Iran-Lebanon: Isn’t it sad when a more powerful country speaks for a smaller one?

Yesterday, Bambi learned from Reuters that “Lebanon warned Israel on Sunday against any “aggressive action” in disputed waters where both states hope to develop offshore energy, after a ship arrived off the coast to produce gas for Israel” (

Today she read in Naharnet that “Israel is relieved over border row after Iran reassured it on Hizbollah” (

We can read the above piece of information with relief, and even joy, that apparently there will not be a round of war over the latest confrontation in Lebanon. Plus another reassuring news is that Lebanon wants US mediation to help solve this new crisis ( and Israel states that this gas dispute can be resolved “diplomatically” ( How wonderful if fairness in diplomacy can have the last word. Thanks to the United States if they will accept Lebanon’s invitation.

Bambi does not know much about the history or story behind this latest development. She just knows that the people of her birth country have suffered from domestic political paralysis for a LONG time. Her questions today are neither about the “(still) official enemy” of Lebanon, Israel, nor about Lebanon or even the Hezbollah. Her questions are about how the fate of a tiny supposedly sovereign country is decided, far away, in another country: What does sovereignty mean? Does the international community care about Lebanon’s sovereignty, like it cares or would care for other conflicts? Is this story strictly about gas or could it be related to the larger problem in the area about the nuclear ambitions of Iran? Or is just raising the latter question a form of a “conspiracy theory” by Bambi, as they say, she wonders now?

Anyhow, regardless of any question, what matters the most is to ALWAYS allow diplomatic channels of communication, even through a third party, to have the last word. Only a good communication, ideally along with good faith by all (as much as realistically possible), can solve imminent problems and prevent long-term armed conflicts in our world. In the end, we have no choice but to return to the negotiation table to solve the world’s problems, even when they last for 15 years like the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). Last but not least, it is Bambi’s hope that Lebanon will not be used as a battleground for (any failed?) US Middle Eastern policy.

To conclude this post on a light musical note, and if she may with all due respect, Bambi would like to offer this kids’ song entitled “I am a good listener” to the US mediator, Mr. Amos Hochstein (, if he will re-visit Lebanon soon. Best wishes!

4 thoughts on “Iran-Lebanon: Isn’t it sad when a more powerful country speaks for a smaller one?”

    1. The Israelis are no better, they have been saying for 10 years that Iran is a few weeks from building a nuclear device, in those ten years no evidence shows that. Meanwhile Israel has a nuclear arsenal of 100 warheads, the only state in the middle east that does. Lies and deceit on both sides.

      In regards to the original post. It is sad that one country has large influence over another, but that is the way of the world, and we see it in our own backyard too. Look at the influence the US has had over Canadian foreign policy since 9/11, to the detriment of Canadian citizens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *