When political forces in Lebanon are asked about their vision for resolving the presidential vacancy, the response is quick: one must wait for what may come out of the Paris meeting, which was initially a quartet but could become a quintet. Political figures offer their answers, accompanied by the sentiment that one cannot rely too much on this meeting, as there are differences in viewpoints that persist and no formula has been found to present a common vision. Thus, the Lebanese stance is conflicted between those who await external help, despite believing that any outcome will not come quickly and the waiting will be long, and those who seek to shape an internal understanding and reach a settlement that leads the external powers to agree or to capitalize on the distractions of the external parties to pass it internally.
**Conflicting Timelines**
Hezbollah and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri are among those who believe that internal movement is necessary in search of a settlement, as waiting for the outside will take a long time. Both parties confirm this in their meetings, especially since Berri mentioned in recent days that one cannot bet on any external action to resolve the Lebanese crisis, hence the need to seek a settlement among the factions within. Hezbollah echoes this sentiment in its discussions, despite both parties knowing that entering into a settlement requires the presence of supportive regional and international elements.
From this perspective, everyone is waiting for the date of the Paris meeting to be set, particularly since many conflicting dates have been suggested. On another front, the Lebanese are also awaiting the parties that will represent themselves at this meeting, especially as information indicates efforts are focused on Egypt's participation alongside the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. However, diplomatic sources note that differences in opinions and approaches remain, with Lebanese officials sensing a lack of Saudi enthusiasm to directly and in detail engage in the Lebanese file, settling instead for the overarching themes that Saudi Arabia raised some time ago. This sentiment was expressed by Lebanese figures who recently visited Riyadh.
**Saudi Principals and Egyptian Participation**
According to reports, Saudi Arabia does not wish to engage in a detailed manner regarding the Lebanese file but is open to discussions about the crisis and prefers to wait to see what the Lebanese can offer, based on the understanding that the written agreement is reflected in the title of the president to be agreed upon. Diplomatic entities in the West consider this viewpoint remains within the constants of the Saudi stance, contrary to what Paris sought to achieve, which was to engage Saudi Arabia in more detailed involvement. In this context, remarks by a French official regarding efforts to include Egypt in the meeting have emerged. Here, there are two different readings of this matter.
The first reading suggests that Paris prefers Cairo to be a partner in the meeting, as their political interpretation and stance on the Lebanese crisis are closely aligned, and Egypt could influence the Saudi stance to present a lower threshold than the one raised by Riyadh. The second reading posits that Riyadh, following the summit held between the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt a few days ago, during which all regional files were discussed, including the Lebanese file, expressed in a joint statement its consistent position on Lebanon, and now wishes for Cairo to get involved, grounded on the commitments from that joint statement. Thus, Saudi Arabia would gain a position alongside it.
In any case, this indicates that the external parties are not ready to shape a settlement regarding Lebanon, while sources indicate that all parties participating in the meeting will present their vision for the political situation, a mechanism for resolving the ongoing crisis, leading to discussions on names for the presidency and premiership afterward, including ministerial appointments, in relation to searching for pathways to a comprehensive reform plan. This assumes differences in visions and approaches do not lead to a further postponement of the meeting.
