The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister-designate signals that a Saudi-Syrian deal remains near to blunt the crisis over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a number of analysts said Wednesday.

A politician and businessman as shrewd as Mikati would not have allowed the March 8 political alliance to name him unless he had received assurances from high-ranking Saudis that the kingdom was still willing to reach an agreement on the tribunal, said Paul Salem, head of the Carnegie Middle East Center. ~The Daily Star

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. we have hysterics talking about the “conquest of Lebanon by Iran,” when what we are seeing is something more like a Saudi-Syrian settlement in which a candidate favorable to both governments becomes prime minister. For those who assume Miqati is nothing more than a yes-man for Hizbullah, the Star article goes on to say this:

Because of his Saudi and other external support, Mikati will have a significant say in selecting the ministers for his government, Hanna added. “He is in a stronger position vis-à-vis March 8,” Hanna said. “They need him.”

The point here is not to cheer for a March 8-led government. Properly speaking, none of this is America’s concern, and it has little to do with American security. However, we should observe that a lawful, basically peaceful change in government in Lebanon that benefits a political coalition Westerners dislike is not the end of the world, nor is it even necessarily that bad for Lebanon. No one has “lost” Lebanon, because Americans never possessed Lebanon. It is not ours to lose.