Lebanon Clashes Threaten to Crack Open Fault Lines

A Lebanese soldier walks near a burning motorcycle amid clashes between supporters of the Hezbollah and Amal groups, and anti-government protesters in the capital Beirut. (AFP)
A Lebanese soldier walks near a burning motorcycle amid clashes between supporters of the Hezbollah and Amal groups, and anti-government protesters in the capital Beirut. (AFP)
TT
20

Lebanon Clashes Threaten to Crack Open Fault Lines

A Lebanese soldier walks near a burning motorcycle amid clashes between supporters of the Hezbollah and Amal groups, and anti-government protesters in the capital Beirut. (AFP)
A Lebanese soldier walks near a burning motorcycle amid clashes between supporters of the Hezbollah and Amal groups, and anti-government protesters in the capital Beirut. (AFP)

Clashes between Lebanese protesters and supporters of the Hezbollah party are putting Lebanon’s military and security forces in a delicate position, threatening to crack open the country’s dangerous fault lines amid a political deadlock.

For weeks, the Lebanese security forces have taken pains to protect anti-government protesters, in stark contrast to Iraq, where police have killed more than 340 people over the past month in a bloody response to similar protests.

The overnight violence — some of the worst since protests against the country’s ruling elite began last month — gave a preview into a worst-case scenario for Lebanon’s crisis, with the country’s US-trained military increasingly in the middle between pro- and anti-Hezbollah factions.

By attacking protesters Sunday night, Hezbollah sent a message that it is willing to use force to protect its political power, said The Associated Press. Confronting the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, however, is out of the question for the military as doing so would wreck the neutral position it seeks to maintain and could split its ranks.

"The army is in a difficult position facing multiple challenges and moving cautiously between the lines," said Fadia Kiwan, professor of political science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut.

She said the military has sought to protect the protesters and freedom of expression but is increasingly grappling with how to deal with road closures and violence.

The UN Security Council urged all actors in Lebanon on Monday to engage in “intensive national dialogue and to maintain the peaceful character of the protests” by respecting the right to peaceful assembly and protest.

Calling this “a very critical time for Lebanon,” the UN’s most powerful body also commended Lebanon’s armed forces and state security institutions for their role in protecting the right to peaceful assembly and protest.

Sunday night’s clashes brought into full display the political and sectarian divisions that protesters have said they want to end.

Hezbollah supporters waving the group’s yellow flag shouted and taunted the protesters. The protesters chanted back, "This is Lebanon, not Iran," and "Terrorist, terrorist, Hezbollah is a terrorist" — the first time they have used such a chant.

The violence began when supporters of Hezbollah and the other main Shiite faction, Amal, attacked protesters who had blocked a main Beirut thoroughfare known as the Ring Road — a move the protesters said was aimed at exerting pressure on politicians to form a new government after Prime Minister Saad Hariri offered his resignation October 29.

Carrying clubs and metal rods, the Hezbollah followers arrived on scooters, chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans. They beat up several protesters. Both sides chanted insults, then threw stones at each other for hours.

Security forces stood between them but did little to stop the fighting. Finally, after several hours, they fired tear gas at both sides to disperse them. The road was eventually opened before daybreak Monday.

By that time, protesters’ tents were destroyed in areas close to the Ring Road. The windshields of cars parked near Riad al-Solh Square and Martyrs Square — the central hubs of the protests — were smashed as were the windows of some shops.

The nationwide protests have so far been overwhelmingly peaceful since they started October 17.

Politicians have failed to agree on a new Cabinet since Hariri’s government resigned.

Hezbollah and Amal insist Hariri form a new government made up of technocrats and politicians, but Hariri — echoing protester demands — says it must be made up only of experts who would focus on Lebanon’s economic crisis.

As the deadlock drags on, tempers are rising.

“The situation is moving toward a dangerous phase because after 40 days of protests, people are beginning to get tired and frustrated and might resort to actions that are out of control,” Kiwan said.

One person has been killed by security forces during the protests, while six have died in incidents related to the demonstrations. In the latest, a man and his sister-in-law burned to death Monday after their car hit a metal barricade erected by protesters on a highway linking Beirut with the country’s south.

Hezbollah issued a statement Monday condemning the road closure, painting the protests as a danger to the country. It called the deaths the result of "a militia attack carried out by groups of bandits who practice the ugliest methods of humiliation and terrorism against people."

In the increasingly tense atmosphere, “the role of the army is getting bigger,” Kiwan said.

The army is one of the few state institutions that enjoy wide support and respect among the public as it is seen as a unifying force in the deeply divided country. It has for the most part worked to defuse tensions and protect protesters, though on two occasions it allowed Hezbollah and Amal supporters to wreck tents at the main protest site in downtown Beirut, said the AP.

Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese general who heads the Middle East Center for Studies and Political Research, said the army is in a “delicate” position and could not have done more than it did Sunday night.

The military is already at the center of a debate in US policy-making circles. The Trump administration is now withholding more than $100 million in US military assistance to Lebanon that has been approved by Congress, without providing an explanation for the hold.

That has raised concerns among some in the US security community who see the aid — largely used to buy US-made military equipment — as key to countering Iran’s influence in Lebanon. Others, however, including pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress, have sought to defund the military, arguing it has been compromised by Hezbollah, which the US designates as a terrorist organization.

US administrations have long believed that a strong Lebanese army could be a counter to Hezbollah's weapons and could deprive the militants of the excuse to keep their arms.

The 70,000-strong force split along sectarian lines during Lebanon’s 1975-90 civil war. Since then, it has largely succeeded in achieving a level of stability by maintaining a tough balancing act that includes coordinating with Hezbollah on security matters.

Jaber said it is impossible for the security forces to clash with Hezbollah because "this will lead to divisions within the army."

"Hezbollah is a main part of the Lebanese people,” he said. “Getting the army into a battle with them would lead to pulling away part of the Lebanese army, and this could be followed by other groups splitting from the army."

"The Lebanese army is the pole of the tent. If the pole collapses, the whole country will collapse. It is the duty of the army to protect state institutions."



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.