Paris is closely following the Lebanese presidential dossier. Just like a number of Lebanese, France hopes that there will be no vacuum and that elections take place on schedule. Saying that France supports a given candidate does not reflect reality, however; the country is keenly following what is going on between Gen, Michel Aoun and Saad Hariri, but without interfering.
However, the dialogue between former Prime Minister Hariri, Gen. Aoun and Minister Gebran Bassil seems like a serious and optimistic decision, and Hariri seems very determined. This dialogue resulted in the formation of the government in February, which would have not been formed had it not been for the dialogue and cooperation between the two parties.
Also, the discussion between these two has led to common positions regarding a public-sector wage hike, public-sector appointments and a number of other issues that would have otherwise been disrupted. Lebanon has gone through nine years of crises as a result of Hezbollah’s obstruction, threats and use of its alliance with the important Christian current in the country, headed by Aoun, to disrupt.
During the last three months, the positive dialogue between Aoun and Hariri has contributed to Hariri’s willingness to reach an understanding on topics and common interests with Aoun. Throughout the past few years and up until the formation of the current government, Hezbollah used its Christian ally Aoun to disrupt, divide and break the March 14 forces in the country.
Aoun had chosen to forge an alliance with the Syrian and Iranian regimes as well as their representative on the ground, Hezbollah. The dialogue between Aoun and Hariri led to important decisions that will be worrisome for a number of players on the Lebanese scene, chief among them Hezbollah. Although the party is aware of what is going on between Hariri, Aoun and Bassil, deep down it is dreading the discussions.
It is true that Aoun has a Christian audience that he can take wherever he wants, but this audience does not like Hezbollah’s participation in the war alongside the Syrian regime as it drags Lebanon into the conflict, which the Lebanese people dread, knowing that they are currently dealing with its consequences. These include the problems of Syrian refugees who have been displaced by the brutal Syrian regime.
In addition, there is no doubt that the dialogue between Hariri and Aoun has also worried and scared Hariri's allies in the Future Movement and the March 14 coalition, as they wonder about the effect of such dialogue on the presidency and whether Aoun would support Hariri for prime minister.
Hariri is fully aware that a vacuum and the lack of elections would be very dangerous for the country. This is what Hezbollah is hoping for as it may restore its disrupting ability, such as its blocking third and ability to carry out events similar to those of May 7, 2008.
Hariri is fully aware that his current dialogue and cooperation with Aoun is useful for both the government and the country and that together they can stop any attempt to get rid of a government, as happened when Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah toppled the previous Hariri government with Aoun’s help.
But will this dialogue lead to support for Aoun as president? There are questions on the table about whether Aoun could confront his ally Hezbollah concerning many points. The fact is that it would be unrealistic to expect Aoun to convince Hezbollah to withdraw from Syria, even if Aoun himself was against the party's participation in the fighting alongside the Syrian regime. It would also be naive for anyone to expect that Aoun or any other Christian leader allied with Hariri would be able to force Hezbollah to hand its weapons to the state under the current regional circumstances. At the present time, this could only take place through an armed confrontation that would lead to an undesirable civil war in Lebanon. The March 14 candidate for the presidency, Samir Geagea, is well aware of this.
So, which Christian presidential candidate will be able to confront the Hezbollah policy? None of the current announced or unannounced candidates. Hezbollah is said to prefer a different candidate to Aoun, as it is unable to control him. However, this may not be the case. It should be noted that the term of Gen. Jean Kahwaji as chief of the army was extended, although Aoun wanted his son-in-law to occupy this position.
There are many points where Hezbollah did not cater to the convenience of its Christian ally. Thus, no Christian presidential candidate will be able to confront Hezbollah, including those deemed strong.
Standing in the face of Hezbollah requires actual regional changes and a strong US presidency that changes Iran's policy in the region, and this is not currently available. But can Aoun commit to not being an ally of Hezbollah through thick and thin in the key domestic issues? Could he commit himself to national positions and disassociate himself from President Assad? Could he address the issue of Hezbollah's weapons in the long term? Could he address the differences calmly as he is currently doing or will he return to his habitually nervous tone?
These are all legitimate questions about his ascension to the presidency, which is no longer impossible. We are two weeks away from May 25, and it is difficult to speculate who will be the president of Lebanon, even though Aoun’s election has become possible.
Local sources closely following the country's policy bet on a vacuum, which would be followed by Aoun’s election. A number of Lebanese leaders and influential countries — such as Saudi Arabia, France and the United States — are aware that a vacuum is the worst outcome for the country, which prompts them to exert extreme efforts to push the parties to reach a settlement and elect a president.
The political class in Lebanon got us used to them ignoring the general interests for the sake of themselves and their ambitions, but there may be little hope for them to be aware of their responsibilities this time and elect a president.
