Listen to the article
The popular saying, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” seems to have been tailor made to illustrate the recent “dialogue” reinitiated a few days ago between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM).
In the early 2000s, in 2006 to be exact, when the Mar Mikhael agreement was signed with great pomp by General Michel Aoun and Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, the Aounist circles struggled to justify this political act by conveying their wish to “Lebanize” the pro-Iranian party!
The fierce critics of this alliance replied by asserting that, in fact, the Aounist party is the one that would eventually become “Hezbollized”… And for good reason. Inevitably, the FPM will be gobbled up and outmaneuvered by an entity such as Hezbollah. And this is exactly what happened. How could it have been otherwise, given the existing power forces between the two parties? Hezbollah, which from its early creation in the mid-1980s chose the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as its godfather, has benefited from substantial Iranian financial support right from the onset. This was coupled with significant logistical, military, security, political, diplomatic, and socio-economic assistance due to its alignment with the transnational political project based on exporting the Iranian Islamic Revolution. Given this massive quasi-state structure, what real influence could the Free Patriotic Movement realistically have in terms of power dynamics?
Surely enough, in 2016, General Michel Aoun made his way to the position of President of the Republic. With Hezbollah’s support, the Free Patriotic Movement was able to secure a significant role within both the Parliament and the executive branch. But what have been the concrete results following the FPM’s decision to position itself as the torch bearer of “change and reform?” The assessment at the end of the Aounist six-year term is quiet blatant. It is endured by the Lebanese people, in their flesh and bones, on a daily basis.
“They didn’t let us operate properly,” as relentlessly repeated by the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement Gebran Bassil. It was only towards the end of the disastrous term that former President Aoun and his son-in-law found the strength and audacity to admit – sometimes publicly, at other times behind closed doors – that it was actually the Hezbollah-Amal duo that radically undermined Aoun’s presidency, by simultaneously sabotaging the central State as well as the country’s key vital sectors.
One had to be politically blind or consumed by devastating racketeering not to have understood, or admitted, that politics is, among other things, a result of a balance of power. As such, the fool’s deal struck between the FPM and Hezbollah could only lead to the “hell” mentioned by President Aoun himself during a press conference at Baabda’s Palace following the August 4 Beirut port explosion.
One only needs to go through Hezbollah’s founding charter as well as the reference work of Naim Kassem, the party’s second in command, to understand that the pro-Iranian formation cannot, in any way, tolerate the presence of an effective and strong central State. Likewise, the pro-Iranian party can only elaborate an alliance with a local faction if and only if it serves one of its vital interests which is, in this case, a Christian-controlled cover. Ultimately, the other party, the so-called “ally,” is of negligible significance compared to the stakes of the project carried out by the Iranian Pasdaran. Today, what is truly pathetic is that the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement is unwilling to learn from the horrific lessons of the past, and has been trying for the last few days to reiterate this pernicious experience.
“Gains” and “guarantees” are said to be at the heart of the renewed talks between the two Mar Mikhael allies. But what is the true worth of Hezbollah’s signature? The lengthy and futile series of dialogue conferences held with the pro-Iranian organization since 2006 provides a clear answer to this question. The Shiite group has all the necessary means to disown its commitments and casually disregard all the agreements it signs and agrees on, even under Arab and international auspices. It did so with Michel Aoun when he was at the apex, in regards to power, popularity, and politics. As such, how much influence does the son-in-law have today compared to the power his father-in-law used to bask in at the height of his glory?
At a time when the entire region is undergoing significant changes, embarking on the perilous path of a new Mar Mikhael agreement would amount to handing Hezbollah – at the frontline of the Pasdaran – an impromptu gift on a gold plate. A gift that jeopardizes the identity, uniqueness, and delicate socio-communal balance of the Land of the Cedars.
