Recently, American diplomat and expert David Hale commented on the Lebanese situation, stating that the results of the recent parliamentary elections will lead to the paralysis of the state and its institutions. This statement, made by the former assistant to the Secretary of State for Middle Eastern affairs in a report on the "Wilson Center" website, and following his previous tenure as ambassador to Lebanon, indirectly indicates a transitional phase that Lebanon is entering, characterized by uncertainty amid the largest economic disaster the country has faced since its inception.
This unofficial American perspective emerged following increased discussions about Hezbollah's weakened position after it lost the majority of its team in the parliament due to the elections. Contrary to previous assertions by the U.S. administration, this viewpoint suggests that Hezbollah remains capable of "paralyzing the Lebanese state."
This perspective undoubtedly impacts Washington's allies in Lebanon, who raised their demands significantly following the elections, calling for a majority government, despite knowing that this is impossible against the party, which, along with its allies, holds nearly 60 seats in the parliament through a united bloc led by Hezbollah. Additionally, this majority is not monopolized by a single faction opposing the party, underscoring the illusion of unifying the majority against Hezbollah, as this majority is dynamic and will depend on the issues raised in parliament, not solely on positions regarding the party's weaponry.
The paralysis referred to in Hale's comments will inevitably arise during the formation of the government and the subsequent presidential election, leading to a period where the governance will rely on a caretaker government for an indefinite period. This long transitional phase is expected to be followed by a period of stability, coming after the current chaos, which is a significant factor deepening the economic crisis that the country is undergoing amid the potential for political, social, and security shocks.
This bleak outlook for the short and medium term takes on additional meaning in light of the external stagnation and the lack of clarity in the settlements among regional and international players regarding Lebanon. Thus, it resembles the situation the country faced in the late 1980s before stabilization through an American-Syrian settlement sponsored by Saudi Arabia. This settlement was aimed at ending the bloodshed and resulted in constitutional amendments embodied in the Taif Agreement; however, it did not resolve the Lebanese dilemma or the complexities of Lebanese society, which has changed politically, demographically, socially, and economically since that time.
The outcomes of that earlier phase, which marked the end of the civil war, brought clear changes to the structure of the Lebanese system that will differ from the current transformations. Nevertheless, serious discussions are anticipated concerning a parallel dialogue, specifically under external sponsorship, particularly from France, but with American green light and Gulf and Arab (Egyptian) participation, aimed at protecting the Taif Agreement's implementation, as there is no possibility for a new political contract among Lebanese that relies on dramatic constitutional amendments.
This settlement does not seem imminent due to the halting of the American-Iranian nuclear negotiations and the uncertainty regarding Russia's policies in the Middle East intertwined with the prolonged Russian-Ukrainian war. This situation is connected to the understanding between Washington and Tehran, in addition to the outcomes of the Saudi-Iranian dialogue concerning both primary and secondary negotiators involved in significant files. Furthermore, it considers the implications of the American openness towards Riyadh for the first time since President Joe Biden's ascension to power.
In the meantime, France, particularly its re-elected President Emmanuel Macron, is attempting to hold an economic conference with unspecified topics or timing, part of Paris's efforts to sponsor a solution for Lebanon.
For their part, the political forces in Lebanon will be closely observing the changes, while principal agreements on the Lebanese governance can only be reached through a unified package that encompasses the presidency and the succeeding government, along with determining the fate of key issues such as the extraction of Lebanese water resources, which requires an understanding with the Americans. A true breakthrough on such files, including the economy, may only be realized after the end of this paralysis in constitutional institutions.
