Lebanon’s internal politics can perhaps be seen as a microcosm of some of the challenges faced by the wider Middle East.

It is possible to drive around the whole of Lebanon in a day and the contrasts between Christian, Sunni, Shi’a and even Druze areas could not be starker. Driving north from Beirut, one passes through Sunni and Christian villages, each one distinct because of the different political posters, banners and flags, eventually reaching Tripoli, a majority Sunni town.

Looping back down from the Qadisha Valley towards the south, one goes through Maronite and Phalangist towns, past the Druze in the Chouf mountains, ultimately reaching the predominantly Shi’a parts of southern Lebanon, distinct because of the ubiquity of the green and yellow flag of Hizbollah, the posters of ‘martyrs,’ and the wreckage and debris caused by various Israeli attacks. It is easy to blame religion as the root cause of Lebanon’s instability. However, it is the exacerbation of these sectarian divides by international actors, in the interests of their foreign policy, which have ultimately served to weaken and de-stabilize Lebanon.

The issue that has divided Lebanon most recently and caused the collapse of its government is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. A brainchild of Washington, it was set up following the assassination of Rakif Hariri, a Sunni billionaire, to look into who the culprits might have been. The STL has sharply divided public opinion in Lebanon and recently the findings of Pechter Middle East Polls found that although 79% of Sunnis still find the tribunal ‘free and fair,’ 55% of Christians have now begun to question the tribunal’s legitimacy. 85% of Shi’as view the tribunal with deep suspicion. One of the main points of contention, which was officially raised by Hizbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah, is to do with the false witness’ file. Many people believe that groups, intent on destroying Hizbollah’s political viability, engineered false testimonies.

Recently, the Lebanese minister of telecommunications, Charbel Nahas announced that the Israelis have managed to infiltrate the Lebanese telecommunications network, including some lines that are used by Hizbollah operatives. Co-incidentally, a large portion of the STL’s findings is based on telecommunications evidence of alleged Hizbollah operatives. One of the main people implicated in the creation of these false testimonies is Col. Wissam al-Hassan, head of the Internal Security Forces intelligence unit and also a close aide of the Hariri clan.

It seems then that the recent political upheavals in Lebanon are not merely the results of internal power struggles but are also dictated by the exigencies of regional power games. Following Hizbollah’s unexpected victory over Israel in 2006, the former’s position has become stronger and its influence wider. Since then, Israeli and therefore American pressure has been ratcheted up to not only disarm Hizbollah but to also make it politically weak. Incidentally, Israel has not blinked an eye about the expected sale of a record $60 billion dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, another ‘Islamic’ power. The STL and its pending report, which is likely to implicate Hizbollah operatives in the murder of Rafik Hariri, is now being viewed with suspicion because it is seen as a way of increasing Israeli dominance in the region by stoking sectarian divides.

One possible scenario in the aftermath of the release of the report will be that the US will be able to pressurize the EU to legally define Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation and enforce economic and other sanctions against it. So far the Europeans have avoided doing this but might be forced to after the release of the findings of the ‘multi-lateral’ tribunal, a body that they also subscribe to. In the meanwhile, the sectarian rift is increasing in Lebanon with the pro-American, pro-Saudi, Sunni faction on one side and the pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian, Shi’a faction on the other. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze block in parliament and many Christian leaders have allied themselves with the Shi’a block for the time being. Hizbollah recently sent unarmed operatives to parts of Beirut in a show of force and shortly afterwards Sunni groups observed ‘the day of rage’ and publicly protested on behalf of Saad Hariri.

In order to prevent Lebanon from descending into civil war, as it did between 1975 and 1990, international actors must not interfere in domestic politics in Lebanon. Events in Lebanon will affect neighboring countries and any sectarian conflict can act as a catalyst for violence in countries like Iraq, which is already suffering because of intra-Muslim conflict. The unwritten National Pact of 1943 has so far created a situation in Lebanon where domestic problems between factions have been solved internally. However, the current situation is fragile and the last thing it needs are further fissures along sectarian lines, particularly when the struggle between the various parties has less to do with religion and more to do with political power.

A fractured Middle East, though useful for Israel, will only lead to deeper divides globally and therefore cause suffering and instability for millions of people.