State Department Official: "Walid is in a precarious position, but he knows that his future does not lie with the Shia ..."

"... Developments this week in Tunisia and Lebanon kept US policy makers busy but pretty much on the sidelines.  The overthrow of the Ben Ali government in Tunisia highlighted the distance Washington took from events.  While praising what was described by US officials as the first non-ideological revolution in the Arab world, they quickly sought to distance the Administration from developments there.  "Neither we nor any other outside player had a role," commented one well-placed State Department official.  [While Secretary of State Clinton's pro-human rights talk in Doha last week was boosted as "timely," US officials did not attempt to link them to the upheaval in Tunisia]  Even the French, whose ties to its ex-colony are closer than most, were caught completely off-guard by the rapid course of events.  "At one point the French were offering to send assistance to Ben Ali's attempts to restore order," said one well-placed US official.  "Then they did a quick purely Gallic pivot."  While some analysts see the overthrow of a dictator in the Middle East as a possible harbinger for other Arab countries, the consensus among US officials is that the circumstances in Tunisia were far different than elsewhere in the Arab world.  For one thing, Tunisia lacks a strong Islamist opposition.  Al Qaeda in North Africa is a fringe operation, mostly engaged in criminal activity confined to African neighbors such as Niger and Mali, according to leading anti-terrorism experts.  Most important to the US is, of course, any impact on Egypt.  There, the Moslem Brotherhood does constitute an effective alternative to the existing regime of Hosni Mubarak.  And while concerns about Mubarak's health and the regime's failings -- many of which were mirrored in Tunisia -- liberal opponents in Egypt are far more fearful of the Islamists than the continuing Mubarak government, say, US experts.

     US officials up to and including President Obama were engaged in discussions about the situation in Lebanon.  The President met with French President Sarkozy to discuss the matter and held talks with now ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri [In fact, Hariri's ouster was timed to coincide with his White House meeting and according to informed sources, he was handed a note informing him of that fact while sitting with the President].   But it was not the US nor France which took the lead in trying to find a way out of the confrontation between Hariri and the opposition led by Hezbollah.  Instead, it was Saudi king Abdallah and Syrian President Assad who attempted to negotiate a deal that wold avert a governmental crisis in Beirut.  Working during his convalescence in New York from back surgery, Abdallah, until last week, strove to craft an agreement with what he euphemistically calls "The other side" [Perhaps a remnant of his obvious distaste for Assad]  Although the Saudis have kept the details of their negotiations from the US, it has not stopped veteran American officials from speculating that the hang-up was Assad's insistence that Hariri make concessions in advance of receiving a reward.....  While the French were strongly in favor of a deal, US officials remained skeptical to the end.  "It was once again an instance of France getting slapped down for trying to make nice with Syria," said one veteran US official this week...... They now believe he may have the votes to get reinstated as Prime Minister [The key player turns out to be the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, whose dozen votes in Parliament appear up for grabs.  As one veteran State Department official puts it,  "Walid is in a precarious position.  But he knows that the future of his people does not lie with the Shia [Hezbollah]." The outcome in Lebanon could have ramifications well beyond its borders.  A move by Hezbollah resulting in the effective overthrow of a pro-western government would certainly be a cause for concern in Israel. ........

     As some US officials attempt to determine Lebanon's impact on the Arab-Israeli issue, others are still focused on coming up with a strategy simply designed to restart negotiations between israel and the Palestinians.  Some observers say that much focus is being placed on the issue of final borders in a two-state solution.  "It is the issue which the parties come closest to agreeing," notes one US official.  "Of course, considering the gaps on other issues, that's not saying a lot."  But this official emphasizes that all the Administration is doing now is discussing ideas, not trying to lay out a blueprint.  For one thing, they have to contend with a push by a frustrated Palestinian leadership to bring two issues to the UN Security Council.  The first up is a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlement policy and the concern is that the Palestinians and their allies on the Council will fashion language that mirrors exactly US objections to Israeli settlements.  A second, more ambitious resolution  would call for recognition of their state [A process they are already pursuing among Latin American nations].  Both efforts are considered unwise and counterproductive by the Administration.  And while other members, such as Britain and France may well back a settlements resolution, they are considered unlikely to support one that formally recognizes a Palestinian state.  In any event, these maneuvers may prove to be moot. According to well-informed sources, the White House favorsvetoing either resolution.  This illustrates one personnel issue that is getting increased attention within the Administration.  The President's Special Envoy for peace talks is former Senate Majority leader, George Mitchell.  He is said to be "unhappy" with the increasing involvement by White House staff, notably long time peace process expert, Dennis Ross.  But even State Department officials sympathetic to Mitchell, note that he has been absent from the action -- particularly over the holidays, while Ross this week was in Israel engaged in top level talks..."