“Lebanon Debate”
Political and field tensions are escalating in Lebanon, and a growing political clash is coming to the fore between decision-making centers, reflecting a shift in the nature of internal relations and the boundaries of existing understandings. This tension is no longer confined to traditional differences, but rather is taking on a clearer and more united character, driven by developments in the south and the complexities of the regional scene.
In this context, the writer and political analyst Ibrahim Bayram presents a reading that considers that what is happening today is not surprising, but rather the result of a long path of accumulations, as field and political realities imposed a redrawing of the lines of internal conflict, and pushed towards the fall of the “gray areas” that governed the relationship between the pillars of power.
In an interview with Lebanon Debate, Bayram believes that what is happening today “was inevitable,” and should have happened a long time ago. He explains that what is meant by this “clash” is in itself a natural and late development in the course of the political relationship.
He explains that the presidency was seeking in previous stages to contain the fact that President Nabih Berri was not in a completely supportive position, but rather was dealing with him as a party with whom one could reach an agreement or neutralize, and in the beginning, his position on the issue of direct negotiations was characterized by a degree of flexibility and non-escalation.
But Bayram believes that the accumulation of developments on the ground, especially in the south, and the accompanying Israeli bombing and destruction of villages, has made it no longer possible for President Berri to continue managing the scene in the previous manner or to remain in the gray zone in his positions, as the facts imposed a move to greater clarity in the alignments, such that space no longer allows for neutrality or ambiguous positions.
Bayram adds that in the previous stage, the President of the Republic was trying to suggest that Speaker Berri was not in a position of direct confrontation, or that he was closer to the logic of understanding. However, this minimum description no longer exists today, which has led to a kind of divergence or “mutual denial” in political discourse, especially with regard to the issue of direct and indirect negotiations.
It is considered that this clash should have occurred earlier, as President Berri initially tried to accommodate the President of the Republic and build a positive relationship with him, which he reflected in previous positions in which he spoke of reassurance in President Aoun’s presence in Baabda, which provided him with political support at the time.
However, according to Bayram, the subsequent stage witnessed attempts to exploit this reality politically, which was reflected in the level of complexity in the internal scene. Bayram does not hide that the position of the President of the Republic is in a difficult situation today, in light of the impossibility of managing highly contradictory internal balances in this way.
However, he senses a kind of similarity between the two stages and says, “The President of the Republic seems to be trying to draw inspiration from or repeat the experience of President Amin Gemayel in the 1980s, when he faced internal clashes and great military and political pressures that preceded May 17, and President Berri at that time was one of the most prominent defenders with the head of the Progressive Socialist Party and the left in confronting the agreement until it was brought down.
He believes that circumstances today are different, but there is a reliance on external support, especially from the United States, in an attempt to stabilize the political position, similar to what was previously raised about American support.
In this context, Bayram raises a question about what America can give to President Aoun, and its ability to play an effective role in curbing the Israeli escalation towards Lebanon, considering that this matter is still unresolved in light of the current developments.
As for the possibility of escalation or containment of the dispute, he confirms that what we are witnessing is not a momentary development, but rather the result of long accumulations, pointing out that some parties have benefited politically from President Berri’s position or used him as a cover at certain stages, but today he is bearing heavy burdens in light of the ongoing escalation in the south and the large number of casualties to the point that he can no longer cope at the expense of blood.
On the other hand, he stresses that international support, especially American support, has not yet provided tangible results or clear solutions, which leaves the scene open to more complexity.
Bayram concludes by saying that the situation of the President of the Republic is not easy, but he will continue on this path, and there is no possibility for him to go back or make a radical change in the equation in the near term, as things trend towards more involvement in the path of negotiation and dealing with the existing realities, under mounting internal and regional pressure.
