Lebanon Debate – Political Editor
Only a few days had passed since the signing of the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, until the internal arena was put on a “knife edge,” even at the political and verbal level, after the movement of the Shiite duo in the street receded. Attention was no longer focused on the terms of the agreement as much as it turned to the repercussions that it began to draw within the political scene.
The event, with its security, political and regional dimensions, opened the door to rereading the balance of power and alliances, and re-posed fundamental questions about the future of the relationship between decision-making centers and the main political forces. It also placed Lebanon before a new phase entitled the repositioning of local players in the wake of regional and international settlements.
With the direct American sponsorship, which was evident in Beirut over the past two days, and the intensification of the internal confrontation over American mediation, it does not seem possible to reduce the agreement to a technical or security station only, but rather, according to the description of an independent Christian MP, it constitutes a turning point and a political turning point that will have direct repercussions on the relationship between the Shiite duo on the one hand, and the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, on the other hand.
The independent Christian representative confirmed to “Lebanon Debate” that the discrepancy emerged less than a week after the Washington agreement, explaining that the first hours following the signing were sufficient to show a clear difference in the approach to managing the conflict with Israel, and the limits of moving from the logic of open confrontation to the logic of establishing stability within international and regional understandings.
This reality, according to MP Mustaq’s reading, reflects a political and popular division over the interpretation of the agreement and its dimensions. There are those who consider it a necessary step to protect Lebanon, restore stability, and open the door to a new economic phase, while others see it as the beginning of a path that may impose new political and security realities on the internal arena.
The division is no longer limited to reading the terms of the agreement, but rather extends to the outlook for Lebanon’s political and security future, and the state’s role in managing sovereign files, which was clearly reflected in the internal debate and in the positions of the various political forces.
Despite the escalation of talk about restructuring internal alliances, the independent MP believes that it is still premature to assert the birth of new alignments or a different political map, as the scene is still in a testing phase, as some political forces are trying to maintain a wide margin of maneuver, while keeping their doors open to various possibilities, waiting for the picture of the grand regional settlement, the features of which have begun to take shape, to become clear.
On the other hand, the data available to the representative himself indicate that two political axes have crystallized more clearly than before. The first is represented by the Shiite duo, which is still relying on its regional depth represented by Iran, and clinging to its strategic options in approaching the issues of sovereignty and security and the relationship with Israel, while seeking to maintain its influential position in the internal equation.
As for the second axis, it is represented by the political intersection between the Presidents of the Republic and the government, supported by political and parliamentary forces that believe that this stage requires strengthening the role of the state and its institutions, and engaging in a path that enjoys the support of the United States and the international community, especially European countries, along with a number of Arab countries, most notably the Gulf countries.
However, reducing the scene to a confrontation between two axes only may not be entirely accurate, as the independent representative acknowledges that it is still premature to rely on the birth of new alliances from now on. He adds that, despite some parties trying to seize the opportunity and play on more than one rope, in anticipation of achieving political gains from here or there, many political forces are still avoiding the final position, realizing that the entire region is experiencing a stage of redrawing balances, and that the final settlement has not yet matured, even though its general trends have become clearer.
Therefore, the current stage seems closer to a transitional stage than to the birth of a new map of alliances, which the representative attributes to the tendency of most political forces, especially the Shiite duo, to closely monitor regional and international developments, to recalculate their calculations according to what the negotiations and understandings that go beyond the Lebanese borders will lead to, or even if they falter, which is a possibility that indications of talk about have begun to increase, despite the US-Iranian negotiation session being held in Doha today.
What remains constant, according to the independent Christian MP, is that the impact of the framework agreement was not limited to the security aspect, but rather it launched a new political dynamic that will be reflected in the form of authority, the decision-making mechanism, the future of the relationship between the state and the political forces, and perhaps on the nature of Lebanese political life in the coming years.
Until then, the MP himself expects that the internal alliances will remain flexible and subject to change, awaiting the completion of the grand settlement picture that will, to a large extent, shape Lebanon’s political features in the next stage.
