Listen to the article
The tug-of-war lasted until the very end. Driven by the sovereignist faction’s MPs — widely branded as the “opposition” — the Lebanese witnessed a cleverly orchestrated political drama. This culminated on Friday in a crucial parliamentary vote in favor of a proposed law deferring the retirement of active generals and division generals by one year. It is glaringly obvious that the central focus was undoubtedly to ensure that General Joseph Aoun kept his position at the helm of the army command.
The importance of this vote lies on a dual level: the strikingly responsible approach taken by the sovereignist parties in steering parliamentary dynamics towards the intended goal, and the strategic implications tied to the pivotal role the military is expected to assume in the upcoming phase, aiming for a firm reinstatement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
Strategically, the delay in General Joseph Aoun’s retirement holds paramount importance in the current context, amid the war of attrition instigated in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah and its fundamentalist Palestinian allies, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. This attrition warfare directly undermines the mission of UNIFIL. The ongoing military escalation in the Blue Helmets’ operational zone, ongoing daily since the October 7 attack in Gaza, cannot persist without posing severe risks to the entire region. Several reliable sources indicate the international community’s firm resolve to ensure the strict enforcement of the provisions of Resolution 1701, whether by consent or by force.
In diplomatic circles, discussions are underway regarding an imminent geopolitical arrangement, spearheaded by the United States. This arrangement foresees the withdrawal of Hezbollah and its allied groups north of the Litani River as a crucial step towards bringing stability to southern Lebanon. If this plan is approved and does materialize, the Army will assume a pivotal role alongside the UN force. Therefore, the need for a credible, experienced, and internationally respected army commander becomes even more crucial.
In a bid to stabilize the UNIFIL zone, Hezbollah would have undoubtedly chosen to have a more ‘compliant’ general as commander of the troops to ensure better control over operations in southern Lebanon. Strong backing from the pro-Iranian party in the comprehensive campaign led by Gebran Bassil, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, against General Joseph Aoun was somehow expected. However, Hezbollah did not choose this path, indicating that its room for maneuver in this matter was limited. The Shiite party had no other option but to accept — maybe reluctantly — the extension of Joseph Aoun’s mandate. This explains why it refrained from exerting its full influence to prevent the vote on Friday. Still, it expressed strong reservations, if not outright opposition, instructing its MPs to withdraw from the parliamentary session during the (brief) debate on the extension of Aoun’s mandate and that of other generals.
This development is seen as an early indication of the potential package that could take shape in the context of southern Lebanon, whether in the near or distant future. To grasp this, one only needs to untangle the political maneuvers that unfolded on the parliamentary stage in recent days. Primarily, while Hezbollah withdrew during the vote without sabotaging the session, it is notable that the Amal movement bloc, led by Nabih Berri, played a role in securing the vote required by the international community. This support also came from both Bkerkeh and the sovereignist camp, which unequivocally emerged as the clear winner in this power struggle, with the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement being the major loser.
It’s important to mention that this outcome wouldn’t have been possible without the effective collaboration of the opposition groups and their allies. For once, a skillfully orchestrated cooperation unfolded among the Lebanese Forces (the main driving force of the plan), the Progressive Socialist Party, the Kataeb, the Renewal bloc (Michel Moawad, Ashraf Rifi, and Fouad Makhzoumi), and the National Moderation bloc (including former MPs and allies of the Hariri camp from North Lebanon). They successfully harmonized their efforts to secure the long-awaited vote.
Another noteworthy development worth acknowledging in favor of the major Christian parties is their astute reliance on the principle of national interest. The Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb, and other independent MPs, including Michel Moawad, rightly set aside their steadfast refusal to participate in any legislative session as long as the presidency remains vacant. The strategic stakes were, in fact, greater than communal considerations, no matter how legitimate. Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri evidently leveraged this responsible behavior of the sovereignist camp to secure the vote on several pieces of legislation before addressing the case of the generals. Playing along, the Lebanese Forces MPs, however, were consistent in their approach by abstaining from participating in the debate and voting on the agenda items, except for the one directly related to the army commander.
The die is cast, and the focus now shifts to the imperative task of bringing stability to the UNIFIL zone. Urgency is of the essence in this mission to shield the Lebanese population from once again bearing the brunt of a regional conflict that promises little and only foresees futility for the Country of the Cedar.
