Listen To The Article
After the Iranian-Saudi agreement in Beijing, Hezbollah is going through a phase that can only be described as uncertain. The positions adopted by the pro-Iranian militia, oscillating from one extreme to the other, are giving rise to growing concerns about the future of the region.
Hezbollah is playing the presidential election card, attempting to re-enact the scenario of 2016, when former President Michel Aoun was elected president. The opposition has stressed, however, that the situation is different today. Back then, the pro-Iranian party was at its peak, enjoying local and external support as well as the full backing of Iran, whereas today, it is unable to reproduce the same “scenario.”
The situation has now changed: Hezbollah no longer has a national partner, as the Free Patriotic Movement has broken its alliance with it; Walid Joumblatt has rallied with the Christians; and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri has withdrawn from the political scene.
In 2016, the FPM was synonymous with a significant Christian and parliamentary force. Living conditions were relatively good and secure, and the economic crisis we are experiencing today did not exist. Aoun was able to seal a deal with Hariri, Joumblatt, Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, and the Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, with the support of Bkirki in its national and moral role. But as the opposition claims, everything is different today.
The Christians oppose the candidacy of former MP Sleiman Frangieh, endorsed by the Shiite duo. The Sunnis are waiting for the signal from Saudi Arabia, while Joumblatt has decided to support former Finance Minister Jihad Azour, also endorsed by the Lebanese Forces, the Free Patriotic Movement, and the Kataeb.
According to the opposition, all these elements would have weakened the national consensus around Frangieh, unlike what happened in 2016 with Aoun. As a result, Hezbollah is no longer in a position to impose a candidate by force and guarantee his acceptance, let alone the national consensus around him. As a result, the pro-Iranian militia is resorting to intimidation to scare its opponents into backing down, giving in, and eventually accepting its candidate.
The Shiite duo blocked 11 presidential election sessions by casting a blank vote against the opposition candidate MP Michel Moawad, considered a confrontational candidate to some, without revealing the name of its own candidate during this period; this candidate was known, but not declared (namely Frangieh). When it was later officially announced, Hezbollah turned against the opposition, accusing it of failing to name its new candidate.
After the Christian obstructionist faction (the FPM in this case) joined the ranks of the opposition by supporting Azour’s candidacy, Hezbollah saw this as a maneuver to defeat Frangieh, and stepped up its ferocious attacks, notably against Joumblatt and Bassil, considered to have facilitated the agreement around Azour’s candidacy. Indeed, Bassil, moved by his enmity towards Frangieh, reunited the March 14 forces and joined them. Hezbollah then accused Joumblatt and Bassil of betrayal.
Furthermore, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s announcement of Frangieh’s candidacy and the support of Nasrallah contributed to the emergence of a French position in favor of Frangieh, under the pretext that this was “the possible solution.” This position greatly displeased the Christian community, who felt that French President Emmanuel Macron had traded France’s historic positions on Lebanon for commercial considerations in the run-up to the presidential election. As a result, Macron extended an invitation to Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rahi to Paris the day after his Vatican visit in order to clarify the situation, especially as the Christians and the opposition had informed Al-Rahi of their agreement on the nomination of Azour, thus strengthening his position.
In the Vatican, as in Paris, the officials who have met expressed their concerns to the Patriarch: “We are worried about the fate of Lebanon, given confirmed reports of Hezbollah’s lack of eagerness to elect a president. The Iranian-backed militia, having set its sights on a new constituent assembly, has opted for chaos and the collapse of Lebanon.”
“After learning of the existence of a list of names including Frangieh, Azour and several acceptable candidates, a French official asked Al-Rahi to contact the political forces, in particular the Shiite duo, to agree on a new name for the list. The French official also insisted on the need to elect a president quickly to maintain your presence in power and in the region and to preserve your gains and not to lose what you have left.”
“Indeed, some, driven by their overflow of strength, are claiming what they consider to be a privilege for Christians, they are calling for alternation at the presidential level and in key administrative posts, as well as a consolidation of the gains they have made, thanks to their weapons, in the Constitution, as happened with the Sunnis in the Taef Accord. For example, the Ministry of Finance is generally entrusted to the Shiites, and some now wish to establish this practice in writing.”
On the basis of this data, a sovereignist politician criticizes the approach of certain political forces to the issue of the presidential election and states that the battle is not about names, but a political choice. The election is not a sectarian conflict between Maronites and Shiites, but rather a national election that concerns everyone. Hence the need to move towards an independent consensus candidate. To achieve this, we need to await the effects of the Saudi-Iranian and US-Iranian agreements.
The unblocking of the presidential elections will be the fruit of these two agreements. The international community is moving towards a new Lebanon. A neutral Lebanon that would stay out of other people’s conflicts, with weapons under state control, so as to finally implement the required reforms.
A former minister warns against the current paralysis, asserting that “if this does not happen, the international community will lose confidence in Lebanon and suspend its aid. The country will then remain on the sidelines, watching as the process of stability and overall peace in the region takes shape, hoping to be associated with it.”