking more than a third of ministers to resign (and Adnan al-Sayyed Hussein, supposedly from President Michel Sleiman’s quota, would comply). Damascus could then compel Walid Jumblatt to side with Hezbollah and the Aounists in parliament, turning the minority into a majority. This would allow Assad to impose a Lebanese government in which Hariri’s power is greatly reduced. If Hariri refuses, Syria could bring in a more pliable prime minister, taking control of the state and security apparatus.

It’s difficult to see how the Saudis, or all those who have publicly defended Lebanese sovereignty, including the United States and France, might halt this process. Onetime Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are no longer what they used to be. If the Arab states give him trouble today, Assad can simply shift direction and widen his margin of maneuver by dealing with Iran or Turkey.

The Lebanese have been worried about what might happen in the streets if Beirut does not end its collaboration with the Special Tribunal. But that is only the façade for a broader power play by Syria to reimpose its writ in Lebanon. The Saudis feel duped, but is anyone particularly surprised? We could have told them they would be long before Lebanese sovereignty was thrown on the auction block.

Apocalypse now? Maybe not

Hezbollah has been spreading word that it may soon implement an apocalyptic scenario to prevent Lebanese collaboration with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Will the party carry through on that threat? Everything is possible, but this would be no easy task.

The scenario, in its multiple variations, involves Hezbollah’s militarily taking over predominantly Muslim areas of Beirut or Lebanon (the different versions don’t define precisely which), place its adversaries under house arrest, then accuse them of collaborating with Israel for supporting the Special Tribunal, which Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, has labeled an “Israeli project.” Hezbollah would also ask the Lebanese army to control mainly Christian areas and detain politicians there backing the tribunal. The end result would be a coup of sorts, followed by the formation of a pliable government.

Some point to comments by Hezbollah’s Nawwaf al-Moussawi as rationalizing such a coup. Moussawi recently declared, “[T]he period that will follow the [tribunal] indictment will not be the same as the one before, and any group in Lebanon that might endorse this indictment will be treated as one of the tools of the US-Israeli invasion, and will suffer the same fate as the invader.”

Nothing can be ruled out with Hezbollah, but there are serious problems with this scheme, if the party indeed intends to carry it out. Would such a strike come before or after indictments are issued by the tribunal? There is a big difference. If the party acts before, it would have a hard time justifying and sustaining an operation based on an as-yet-nonexistent accusation. Hezbollah would only further incriminate itself, while the army might refuse to go along.

The essential question that Hezbollah would have to answer is where Syria stands on a military putsch. The party mistrusts the Syrians, and for good reason. The priority of President Bashar al-Assad today is to reassert Syrian domination over Lebanon. While he has no desire to enter into a confrontation with Hezbollah or Iran, Assad wants Lebanon once again to be primarily a Syrian card, therefore less of an Iranian one. Assad’s alleged advice to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he postpone his visit to South Lebanon in October, if true, might indicate the Syrian president is delineating his territory.

Syria has made a habit of double-dealing in Lebanon. However, it seems unlikely that it would welcome a debilitating assault against Saad Hariri and the Sunni community. The Syrians have spent years bringing Hariri and the Sunnis back to their door after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The Sunnis, in their fear and loathing of Hezbollah, have been willing to forget the past with Damascus. This has allowed Assad to play the Sunnis off against the Shia to Syria’s greater advantage. In this context it would make no sense for Assad to sign off on a Hezbollah operation that would deny Syria the valuable Sunni relationship it has carefully fostered.

There is also the fact that this time around, any military move by Hezbollah is almost certain to lead to a Sunni-Shia civil war. The Bourj Abi Haidar clash was a foreshadowing of what might happen, and there it was pro-Syrian Sunnis who were involved. The Syrians doubtless benefit from Sunni-Shia tension, and Lebanese politicians close to Damascus, most recently Walid Jumblatt, have declared that a Syrian military return to Lebanon would be welcome if sectarian conflict breaks out. However, for Syria to provoke such a conflict to bring its troops back is risky. Sunni-Shia fighting could quickly become uncontrollable, offers no guarantees that Syria will be given a green light to dispatch its soldiers, and might well spread to Syria.

Assad probably prefers, at least initially, less violent means of reasserting his authority in Lebanon. An indictment against Hezbollah offers this. Despite Damascus’ public hostility to the tribunal, once an accusation comes out, it would permit Assad to position himself between Hariri and Hezbollah, and take from each side. He would have leverage to obtain from Hezbollah key posts in the military-security apparatus the party controls and Syria seeks – command of the army, of military intelligence, of General Security, of airport security, and so forth. And once Assad gets what he wants, he can force concessions from Hariri for having saved him from Hezbollah, while pushing the prime minister (with Saudi backing) to end, or more likely hinder, Lebanese assistance to the tribunal.

Hezbollah knows that that any sectarian conflict it precipitates would only hasten a Syrian military comeback and rally the party’s domestic foes to Syria’s side. Which makes one wonder whether Jumblatt, in welcoming a new Syrian deployment in Lebanon, was not implicitly warning Hezbollah against engaging in reckless action.

If Hezbollah were to ignore these obstacles and pursue a military option against Syrian wishes, this could harm Syrian-Iranian relations. The party does not have such leeway. In the end it would be up to Iran to decide whether Hezbollah negotiates with Damascus or not. And that is why the timing of any Hezbollah move is essential. Once an indictment is out, talks would begin over how to save Hezbollah. The party’s ability to go for its guns might evaporate as its fate swiftly falls into the hands of Damascus and Tehran.

If Tehran were to receive guarantees from Syria that Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal would be preserved, and that Tehran’s deterrent power in southern Lebanon would remain intact (guarantees that Assad would gladly offer), the Iranians could perhaps approve a package deal obliging Hezbollah to surrender some power to Damascus. That is what Nasrallah fears the most, but he may be the prisoner of a trap he cannot escape – a trap the Syrians helped set.

Sectarian power play could tip Lebanon's balance

Lately, attention in Lebanon has been focused on the tribunal established to uncover the assassins of Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister. However, this past weekend saw an important, if still symbolic, step in a related but less-discussed matter: domination of the Christian, particularly the Maronite Christian, community, and the implications for Lebanon.

On Saturday, the Lebanese Forces, once the leading Christian militia and now a political party, held its annual mass in honour of combatants killed during the 1975-1990 civil war. The party's leader Samir Geagea delivered a speech in which he observed that Lebanon was on the verge of a coup, a reference to Hizbollah, which has threatened dire consequences if the government of Saad Hariri continues to cooperate with the special tribunal. Mr Geagea positioned himself as a supporter of the tribunal, then, revealingly, issued a call to rank-and-file partisans of his Maronite rival Michel Aoun to rejoin with the Lebanese Forces in defence of common political principles. Mr Aoun, once a foe of Hizbollah, has since become its partner.

Mr Geagea's address was a gamble. On the one hand he was making a bold bid to become Lebanon's leading Maronite figure. Although Mr Aoun commands a sizable following, his credibility has suffered in the past year. Among Aounists, an old guard is disgruntled that Mr Aoun is transforming his movement into a family affair. Within the broader Christian community there is unease about his ties to Hizbollah and Syria (where Mr Aoun was visiting on the day of the Lebanese Forces ceremony). Mr Geagea feels that once Mr Aoun, who is in his mid-70s, passes from the scene, the Aounists will fragment so now is the time to start attracting a portion to his side.

On the other hand, even as Mr Geagea presented himself as the embodiment of the Christians' mindset and defiance, he knew that his comments about averting a Hizbollah coup once again made him a leading target for the party and Syria. Indeed, the Lebanese Forces have been relentless in their hostility to both, earning Mr Geagea an 11-year prison sentence during the years of the Syrian military presence. In other words, Mr Geagea not only picked a fight over Christian influence, he picked one he cannot afford to lose, otherwise he may find himself alone if his enemies win.

Mr Geagea has taken on a risky role in what remains of the anti-Syrian coalition known as March 14. In the years after Rafiq Hariri's murder, his son Saad had headed the opposition to Syria, the leading suspect in the crime. This lasted until the reconciliation last year between Saudi Arabia, Mr Hariri's political sponsor, and Syria, which compelled the Lebanese prime minister to make peace with the Syrian president Bashar Assad. Since then, the Syrians and their allies have sought to break Mr Hariri away from Mr Geagea, both to divide the remnants of March 14 and to isolate Mr Geagea. It has long been a Syrian priority to weaken the Maronites, usually through a divide-and-rule strategy, for being a stalwart bastion of anti-Syrian sentiment.

There is something else. Mr Geagea has the reflexes of a military commander. A son of the hardscrabble mountain town of Bisharri in the north, the Lebanese Forces leader runs his movement in a centralised way. A natural organiser, Mr Geagea has rebuilt his party into a major political force despite his long incarceration. To Hizbollah, as obsessed and guarded as he on matters of security, Mr Geagea is a potential military rival. To Syria, he represents an eventual rallying point for an independent-minded Christian community that Syria mistrusts.

For example, Damascus doesn't appreciate that Mr Geagea and Mr Hariri maintain close ties, with the Lebanese Forces leader providing the prime minister with manoeuvring room on his right. Ironically, many Sunnis who loathed Mr Geagea during the civil war now regard him with some respect for standing against Hizbollah. The Christian population has declined in Lebanon, so that the country is now largely shaped by Sunni-Shiite dynamics. However, that does not mean that the Christians have become marginal. Mr Aoun's rapprochement with Hizbollah decisively crippled the anti-Syrian coalition led by Mr Hariri between 2005 and 2009; while Mr Geagea's tough line today concerns Hizbollah and Syria for creating political space from which the Sunnis, too, can challenge their dictates. Mr Geagea has been especially irritating for forcefully supporting the special tribunal.

With Hizbollah and Syria re-imposing their hegemony over Lebanon, can Mr Geagea survive, politically or otherwise? One will hear that the Lebanese Forces leader is a "red line" for the Americans, who will not allow him to be harmed; but such assurances mean little after Rafiq Hariri's killing. Mr Geagea has money, a key source of patronage and political influence. Above all, Mr Geagea knows that if he is attacked, particularly if he is attacked militarily in the Christian heartland, his undecided co-religionists might rally to his side.

It might be too much to affirm that Lebanon's fate is tied into that of Mr Geagea. However, what happens to the Christians will undoubtedly affect the balance between the Sunnis and Shiites, which in turn will determine how powerful a role Syria can play. Lebanon is an intricate country and much is decided between the sectarian cracks, where one might otherwise not bother to look.