WikiLeaks cables: Saudis proposed Arab force to invade Lebanon

• World news
• Saudi Arabia

Foreign minister wanted US, Nato and UN backing for offensive to end Iranian-backed Hezbollah's siege of government

• Ewen MacAskill in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 December 2010 21.30 GMT
• Article history



A WikiLeaks cable details a discussion that took place as pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups laid siege to Beirut and threatened the government of Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora, seen here with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Photograph: Ali Haider/EPA Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks. The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world. The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East. The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan. It would have marked a return of US forces to Lebanon almost three decades after they fled in the wake of the 1983 suicide attack on US marine barracks in Beirut that killed 299 American and French military personnel. Faisal, in a US cable marked secret, emphasised the need for what he referred to as a "security response" to the military challenge to the Lebanon government from Hezbollah, the Shia militia backed by Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria. The cable says: "Specifically, Saud argued for an 'Arab force' to create and maintain order in and around Beirut. "The US and Nato would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as 'naval and air cover'. Saud said that a Hezbollah victory in Beirut would mean the end of the Siniora government and the 'Iranian takeover' of Lebanon." The discussion came just days after Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon laid siege to Beirut, threatening the pro-western government of Fouad Siniora, after 17 months of street demonstrations. Siniora survived, though only after making enormous concessions to Hezbollah. He was replaced by another pro-western leader, Saad Hariri, but Hezbollah remains a force in Lebanon, lionised by many Arabs after defeating Israel in the 2006 war along the Lebanese border. According to the cable Saud argued that a Hezbollah victory against the Siniora government "combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front would be a disaster for the US and the entire region". Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was "entirely military" and the solution must be military as well. The situation called for an "Arab force drawn from Arab 'periphery' states to deploy to Beirut under the 'cover of the UN'." Saud said Siniora strongly backed the idea but the only Arab countries aware of it were Egypt and Jordan, along with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding: "What would be the use?" Saud said that of all the regional fronts on which Iran was advancing, Lebanon would be an "easier battle to win" for the anti-Iranian allies. Satterfield responded that the "political and military" feasibility of the undertaking Saud had outlined would appear very much open to question, particularly securing UN agreement, but the US would study any Arab decision. Saud concluded by underscoring that a UN-Arab peacekeeping force coupled with US air and naval support would "keep out Hezbollah