The investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri must go beyond the standard suspicions. Faced with compelling evidence of high-level involvement (i.e., the operation was well planned, well connected and financed), United Nations investigators naturally assumed that Hariri’s political enemies in Syria were responsible.
Maybe they are right but they could very reasonably be wrong as well.
All criminal investigations must begin with the question: Who stands to gain?
Take a hard look at the aftermath of the Hariri assassination and ask yourself: Who gained?
Syria, whose political support in Lebanon is substantial, was forced to withdraw its troops. It faces sanctions from the United Nations and its leaders must be subjected to public scrutiny. In the balance, America and her allies stand poised for military intervention, expanding the war in Iraq.
Who stood to gain from the Hariri assassination: Syria or America? Who has the intelligence and security connections to pull off such an operation? Who has the power and the pull to direct the investigation away from their door and direct it to their enemy?
One must wonder why CIA operatives in the region have not been questioned along with their Syrian counterparts.
American forces have been fighting at the Syrian border for more than a year. Covert operations inside Syria and Lebanon can safely be assumed and cross-border commando raids are a documented fact (NY Times).
Anyone who would sincerely be surprised at America’s hand in a targeted assassination for strategic advantage has not studied the history of covert operations.
[See the Albion Monitor www.albionmonitor.com for The Woodward Gambit, a Jazzman Chronicle by Jack Random.]