The political conversation around Samir Assaf has intensified, with the former banker emerging as a key contender for the Lebanese presidency. However, his candidacy is clouded by strong criticism, particularly surrounding his label as a “parachute candidate” – one imposed from abroad, with heavy backing from France.
Critics argue that Assaf represents foreign agendas that could risk Lebanon’s sovereignty, aiming to reassert economic and political control over the country. Without local political experience or a loyal popular base, Assaf is viewed as a potential puppet of external powers, undermining vital Lebanese industries such as banking and ports.
Assaf’s political journey began with an attempt to become the governor of Lebanon’s Central Bank, supported by both France and Gebran Bassil, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. At the time, his proposal, known as the “Lazard Plan,” targeted depositors’ rights and threatened Lebanon's banking sector. After this project faltered, French support shifted toward promoting Assaf as a potential presidential candidate, especially following the collapse of Sleiman Frangieh’s bid.
According to sources, Assaf’s candidacy has received strong backing from French President Emmanuel Macron, who sees him as a tool to preserve French influence over Lebanon’s strategic institutions. Lebanese businessman Gilbert Chaghoury has also played a significant role in backing Assaf, organizing meetings with influential figures in Lebanon, and even seeking US support from Massad Boulos, President Trump's advisor on Middle Eastern affairs.
For Bassil, Assaf appears to be the ideal candidate – one who could help him secure a new political position and advance his personal and political agenda.
However, insiders are cautioning Lebanon’s sovereign forces – particularly the Lebanese Forces Party – not to fall for Assaf’s strategy. While he presents himself as an economic reform candidate, Assaf is seen as Bassil’s first choice. He has also faced significant criticism for his lack of understanding of Lebanon’s political complexities. Many view him as a “Trojan horse” – a foreign-backed figure attempting to reshape Lebanon’s political and economic landscape, which could jeopardize the country’s independence.
Given these concerns, Assaf’s candidacy appears to lack both political legitimacy and popular support. Rather than being a solution for Lebanon, his candidacy is seen by many as an attempt to undermine the nation’s resources and sovereignty, with potentially severe consequences for the country’s future.
Comments