The article states that Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has confirmed that any attack on Lebanese soil will result in swift and decisive retaliation, regardless of the nationality of the target. Nasrallah also supports the candidacy of Suleiman Franjieh for the presidency, despite significant opposition. The article questions Nasrallah’s approach to dialogue, claiming that it is merely a way to shift responsibility for the country’s problems onto others. The article suggests that presidential elections are the best way to enact change, and that Hezbollah’s involvement in economic discussions is not helpful since they don’t have a solution. The article also argues that Hezbollah wants to control the presidency to preempt the results of the Saudi-Iranian agreement. Finally, the article notes that there is significant disagreement among Christians about who should become president, and that Hezbollah’s reluctance to compromise is the main obstacle to progress.
Raquel Ateeq wrote in “Nidaa Al-Watan”:
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah confirmed, in his last appearance, that “any attack on any person present on Lebanese soil, whether he is Lebanese, Palestinian or of another nationality… We will respond decisively and swiftly.” This response, with the devastation it will bring to Lebanon, is a settled matter for Nasrallah and does not require any discussion or dialogue, and does not even require a decision from the Lebanese government. Likewise, “Hezbollah” decided with the “Amal” movement that the head of the “Marada” movement, Suleiman Franjieh, is a “consensual” candidate for the presidency. The almost comprehensive Christian opposition to Franjieh’s election, and the rejection of influential external forces for any candidate from the “opposition” axis, are unimportant to “Hezbollah”, and he wants a presidential dialogue to persuade others to “agree” on Franjieh, that is, to reach a settlement that brings his candidate as president in return for “gains.” And other “positions” for the opposition. As for the dialogue on another presidential name, the “party” will not engage it now.
And while the achievement of the presidential election is the main entry point for reshaping the executive authority, curbing the political price of the lira, and carrying out the required reforms to get out of the collapse, Nasrallah calls on the political forces to a dialogue table for economic rescue. This means, according to opposition political parties, that Nasrallah is persevering in adopting the logic of defiance and blackmailing other parties, as if he is saying that the presidential vacuum will last until you are convinced of Franjieh or the conditions for his election are available. And an investment of time, he calls for or encourages dialogues, the latest of which is the economic dialogue, bearing in mind that this dialogue does not change the reality of the collapse in the absence of a president of the republic and an authentic government.
Therefore, opposition parties consider that there is a political team that wants to run the state in its own way without going back to the constitution. And she asks: “Why does Nasrallah not call for a dialogue about responding to any attack? With what right? And who ordered him to respond? And she believes that Nasrallah considers that “this is a divine mission assigned to him, and it is not subject to discussion, and he is the only reference for making a decision in it. On the other hand, the files that he does not take possession of by force of arms, instead of applying the constitution to solve them by going to presidential elections in successive sessions, he wants a dialogue about them, because he decided that they are decided by dialogue, while it is known how the dialogue sessions begin and how they end, as the point of view of each well-known team. It wants a president who protects the back of the resistance, while the other team wants a reformist, sovereign president.”
Thus, Nasrallah knows that the dialogue will not bear any fruit, and he aims, according to the opposition parties themselves, to throw the responsibility for the vacancy at the dialogue table and to remove the responsibility from the Speaker of Parliament and the deputies who obstruct the convening of successive election sessions. At the same time, the “party” takes political legitimacy from the dialogue table, in that it sits with the other forces and searches for a solution, which gives it clearance at this level, while it is realistic that it obstructs the solution.
What applies to the presidential dialogue also applies to the economic dialogue, according to the sources. Hezbollah does not have an economic solution, but rather it is the cause of the economic crisis that is not resolved through dialogue, but rather through presidential elections that restore institutional order and open the door to reform steps in the context of a constitutional and institutional path that leads to Stability and then brake the collapse successively and gradually. Note that the former President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, called for an economic dialogue table, on September 2, 2019. However, this dialogue, despite the existence of a president and clear indications of collapse, did not lead to any results. At the time, the head of the “Lebanese Forces” party, Samir Geagea, proposed the formation of governments, and the political forces have no influence in naming their ministers, as there are no economic solutions in light of the current composition and the same pattern of forming governments, according to the “forces”.
In addition, informed parties believe that “Hezbollah” wants to preempt the results of the Saudi-Iranian agreement by placing its hand on the presidency of the republic, because it considers that the time today is in its favor, while it may not be in its favor tomorrow if the provisions of the Beijing agreement are implemented. Therefore, he wants to preempt this agreement by delivering a reluctant president who guarantees him, in the event that he is forced to make concessions, to back down in light of a president who cannot change his political position due to any actual change in the balance of power.
In parallel, the “Shia duo”, specifically Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, focuses on the fact that the presidential complex is Maronite, trying to exploit the Christian-Christian disagreement on a name, while it overrides the will of the Christians and their “agreement” to reject Franjieh. Opposition parties ask: If the Christians agreed to nominate the head of the “Lebanese Forces” party, Samir Geagea, or the head of the “Free Patriotic Movement,” Representative Gebran Bassil, would Berri accept either of them?
This blackmail and innuendo from the channel of Geagea and Basil’s disagreement does not lure the “forces” into making an agreement “whatever it is with the” movement. The “forces” sources confirm that there is no possibility of such a dialogue, because what applies to the national dialogue also applies to the Christian dialogue. And she says, “We are divided, Christianly as well as nationally, between two major political projects. And the meeting cannot take place in light of a different approach to the way the state is run, and it is not possible to combine what we want with what the other party wants. In addition to the fact that “Hezbollah” abandoned Bassil, and it was not the last to change its options and approaches. And he stresses that the obstructionist is clear, no matter how hard they try to “invent” other obstructive arguments. “The reluctance team, with its Christian and Islamic branches, wants a presidency that keeps Lebanon tied to the axis of reluctance, and prevents the arrival of a president except for the one he wants.”
In conclusion, Hezbollah’s tactics and actions remain a cause for concern among opposition parties in Lebanon. The party’s insistence on pushing for its preferred presidential candidate and economic solutions through dialogue, rather than the constitutional and institutional paths, only exacerbates the current crisis. The opposition sees Hezbollah’s dialogue as a way to deflect responsibility for the political vacuum and economic collapse from the party itself. While the idea of bringing all parties to the table for dialogue is commendable, it cannot replace the need for institutional order and adherence to the constitution. Until there is agreement on these fundamental principles, the dialogue can only be a temporary fix that will not lead to lasting solutions for Lebanon’s problems.