Presidential Vacancy

In the context of this election, though, in which Hizbullah is a principal party to the dispute, doesn't that mean you're taking sides?
To some extent, yes. But, look: Lebanon is not the U.S. We would not expect Lebanon to mirror our foreign policy. There's a long history with Syria. Lebanese tell us constantly, "Whatever your problems with Syria, we have to have a friendly relationship." That's fine, as long as it's a reciprocal relationship with respect and based on diplomatic reciprocity. We're not expecting Lebanon to take on our foreign-policy issues.

Some media in Lebanon accuse you of wanting precisely that—saying you go about from ministry to ministry giving instructions, and otherwise interfering.
Well, I don't know if you speak Arabic. But Al-Akhbar [a pro-Hizbullah paper] translates, in English, as "The News." Now: Al-Akhbar has no akhbar. [Laughs.]

That's a good line. But you also got into a public dust-up with a less partisan paper, As Safir, over a report concerning supposed U.S. desire to build a military base in Lebanon.
The As Safir thing was, frankly, an illustration of how sad journalistic standards are in a country that really does have freedom of the media. We have no intention of building a military base in Lebanon. That article was not meant to inform readers but to incite readers. We didn't respond right away, either. There's so much nonsense reported. I'm not complaining, that's part of the job of an ambassador in Lebanon and in this region....

Our policy is, basically, adopt and support an agenda that was proposed by Lebanese in 2005. They wanted Syrian operations closed. They wanted the Lebanese in charge, not the military. They wanted to see assassinations end. These are the foundation blocks of our policy in Lebanon. The people who criticize my role in Lebanon are those who are threatened by those foundations, which were laid by the people of Lebanon themselves. I have found myself associated with principles among the Lebanese people related to their own sovereignty, and that's fine with me. I think it's in our interest to support those policies in Lebanon. It reflects Washington's view of how we should be in Lebanon. I wouldn't be doing my job if I were not advocating these types of policies.

Given the mutual antagonism between Hizbullah and the United States, how does that complicate the job of ambassador during a crisis like this one?
Well, I don't know if I would frame it that way. Yes, we define Hizbullah as a terror organization. At the same time, I work in Lebanon. I cannot deny Hizbullah's effectiveness as a social organization. It has a well-oiled social and political machine. It has genuine support from a Shia population that felt marginalized and victimized for years. Hizbullah's popular support is real. We need to take this into our calculations....

Take Michel Aoun [Hizbullah 's chief Christian ally and only announced candidate for president]. He's a most interesting figure here. We have serious reservations about Aoun's providing a Christian facade for Hizbullah's attempts to undermine the Constitution. Again, Aoun has significant support from a portion of the Christian population. I suspect our views on reform and transparency coincide with Aoun's views. In short, I don't suspect all the alliances to be the same after the presidential election as they are today. Some of the people we are working most closely with on promoting an international tribunal to try those accused of Rafik Hariri's murder may not be comfortable with these other reforms. I'm probably making too many headlines, though. [Laughs.]