re: #251 NJDhockeyfan

If that article and report are accurate, then the Lebanese government (which also includes representatives from Hizbullah) can take the matter of the attacks to the UN. Hizbullah, as a proxy for Assad, could find this in their interests because it would get the FSA to stop operating in certain areas and give Assad’s force wider latitude to act. By same token, Hizbullah wouldn’t necessarily want to have conflict spread to Lebanon, where they already have semi-autonomy and a vested interest in power. Spillover is happening because Lebanon’s military simply can’t deal with the civil war across the border, and they’re receiving refugees from that fighting.

At same time, FSA has interest in seeing the conflict as not just an internal conflict but an international one since it could get the UN more directly involved in ousting Assad.

In other words, both FSA and Hizbullah have a potential interest in seeing an internationalization of the conflict but for diametrically opposite reasons:

1) Hizbullah wants internationalization to get FSA to stop, bolstering Assad’s chances and preserving Hizbullah’s power base in Lebanon.

2) FSA wants internationalization to thwart Hizbullah’s support of Assad and cutting off supply chain across Southwestern Syria and limiting Assad’s power in that part of the country.