Listen To The Article
There is many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip… Differently put, there is a considerable gap between anticipation and realization… This English proverb finds particular resonance in a region like the Middle East, and more specifically, in Lebanon. Recent regional developments attest to the suitability of this popular adage. One such example is the significant Beijing Agreement announced on March 10, 2023, and concluded between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, with China’s mediation. The essence of this accord aims, in theory, to foster a climate of stability and harmony in the Middle East, primarily based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. However, in practice, achieving such harmony remains a challenging endeavor in this complex region.
The strategic objective set by this solemnly signed document in the Chinese capital is undeniably ambitious. Some may even see it as unrealistic… And it might be dicey to entirely dismiss their skepticism. Navigating the region towards prosperity is undoubtedly a strenuous and challenging task. As a result, in all likelihood, the outcomes of the Beijing Agreement may take some time to materialize. Nevertheless, there is one crucial point to consider.
In this vein, the implementation of this plan ought to be initially tested in Yemen. However, for now, it remains no more than a wishful thinking. Yemen’s Minister of foreign Affairs Ahmed Awad ben Mobarak voiced his realistic opinion on this matter during a visit to Baghdad earlier this week, stating with a tinge of bitterness, “Unfortunately, we still have not witnessed any direct impact of this (Beijing) Agreement on the situation in Yemen.”
In light of this context, the Yemeni minister statement, evidently tainted with frustration, is disheartening and seems to reflect not only typical challenges inherent in any peace process, but rather an underlying and not-so-hidden intention to sabotage the spirit and objective of the Saudi-Iranian agreement. One of the parties involved, namely Tehran, appears to be playing a double game at this level. Someone who genuinely strives for stability in this region would not resort to jeopardizing the security of maritime traffic in the Gulf by targeting commercial ships twice within a few days – long after the signing of the Beijing Agreement – especially in such a crucial and highly sensitive route.
Furthermore, one expects that those who pledge to work toward harmony before an international power should, at the very least, urge their regional allies, particularly in countries like Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, to “ease tensions” and take tangible steps, notably in the media, toward promoting a peaceful atmosphere. However, instead of implementing the above, quite the opposite has happened. The statement made by the Yemeni Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly suggests that the Houthis’ aggressive stance has not shown any positive signs of change. Similarly, the pro-Iranian armed faction in Iraq seems to be following a similar path…
As for Lebanon, an interesting series of events (a fortunate coincidence, one must add,) occurred shortly after the signing of the Beijing Agreement. First, a Saudi national was abducted in the heart of Beirut and taken to the Bekaa Valley. In response to this incident, so-called “locals” blocked the road to the airport, protesting against the arrest of the kidnappers (!). Meanwhile, the armed wing of the Pasdaran in Lebanon conducted a large-scale military maneuver in the South, and its faithful ally also engaged in a media-savvy militia demonstration. Furthermore, Christian religious figures were “encouraged” to make a widely publicized visit to Hezbollah’s museum. More recently, tensions escalated along the border with Israel due to the installation of two tents (for what purpose?) on the Blue Line.
What is even more significant is the skillful maneuver of the pro-Iranian party, aimed at bypassing the crucial efforts of the Group of Five (United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar), following their recent meeting in Doha.
The latest statements by the president of Hezbollah’s parliamentary commission, Mohammed Raad, did not fool anyone. Well-known for his constant sharp stances and attacks against the formation’s adversaries, Raad has suddenly taken on the role of a conciliator and moderator. During a partisan meeting, he did not hesitate to address the sovereigntist camp, stating, “We are not setting the bar too high. We want to engage in a dialogue and find common ground with you to reach a compromise.”
As luck would have it, right after the revival of the Group of Five’s mission toward finding a way out of the crisis, Raad decided to introduce the dialogue card into the political arena. However, the past experiences of various dialogue conferences (since 2006 up until recently) have proven that for Hezbollah, the concept of dialogue is merely a facade that lacks any genuine intention to achieve meaningful results.
This tactic of stalling consists of inviting the opposing party to engage in a dialogue that everyone knows will be fruitless so as to drag the local factions into endless internal discussions away from the anti-Iranian axis. This is effectively aimed at bypassing and sabotaging the Group of Five’s efforts.
Indulging in such delaying tactics clearly demonstrates a lack of genuine commitment to the spirit and principles of the Beijing Agreement.