Hezbollah did not wait for the outcomes of the Paris meeting, which is discussing the Lebanese file in an attempt to find a solution to the country's crisis, before statements from some of its officials and MPs emerged rejecting any external imposition of a presidential candidate. According to Hezbollah member and MP Hassan Fadlallah, "If all the countries in the world gathered to impose a name on the Lebanese, they would not be able to do so." This message sets up barriers to any external settlement project, even if it is new and needs follow-up, to prevent it from breaking through the wall of crisis without Tehran's decisive endorsement on this matter.
It is known that information indicates that the countries participating in the quintet meeting will not discuss names but will set specifications for the next president and emphasize the need to expedite the ending of the presidential vacancy, alongside implementing the necessary reforms to confront political crises. All political forces in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, await the outcomes of the Paris meeting attended by France, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, which aims to align positions and formulate a clear political action plan for resolving the crisis.
There appears to be French-Saudi coordination that developed during French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna's visit to Riyadh for an acceptable settlement formula, especially with an elevated level of representation from Washington, which is a significant indicator tied to the political orientations that will characterize the meeting. However, discussions will not be easy due to differing visions among the participating countries; thus, the meeting is expected to yield general principles that form a roadmap for settlement rather than a concrete solution, according to a diplomatic source who believes that resolving the pending Lebanese files requires broader agreements and the crafting of settlements between countries to cover any final solution, whether through pressure or by passing deals in various locations, similar to what occurred after the nuclear agreement in 2015.
Nonetheless, the Paris meeting remains crucial and pivotal in terms of external movements concerning Lebanon; it may be the last meeting under the prevailing international circumstances and potential explosions in multiple regions. The participating countries will await reactions to the outcomes of the meeting, particularly the Iranian stance, to base their directions for the forthcoming phase. According to the source, the political atmosphere linked to the scheduled meeting suggests that the participating countries do not intend to intensify pressures for a swift settlement, as there are parties without direct interests in Lebanon's internal affairs, unlike the situation in 2015 and well before that when political alignments were different.
Therefore, based on the orientations decided at the meeting, Lebanon could face two possibilities: either the internal ability to absorb the meeting's resolutions and forge a settlement, albeit after months, or continue to bleed until a significant collapse or explosion occurs, where Lebanon would no longer be a united state, as its system, format, and structure are debated.
Currently, there does not seem to be a positive internal atmosphere towards the external movement in Paris, despite several initiatives to proceed with a presidential candidate and achieve this pivotal milestone for the Lebanese people to avoid prolonged vacancy. The most prominent of these is from Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, which has not been positively received by Christian factions, alongside Walid Jumblatt's efforts on multiple fronts, centering on proposing Army Commander Joseph Aoun as a consensus candidate for the presidency, as an alternative to the resistance and opposition candidates. However, this initiative has yet to gain support, particularly from Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, which fundamentally opposes both the army commander and resistance candidate Sleiman Frangieh. This indicates a continuous internal cycle of power struggles and attempts to enhance power dynamics.
Thus, many do not expect the international meeting to achieve a significant breakthrough in the crisis or the presidential file, which appears to remain vacant for an extended period amid the inability of internal parties to reach a consensus for a settlement and the ongoing conflict. The primary reason for the absence of a pressing international project to resolve contentious issues stems from the nature of the Paris meeting, which is consultative rather than decisive.
According to the diplomatic source, the lack of external pressure pertains to international priorities that transcend Lebanon but influence its situation, from the Iranian file to the Ukrainian war, and the possibilities of Iranian-Israeli confrontations that could ignite the entire region.
This does not imply a complete international and Arab resignation, as the collapse of Lebanon or any potential civil explosion would scatter its fragments across the region. Thus, France seeks to stir the stagnant situation in Lebanon as what could possibly be the last attempt before the region is swept into confrontation.
Currently, there is no Lebanese responsiveness to the external movement; achieving mutual understanding and providing the groundwork for electing a president and forming a government would require the involvement of several international parties. This is tied to the power balances that will determine the nature of the forthcoming settlement unless conditions spiral into severe risks, such as occurrences that could change realities on the ground if an explosion similar to events preceding the Doha Agreement or what happened in 2005 were to materialize, despite differing circumstances. Notably, Saudi Arabia has lost interest in the Lebanese situation since after 2016, when Michel Aoun was elected president, and it is no longer a pivotal player in the local scene as it was in earlier times.
Thus, the circumstances surrounding the Paris meeting differ from those of the past, both internally and externally; the participating countries recognize that they cannot develop a comprehensive solution plan for the Lebanese situation without an understanding with Iran. If the discussion focuses on a presidential name, it requires creating a Lebanese environment capable of translating international orientations, which is currently impossible given the existing power balances and new tensions in the region.
Data indicates that Hezbollah wants a settlement on its terms, insisting on Sleiman Frangieh's candidacy, and is prepared to pressure for his election if necessary, while also remaining vigilant regarding potential Israeli escalation against Iran. It appears that the party has communicated its steadfastness on Frangieh to the participants in the Paris meeting, rejecting any abandonment of him and opposition to electing Aoun. The head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, Mohammad Raad, clearly stated that the party would not accept a president who "betrays the resistance," while Fadlallah emphasized that they seek a candidate with national specifications, one of which is not to betray the resistance, while also possessing the ability to present rescue programs.
In any case, the Paris meeting remains a pivotal opportunity; however, internally, it seems some are leading the country toward significant collapse and explosion.
