Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Leonid Tsukanov
[REGNUM] After several years of political vacuum, Lebanon's parliament has elected a new president. The post was taken by former Lebanese army commander Joseph Aoun. He replaced his namesake, General Michel Aoun, who left the post in October 2022.
“Aoun the Second,” as some regional publications jokingly call him, is considered a creature of Washington and a “living instrument” with which the White House plans to unravel the protracted crisis in the Middle East.
ATTEMPT NUMBER 13
For more than two years, Lebanon has been in a state of crisis, both economic and political. Since General Aoun's retirement, members of the Lebanese parliament have met more than a dozen times to approve a successor, but behind-the-scenes disagreements have prevented the government vacuum from being overcome each time.
Some complications were added by the fact that, according to the National Pact adopted in 1943, the president is elected from among the Maronite Christians. The position of prime minister is invariably occupied by a Sunni, and the speaker of parliament by a Shiite.
This is done in order to balance Lebanon's motley ethno-confessional palette and keep the country from sliding into another period of fragmentation. Although Muslims have served as president at least five times since the pact was adopted, no one has dared to completely upset the balance of power.
By February 2023, the "final list" of candidates for the presidential post had been formed. In addition to Commander-in-Chief Aoun, it included the director of the International Monetary Fund's branch in the Middle East and Central Asia, Jihad Azour, and former MP Salah Hannin.
However, Aoun quickly became the unofficial leader, especially after his candidacy was publicly supported by the heavyweight of Lebanese politics, the leader of the Christian center-right Marada party, Suleiman Frangieh. By giving up his presidential aspirations in favor of Aoun, he gave him a serious advantage in the race.
At the same time, Aoun, even being the only real candidate for the presidential seat and the absolute leader of the "final list", was able to win only on the second attempt. In the first round, he collected only 71 parliamentary votes out of the 86 required. The remaining parliamentarians either submitted blank ballots (which symbolizes a public expression of no confidence in the candidate) or spoiled them.
Only the thirteenth session put an end to the protracted presidential race, but this did not reduce the political differences.
A FRAGILE BALANCE OF INTERESTS
Since Aoun is considered a Western-oriented figure, his appointment to the presidency is expectedly not to the liking of pro-Iranian forces. The Shiite parties Hezbollah and Amal demonstratively submitted blank ballots, thus emphasizing their contempt for the “pro-American figure.”
The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), led by Aoun the First (Michel Aoun), acted in a similar manner. However, in the case of the FPM, the hostility towards the commander-in-chief is connected with his excessive focus on cooperation with Saudi Arabia. The Lebanese, not without reason, consider the Saudis their regional competitors and are suspicious of Riyadh's "excessive involvement" in the country's affairs. In this sense, the FPM and the Shiite parties acted as tactical allies.
However, Washington managed to overcome the resistance of Aoun's opponents rather quickly. Especially since big stakes were placed on the figure of the commander-in-chief.
The US hopes to use Aoun’s hands not only to weaken Iran’s influence in a single Arab country, but also to push Lebanon toward a gradual “détente” with Israel according to a scenario that is advantageous to Washington; to try to drive a wedge into the weakened “Axis of Resistance.”
Considering that Aoun bases his rhetoric on the theses “Lebanon is for the Lebanese” and “the army is the country’s support,” ending the confrontation with Tel Aviv could well be presented as a contribution to national security and a step toward fully normalizing relations. Even considering that Lebanon’s status as a “hostile state” is enshrined in Israeli law.
In a sense, the new Lebanese president may repeat the trajectory of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who was the first to decide to normalize relations with the Jewish state, even against public opinion. In exchange for such steps, Washington is ready to multiply investments in Lebanese state institutions and the economy.
Aoun's appearance on the political map of Lebanon is partly to Israel's advantage.
Moreover, the former commander-in-chief had previously, willy-nilly, played along with Tel Aviv by slowing down the deployment of government troops in the south of the country during the escalation between Hezbollah and Israel. Israeli forces, in turn, took advantage of Beirut's delay and strengthened their positions, which subsequently forced Hezbollah units to retreat deeper into Lebanese territory.
Now Aoun is ready to move forward and seek the disarmament of Shiite militias. In his first statement, he hinted at an intention to seek “the exclusive right of the state to bear arms,” indicating a desire to limit the military activity of Hezbollah and its allies.
The ambitious plans of the former commander-in-chief have already met with the support of high-ranking Israeli officials, in particular, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar.
On the other hand, given the strong polarization of Lebanese society, Aoun's initiatives could have the opposite effect. Limiting the freedom of action of Shiite forces, coupled with rapprochement with Israel and the United States, could provoke a deepening of the domestic political crisis, which would push forces "offended" by the results of the last elections to change the balance of power in their favor.
|
