A and B are enemies.

A 'bad' event E is beneficial to A.

E occurs. Who is to blame for this event?

1. Since E is beneficial to A, Occam's Razor says A caused E.


2. B caused E to show A in a bad light (the benefits of E to A are outweighed by this bad publicity)


3. A caused E, but is trying to set things up such that B gets the blame for causing it, because B wants to put the blame on A because A derives the maximum benefit from it.

Where am I going with this, you might ask. Substitute A = Syria, B = Israel and E = Hariri's assassination, and things might make a little more sense.

This is just one instance of the kind of intrigue that goes on in the Middle East every day.

One aspect I have not seen covered much regarding Syria's presence in Lebanon is Robert Fisk's take on things:

Syria, you see, has a strategic reason for being here. In 1982, the Israelis invaded Lebanon and got up to beyond Jounieh. And had they struck east with their tanks, they could have cut Syria in half. And Syria wants to make sure there are going to be no more pro-Israeli governments or Israeli-sponsored governments in Beirut, who might allow such a devastating event to take place in Syria. So, there's a kind of long term strategic reason why the Syrians are here. They're not here because they want to throw snowballs on the mountain of Sanine, or they like Iraq or they are keen on Lebanese society. They're here for strategic military reasons.