Listen to the article
The long-awaited turning point that had the potential to break the deadlock in the presidential election was expected from the pro-Iranian party and its allies. At the very least there was a fervent hope for this to transpire, but such optimism was wishful thinking. Instead, it came from the French presidential envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian, in the form of a resolute stance and a genuine alarm call, coupled with a stern warning message. During an interview with AFP, President Emmanuel Macron’s representative unequivocally put an end to any lingering assumptions about France’s position, which had been criticized for its perceived accomodation of Hezbollah in relation to the presidential issue.
By explicitly asserting that neither the candidate from the obstructionist axis (Sleiman Frangieh) nor the one from the opposition camp (Jihad Azour) can be elected, and thereby calling on Lebanese leaders to promptly agree on a third candidate, Le Drian has candidly articulated and firmly established a unified position among the Group of Five (the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar) diligently engaged in seeking a resolution to the crisis. His comments on this matter leave no room for ambiguity: “The five countries stand firmly united, they are deeply frustrated, and are questioning the sustainability of their financial support for Lebanon.” In essence, the Elysée’s envoy has decisively dispelled any divergence between Paris’s perceived conciliatory stance and the positions held by the other members of the Group of Five.
In a pointed message to those involved, Le Drian has underscored the shift towards extreme firmness regarding the presidential issue. He went so far as saying that “the very existence of the Lebanese State is in jeopardy.” This straightforwardly implies that the State faces a serious prospect of dissolution. And for the skeptical ones, the French envoy, echoing the viewpoint of the Group of Five, emphasized that “Lebanon’s survival is at stake.”
At this stage, key questions need to be raised without any reservation. Do we desire a president who would merely manage the crisis, thereby extending for another six years the hardships endured by the Lebanese population? Or should we aspire for a head of state, in the truest sense of the term, someone akin to a modern-day Fouad Shehab, committed to embarking on a sweeping project of recovery and revitalization spanning every domain, at all levels, and within every sector, free from any form of rogue favoritism?
This brings us to two equally fundamental questions that Hezbollah must transparently address, even this entails momentarily setting aside its ideological and dogmatic position. This is assuming that the Shiite party is actually able to manifest such transparency, even if only for once…
Is the unspoken objective behind the current orchestrated and long-planned comprehensive collapse, remotely controlled by the pro-Iranian party with the aim of profoundly altering the identity, uniqueness, purpose and the politico-socio-economic formula of a liberal, pluralistic Lebanon devoted to public and individual freedoms?
Should the land of the Cedars continue to be held captive by the hegemonic ambitions of the Iranian mullahs’ regime? For over half a century, the Lebanese have borne the consequences of regional conflicts, enduring decades of deceit and crude populism. The culmination of these events has been the normalization of relations between Israel and most Arab countries, while the Lebanese people continue to grapple with a corrosive form of intellectual terrorism.
As reports suggest the possibility of a new pressing French-Saudi consultation meeting within the next 48 hours in Riyadh in the presence of Le Drian, some answers should be provided to these four pivotal questions, as the fate of the Lebanese people hangs in the balance. Otherwise, the presidential election would be nothing more than a mere smokescreen that will certainly enable the Iranian regime’s proxy to thrive and refine its systematic erosion of the State’s infrastructure and the country’s vital sectors. Today, the survival of a pluralistic, liberal, human rights-respecting Lebanon is truly at stake, freed from an entirely regressive societal agenda.
