Tehran and Riyadh compete to elect a new Lebanese president

The stalemate over the choice of Michel Aoun's successor persists. The latest rift over the name of the head of state between (former) allies has taken place between Hezbollah and Cpl. An international forum is needed to wrest Lebanon as far as possible from Iran's orbit. The role of Saudi Arabia in collaboration with France. 

Beirut (AsiaNews) - How long will it take before the Lebanese parliament manages to elect a new head of state, now that the presidential seat has been vacant since October 31? No one can know at the moment. On the eve of the tenth meeting to choose Michel Aoun's successor, scheduled for 15 December, the Assembly remains deeply divided. 

On 8 December, MP Michel Mouawad, a candidate from the camp of the fight against the hegemony exercised by the pro-Iranian Hezbollah on the national scene (Lebanese Forces, Progressive Socialist Party and Independents), obtained 39 votes.

It is a far cry from the 86 needed to be elected in the first round or the 65 votes required from the second round.

Moreover, the systematic boycott of the quorum after the first round of voting means that the electoral process is reduced to a succession of first rounds, preventing a new head of state from being elected with the necessary 65 votes.

On the other side, no better figures were made: 39 deputies, notably the Shiite Amal-Hezbollah tandem, voted blank. The sharp drop in 'white votes', which sometimes exceeded 50 in previous sessions, stems from the fact that Gebran Bassil's Free Patriotic Current (CLP) did not follow instructions this time, due to disagreement with Hezbollah on the name of the future president.

Indeed, the pro-Iranian party seems to have staked its cards on a 'natural' ally, the pro-Syrian MP Sleiman Frangié. However, Bassil criticises this choice, arguing that Frangié's Christian parliamentary representativeness is not comparable to his, not to mention that the agreement concluded by Cpl with Hezbollah in 2006 must be honoured.

This reasoning is seen by many as a form of 'political blackmail': an 'me or no one' similar to that which Hezbollah itself exerts on all Lebanese.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry invited MPs participating in the 15 December presidential election to remain in the hemicycle for a moment of 'dialogue'. However, the Lebanese Forces (FL) that support Michel Mouawad are reticent to join the confrontation, denouncing in particular an 'abuse of democracy that leads to a decline in democracy'.

This is why MP Pierre Abou Assi (Fl) denounced the process aimed at torpedoing the quorum for the election of the head of state, preventing his election in the second round with 66 votes, on the pretext that each deputy has 'the democratic right' to withdraw from the Chamber when he sees fit.

Moreover, Fl chief Samir Geagea refused to respond to Bassil's call for dialogue last week from the Maronite patriarchal see of Bkerké. "For there to be dialogue," replied the Fl chief, who accuses Hezbollah of launching calls for dialogue while refusing any confrontation on the issue of weapons, an instrument of its hegemony, "there must be men of dialogue."

This is also why observers believe that there is indeed a geopolitical dimension to the Lebanese crisis. The election of a new president is in fact part of a process aimed at wresting Lebanon from Iranian hegemony and orbit. And it is on this point that the compromise must be directed, to see a new head of state elected in Lebanon.

This process is part of an international dynamic whose main players are the United States, France, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The latter country is essential for Lebanon's economic rescue, but demands in return that its president not be from the Hezbollah camp. The most prominent and authoritative personality to play the balancing role on the domestic scene at the moment seems to be the army commander-in-chief, General Joseph Aoun.