CNN
—
On Thursday, it was a last-minute attack by Saudi Arabia that sealed Lebanon’s fate.
There were less than 24 hours left until Congress would choose the next president. However, Lebanon’s checkered political landscape was in complete turmoil.
The sectarian political elite appeared to be back at square one. Lebanon’s president comes to power mostly by political consensus, but there were still at least six candidates. The debate became heated and Army Chief Joseph Aoun was removed from office by many politicians who claimed that he was constitutionally unqualified to serve as president due to his military post.
Congress appeared to be headed for failure to elect a president for the 13th time in more than two years.
Later, a Saudi delegation led by Saudi envoy Prince Yazid bin Farhan entered Beirut for the second time in a week. It held intensive meetings with various political parties. By the time they left, there was only one candidate, Aoun, who was backed by the United States.
Ninety-nine members voted for Aoun, exceeding the required two-thirds majority in parliament. Most of the remaining 29 votes were blank or disqualified (one member voted for “Bernie Sanders”).
Within minutes, Aoun had exchanged his military uniform for a suit and tie and arrived at parliament. He took the oath and delivered a stunning, apparently well-rehearsed speech, ushering in a “new era” for Lebanon and pledging a monopoly on arms under state aegis. In other words, Hezbollah, one of the world’s most heavily armed extremist organizations for much of the past four decades, was scheduled to be disarmed.
Joy filled the streets. The presidential vacuum had been filled. The years-long stalemate among confessional elites has broken down, at least for the time being.
But it was a development that raised bigger questions. Why did Saudi Arabia spend so much diplomatic money to end nearly eight years of disengagement with Lebanon, which it ignored as “losing” to Hezbollah’s control of Iran, and to install a president?
Another factor that led to Aoun’s rise to power is also important. That’s because Hezbollah and its ally Amal Party voted for him.
It was a highly choreographed event. Hezbollah and Amal, known as the Shiite duo, cast blank votes in the first round and were unable to elect a president. During the two-hour break, the heads of each parliamentary bloc met with Aoun, but details are unclear. After returning to parliament, they voted for Aoun, breaking the deadlock and paving the way for the presidency.
The message was clear. Hezbollah may have been significantly weakened by its fall war with Israel and the recent ouster of its main ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but there is still no chance that the standoff will last or end. be.
But why did they vote for a president who was required to disarm?
It is unclear what happened during the talks, which saw overwhelming Saudi support for Aoun. However, it was an all-out effort carried out in parallel with diplomatic negotiations by the Western powers. Jean-Yves Le Drian, France’s special envoy to Lebanon, also met with Hezbollah members.
France is one of the few Western countries that does not have a major terrorism designation for Hezbollah and maintains diplomatic channels with the extremist group’s political wing. This is one of the only remaining links between the West and the Iranian-backed group.
Earlier this week, Amos Hochstein, the US special envoy to Lebanon, also played a role in boosting Aoun’s chances with a series of meetings.
None of this was lost on Lebanese parliamentarians. “We are not here to elect a president,” independent lawmaker Jamil El-Sayed told local TV station Al-Jadeed from parliament on Tuesday. “We’re here to approve the president’s appointments.”
In comments before the vote, opposition lawmaker Halime El Kakour pointed to the upper gallery where foreign dignitaries, including the ambassadors of the United States, France, Egypt and Iran, sit. “No one should impose their will on us, be it Iranian, Syrian or American leadership. We should not replace one (external) guardianship system with another,” she said.
“I respect the ambassadors who are here, but no one should interfere in our internal affairs,” she continued. “We support international cooperation…but no one should interfere with our sovereignty.”
Aoun’s predecessor was Hezbollah-backed former president Michel Aoun (the two are not related). His term, which ended more than two years ago, is widely seen as a period of Iranian domination in Lebanon, with Hezbollah’s political power increasing to an unprecedented extent. The change in external support between the two presidents is a seismic shift for this country.
But Hezbollah appears to be approaching this moment with quiet, mysterious resignation. In remarks to reporters after Aoun’s election, Hezbollah parliamentary bloc leader Mohammad Ra’ad said he voted for Aoun to promote “national understanding.”
They withheld their vote in the first round because they wanted to “send a message that we are the guardians of sovereignty,” he added vaguely.
Strategic ambiguity may be the best card to have at this pivotal moment. The extremist group suffered a series of body blows during its two-month war with Israel in the fall, including the killing of longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah. The ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, who had opened territory to the group’s supply lines with Iran, severely limited the country’s ability to rearm.
The group has also withdrawn its fighters from southern Lebanon, which has been Lebanon’s power base for 40 years and is the main battleground against Israel, which occupied the region from 1978 to 2000 and continues to be considered an enemy by Lebanon. I also agreed to do it.
However, disarmament is far from complete. Hezbollah is still believed to have medium- and long-range missiles and continues to command a broad Shiite support base. This means that negotiations over arms are likely to be protracted, undoubtedly involving outside forces.
It is also a test of nearly two years of close relations between Riyadh and Tehran. Domestically, Lebanon’s new president will have to oversee the process while preventing the outbreak of civil war, but he has vowed to stop the country’s factions from trying to “destroy each other’s views.” He hinted at this in his acceptance speech.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces are still active in some areas of southern Lebanon. The Israeli government has threatened to keep troops in the country beyond the end of this month, set by the U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended the war in late November.
Mr. Aoun promised to force a withdrawal, but said the responsibility lies solely with the state.
These are uncharted waters for the small, troubled country in the eastern Mediterranean. But for many here, there is reason for optimism.
“Lebanon finally has a president who provides both humanitarian leadership and national legitimacy to the Lebanese people and the international community,” said columnist, philanthropist and founder of the social investment platform Zovigian Partnership. said Lynn Zovigian.
“The time has come for leadership, constitutional order, a strengthened nation and humanization so that we can finally achieve socio-economic prosperity, justice and accountability,” Zobigian told CNN.
