This article was first published in November 2019


By Leila Hatoum (X: @Leila1h)

It seems that over the past 45 years, no conflict — whether in a Latin American country, the Far East, or even Lebanon — has been free from the fingerprints of the United States of America and its former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. These fingerprints often follow a pattern: destabilizing a country, then intervening as a "reformer," and if that fails — burning it down.

Kissinger, now 96 years old (at the time), still appears to be in his prime. Just last week, he made headlines with statements about the U.S. and China standing on the “brink of a Cold War,” warning that the conflict could escalate into something “worse than World War I” if not addressed through dialogue, especially regarding foreign trade.

While reading Kissinger’s work, his writings, and what has been written about him — as well as examining U.S. foreign policy over the past five decades — I noticed that such patterns can't simply be coincidence. Since Kissinger's rise, Washington has consistently followed some or all of the following three steps whenever it intervenes in a country to destabilize it or change its leadership:

Insist that the leader, regime, or targeted group is the root of all evil, and launch a campaign to assassinate their reputation through media, rumors, or by highlighting only their faults — while ridiculing any attempt to accuse Washington of being involved.

Support Washington’s allies on the ground, and/or back any movement that serves U.S. interests when necessary.

Resort to economic and political sanctions to make the people suffer enough to turn against their rulers.

Kissinger, the architect of U.S. foreign policy, has always taken an interest in Lebanon. He was involved in negotiations over Lebanon's fate since 1973, funded right-wing militias during the civil war, and directly interfered in its affairs for over three decades.

He even wrote in the International Herald Tribune in 2005 about the need to internationalize the Lebanese issue time and again because, in his opinion, “the Lebanese always need an external force to lead them.”

This is precisely what Washington and its allies in Lebanon are trying to do today — pushing some local allies to call for Lebanon to be placed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which allows for international military intervention), even though Lebanon’s situation does not warrant such a move.

Ironically, in the same article where Kissinger defended foreign interventions in Lebanon, he wrote that international intervention had “prevented Lebanon from sliding into violence and contributed to arbitration between the Christian, Sunni, Shia, and Druze groups that make up Lebanon's political body — three times in the past.”

He tried to frame these “angelic” interventions in a positive light, but failed to mask their true nature. The examples he cited were:

* The Israeli invasion in 1981

* Washington’s bombing of Beirut in 1958

* The Syrian army’s entry and prolonged presence in Lebanon in 1976

Needless to say, those interventions led to increased violence over the years and the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees.

Kissinger also added in his article:

“The test will be whether the United States and the international community can develop an agreed political framework, and whether they can mobilize an international presence to ensure that conflicting emotions don’t once again turn into violence… Lebanon is a tribal land where emotions can spark conflict at any moment — they need an external force to lead them.”

Kissinger deliberately ignored the fact that U.S. State Department transcripts released in 2013 clearly show the role he played in preserving Syria’s interests in Lebanon while simultaneously arming right-wing militias at the expense of the state. He is the one who told U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Richard Murphy, to tell the Syrians:

“We want the Christians to be strong enough to defend themselves, and maybe we should tell Assad that we’ll allow some Israeli weapons to be sent to them.”

These claims were later corroborated by American newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times in the 1990s, which exposed the roles played by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in arming right-wing militias in Lebanon during that period.

While Washington and Beijing are engaged in a war of nerves—burning cards here and there and stirring up small fronts like Hong Kong, for example—Kissinger’s successor is running the operations room in Lebanon and the Near East.

Today, it has become almost certain that the godfather of U.S. foreign policy (Kissinger) is preoccupied with the cold war-like struggle between the United States and China. However, he has certainly not neglected the Lebanon file, which has been handed over to his successor, Jeffrey Feltman, former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who has spent the past decade actively interfering in Lebanon’s affairs.

Lebanon is more important to the United States today than ever before.

In the past, Lebanon served as a pressure card on regional countries, a passageway, and a strategic point for U.S. foreign policy. While it remains strategically important—particularly as the U.S. seeks to block Russian expansion into it—Lebanon has also become an economically promising station due to its hydrocarbon wealth.

This can be clearly understood from Feltman’s own statements before the U.S. Congress last week, where he warned against Russia exploiting Lebanon and its sea resources (oil and gas), and called for blocking Moscow from "winning in the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean" at Washington’s expense.

Warnings from U.S. officials about Lebanon falling into the arms of the Russian bear continue to pour in. A friend of mine even shared tweets by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy urging the U.S. to hurry up and release military aid to Lebanon. Murphy had warned just two days ago that withholding U.S. military assistance to the Lebanese army would open the door for Russia to replace the Americans.

The U.S., which succeeded a few years ago in pressuring Lebanon to reject a Russian gift of 10 fighter jets along with five years of free maintenance, now fears it may no longer be able to stop Lebanon from accepting such offers, especially given the current Defense Minister’s loyalty to a President who doesn’t heed Washington.

However, this issue must also be understood from an economic perspective. Lebanon now possesses oil and gas reserves. It forms a geographic and energy link between Syria, which already extracts oil, and Israel, where commercially viable reserves have been confirmed.

Israel is trying hard to bite off parts of Lebanon’s maritime territory by pushing for border negotiations. It has used the Americans to pressure Lebanon into compromising, but Washington failed throughout the past year to advance this file. The reason?

The Lebanese President and Speaker of Parliament continue to reject the U.S.-Israeli proposal, which would require Lebanon to give up sovereign territory occupied by Israel and surrender part of its exclusive economic and territorial waters.

The Americans have tried several times, but in vain.

Just before the Lebanese protests began on October 17, Lebanon was expecting a visit from David Schenker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, on October 14 in Beirut to resume discussions on the "re-demarcation of land and maritime borders" with Israel.

However, the U.S. postponed the visit without explanation—though some link the delay to Israel’s internal issues, such as its Prime Minister’s corruption scandals and the looming third election that may decide whether he secures another term or goes to jail.

There’s also a clear U.S. interest in securing benefits for American oil companies, which explains the flurry of American officials visiting Lebanon in recent months.

The same David Schenker held a press conference yesterday on developments in Lebanon, stating that his talks with his French and British counterparts in Paris focused on the political and economic situation in Lebanon. While he used Lebanon’s crisis as a pretext to intervene, Schenker also revealed that the U.S. this time could not impose its demands in Lebanon via the protests.

His comment that the U.S. supports “what remains of the Lebanese people's legitimate demands—namely the formation of a government that implements economic reforms and fights corruption,” is telling.

He said “what remains”—not all the demands. This time, it’s different.

Schenker also touched on the possibility of Russia exploiting the lack of U.S. support for the Lebanese army, admitting that there is currently a "review" underway of what he referred to as military aid. Reports indicate that there has been a delay in delivering some of this aid to the Lebanese army, including equipment that Lebanon had already paid for. Schenker said he "hopes the issue will be resolved soon."

From this, we can begin to understand what's happening in Lebanon in terms of economic pressure, banking sector sanctions, and foreign media fearmongering about the Lebanese currency and national economy. All of these campaigns started over a year ago to create the right conditions — and then exploit them.

On the other hand, let me take you on a brief tour of Kissinger's and Washington’s wide legacy in global conflicts:

* The Kurds should remember well the role Kissinger played between 1974 and 1975, when he used them as a bargaining chip by secretly supporting their rebellion in northern Iraq — without actually enabling them to achieve their goals. Then, support was suddenly cut off.

Kissinger’s comment at the time was:
“Foreign policy should not be confused with missionary work.”
What the U.S. did to the Kurds recently is strikingly similar to what happened in 1975.


* We can also recall Washington's repeated attempts to overthrow Venezuela’s leaders, first Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro.

When U.S. policies failed to bring Venezuela into its orbit, Washington imposed sweeping sanctions that mainly hurt the ordinary people. More recently, the U.S. began supporting opposition leader Juan Guaidó and encircling Venezuela with hostile neighboring governments.

* That context helps us understand America’s hand in the recent toppling of Bolivian President Evo Morales, and the empowerment of the right-wing opposition, which quickly appointed an ambassador to Washington for the first time in 11 years. The new right-wing government also cut diplomatic ties with Venezuela, expelled all Venezuelan diplomats representing Maduro, and recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president.

* This also sheds light on the recent protest movements in Colombia this week.

On another front, Kissinger and Washington resorted to economic arm-twisting in Chile to gain control over decision-making there.

In 1973, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Chilean President Salvador Allende, replacing him with dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Kissinger was behind supporting the economic war planlaunched by Washington to "make the economy scream," in the words of President Nixon and Kissinger himself. Kissinger once said:

"I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”

Let us also not forget:

* His role in fueling the conflict between the Greek and Turkish sides of Cyprus in the 1970s.

* His involvement in the oil crisis during the days of King Faisal (may he rest in peace) and how that crisis ultimately ended.

* Nor his role in East Timor in 1975, when Indonesia invaded East Timor one day after Kissinger left the area, using American weapons.

This is the type of intervention Kissinger excelled at: economic pressure, starvation of populations, assassinations, regime changes, and destabilization of countries.

What’s particularly interesting in Lebanon’s case is that — unlike other regimes Washington has destabilized — the President of Lebanon has very limited constitutional powers. Yet, U.S. media relentlessly attacks him.

This may be because he refuses to take Washington’s instructions, may lean toward Russia, and supports a party hostile to Israel— a party that, in turn, is aligned with Iran, a close ally of Russia.

Therefore, he must be removed or brought into line.