Listen to the article
Editorial
There are certain Lebanese factions that have mastered the art of diversion and concealing the true underlying factors behind the impending and meticulously orchestrated widespread collapse that has slowly but surely been brewing over a considerable period. For these factions, namely Hezbollah, it is vital to downplay the “absence of state,” with which the Lebanese people are desperately grappling. For the pro-Iranian party, it is crucial to deflect focus from what it considers to be its lifeblood and its core business exemplified by the basic components of a chronically unstable situation.
Hezbollah, the spearhead of the Pasdaran forces on the Israeli borders, employs every possible and imaginable (and sometimes unimaginable!) means to plunge Lebanon into a perpetual state of war and an endless climate of belligerence. The reasoning behind this is clear: to preserve its regional role as the absolute servant of the new Persian empire, Hezbollah must be the antithesis of the project aimed at rebuilding an efficient and sovereign state.
The Gordian knot hindering the resolution of the crisis does not solely lie in the political and communitarian demands put forth by the Shiite duo. However, while such demands may hold significance, they often serve as a sort of diversion, a smokescreen that conceals the effects of the transnational role assigned to Hezbollah. The fact that the pro-Iranian party continues — despite French presidential envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian’s presence — to endorse the candidacy of Sleiman Frangieh, proves their intention to maintain the deadlock and allow their Iranian mentor to retain an additional bargaining chip in negotiations with the West.
When Hezbollah proposes a “dialogue” as a way to break the presidential deadlock, it is because they know they will have ample latitude to lead their counterparts into labyrinthine discussions laden with minor details regarding the balance of power, thus indefinitely postponing any potential resolution. The aforementioned party leaders have repeatedly emphasized that they are in no rush whatsoever. As such, we must patiently await a resolution until the white smoke emanates from Tehran…
The problem that Le Drian is consequently confronted with is essentially a problem of sovereignty and not one of internal political balance. As such, the key to the solution lies in Tehran rather than being solely in Hezbollah’ hands. This implies that resolving the presidential deadlock must be part of a comprehensive agreement, one that encompasses a regional or even international package deal that addresses all outstanding issues with the Iranian mullahs, especially regarding the position and role that could be accorded to the Islamic Republic.
The efforts made by France, represented by Le Drian, and Saudi Arabia play a crucial role in this context. In essence, these efforts should be facilitated by the Beijing agreement reached in March between the Saudi Kingdom and Iran. If the officially stated objective of the Beijing document is to establish enduring stability in this part of the world, the Lebanese card (and therefore the presidential election) should be one of the key pieces of the puzzle. There cannot be viable regional stability in the absence of an imperative stabilization in the land of the Cedar.
Due to its socio-communal mosaic and its commitment to freedom, Lebanon, the land of hospitality, runs the risk of becoming a hotbed of tension within the region if it keeps on being used as an exercise ground by its nearby and faraway neighbors.
This is not the first time that Lebanon has faced such a challenge to its sovereignty. The erosion of sovereignty first became apparent in the late 1960s with the emergence of armed Palestinian organizations, followed by the Syrian occupation, and today the Iranian hegemony. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the country has been caught in an almost permanent destructive cycle over the years. This has resulted in a progressive escalation of unrest, spreading like a domino effect throughout various regions of the Middle East. The chronic instability in Lebanon was bound to have a ripple effect.
In the current geopolitical context, the reinstatement of lost sovereignty requires breaking not only traditional ties, which can be understandable, but rather the umbilical cord between Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. And to achieve this pressing objective, the United States, France and Saudi Arabia must formulate to Tehran’s mullahs a proposition they “cannot refuse”…
