Listen to the article
The Lebanese presidential election is currently deadlocked. According to diplomatic circles, it might also be postponed until after the US elections scheduled for November 2024 mainly due to a lack of consensus. Moreover, in Washington’s view, the importance of the Lebanese issue has waned, as its sphere of influence has diminished, owing to its alignment with the Iranian axis under Hezbollah’s sway.
Similarly, an Arab politician believes that the Lebanese presidential election won’t take place in the near future unless a major security event unfolds in the region. He advocates elevating this issue to a national existential concern that necessitates both regional and international involvement.
However, these aforementioned shared impressions among diplomatic sources and the Arab political leader preceded the commencement of the Gaza war. Nonetheless, ongoing developments between Israel and the Hamas movement raise concerns about a potential escalation in South Lebanon. In the event of an unprecedented escalation, Hezbollah could become an active participant, putting into practice the revered concept of the “unity of fronts” advocated by the Pasdaran. This would inevitably provoke a direct response on the part of Israel, targeting Hezbollah’s positions and installations along the border. These developments could have major consequences for Lebanon, further worsening the political situation, especially in the context of the presidential election.
In light of this exceptionally explosive scenario, Western powers have conveyed diplomatic warnings to Hezbollah, highlighting the potential risks associated with its involvement in this war while reiterating Israel’s threat of a devastating retaliation against Lebanon.
Given the rapidly unfolding developments in the region, some observers speculate that the ongoing war might, in fact, accelerate the election of Lebanon’s president. This is largely due to the US Administration’s unwavering commitment to preserving stability within the Lebanese arena.
In this context, a sovereigntist leader has revealed that the American stance concerning the attack on the US embassy in Awkar signals the Biden administration’s intention to avert any kind of escalation and uphold regional stability in the lead-up to the US elections to prevent any negative impact on the presidential campaign. Additionally, Ambassador Dorothy Shea’s endorsement of the Lebanese Ministry of Interior’s narrative (which has suggested the notion of a single isolated incident) asserts Washington is seeking appeasement, even though some American circles have implicated Iran in the attack.
Consequently, following this incident, Shea has remained composed and reassured that embassy staff will continue working normally.
Iran, while recognizing the stance of the Biden administration and its desire to safeguard regional stability, appears to be skillfully leveraging this opportunity to intensify tensions through its armed proxies in the region. The “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, perpetrated by Hamas against Israel, although significant in its own right, aligns with this broader strategy.
Returning to the presidential issue, the Shiite tandem composed of Amal and Hezbollah firmly backs its candidate, Sleiman Frangieh. It calls for a dialogue with the opposition “to reach a consensus supporting their protégé.” Conversely, the opposition categorically rejects any dialogue and insists on electing a president in strict accordance with the Constitution. Moreover, it is open to exploring a third option, thereby opposing the position of the Shiite duo.
According to well-informed Arab sources, the US and Saudi Arabia, although interested in Lebanon, refrain from interfering in the details of the presidential election and view this as the responsibility of Lebanese political forces. Nonetheless, they wish to see the future president align with the criteria agreed upon by the Group of Five, consisting of France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and the US. Meanwhile, they express their support for the French initiative and the mission of the French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian, as well as for Qatar’s effort aimed at promoting a third option.
Given this reality, observers believe that the current situation benefits all parties. According to these experts, the obstructionist axis appears to lack enthusiasm for electing a president of the republic, as it accuses the opposition of halting the electoral process by promoting a US-backed project primarily targeting Hezbollah. Simultaneously, the sovereigntists perceive Hezbollah’s positions as part of a plan to “dismantle the State” and rebuild it according to its project and the goals of its regional godfather.
In this context, France’s mediation and salvation role in Lebanon has encountered a unified Shiite stance under the auspices of Hezbollah. In contrast, the sovereigntist, reformist and opposition forces remain fragmented despite attempts to harmonize their positions, particularly concerning the presidential issue.
According to sources closely connected to the Lebanese Forces (LF), around 20 MPs have yet to make a definitive decision, as they remain unaligned with the opposition. If this situation changes, a president might be elected, thwarting Hezbollah’s efforts to impose its candidate. The spotlight is currently on the return of Le Drian to Lebanon.
