Lebanon ..between the party and the state

The resignation of Sa'ad Alhariri could be just the tip of the iceberg of the real problems facing Lebanon, even after Alhariri reversed his resignation on returning to Beirut few months ago. 

Many observers of the internal Lebanese situation think that this country is about to face big problems because of Hizbullah, the radical party that is controlling the Lebanese political will, and which holds the whole country to ransom. Imagine a country where the shadow army is stronger than the regular army, and where under the very gaze of the government shadow security organisations investigate and assassinate those who stand in the way of their plans. And imagine that the leader of this organization, Hassan Nasrallah, openly announces his loyalty to the Walayat Faqih regime, and regards himself a part of the Iranian expansionist project in the region. 

The astonishing question now turning in the head of every Lebanese is: How can the Lebanese people trust a weak president, a ruler who does not rule? And how can they trust political institutions that are weak and controlled by an armed organization that is totally loyal, to a foreign country?

Samuel Huntington states: "a rule with low institutional power is not only a weak rule, but a bad rule. The job of the ruler is to rule, and weak rule, that lacks authority, fails to do the job. It is immoral, in the same way that a corrupt judge, a cowardly soldier, or an ignorant teacher can be corrupt".

The danger posed by this group is not only local but, since the nineteen eighties, has transformed into an armed wing, a centre for training mercenaries that destabilize neighbouring states, hijack planes, and carry out assassinations that target all countries and personalities standing in the way of the Iranian agenda. 

Besides partaking in regional conflicts and wars, hand in hand with the Iranian regime (e.g. The Iraqi-Iranian war) and since the beginning of what was called the 'Arab Spring', Hizbullah has joined the war on the side of the Syrian regime. It has sent fighters, and military equipment into Syria under the eyes and ears of the Lebanese government who has proclaimed with a faint voice since the start of the war that "The state of Lebanon state will stand neutral". However, neither its government, president nor army have been able to stand up to Hizbullah, because the balance of power on the ground has been in the hand of the party and not in their hands. On this, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger says: "In the Middle East, the Sunni and Shiajihadi movements are tearing up communities and breaking up countries, in search of their world revolutionary view that is based on a radical interpretation of Islam. 

The state itself – as well as the regional order it is built on – is in danger, and is under attack by ideologies that refuse constraints enforced by the state, as these are regarded as illegitimate states in the eyes of terrorist militia, militia that are stronger than the armed forces of the government itself".

Clearly, the scene in Lebanon is as follows: It is a land where political and security institutions have been subjugated to the will of a radical party that is armed, refuses to give up its arms, and doesn’t want to transform into a political party. Its president feels he is captive to this party, a party that he is beholden to for getting him to the presidential chair, and as such, he cannot take any decision, national or Arabian that does not conform to the agenda and interests of this party and the regime it is part of. This party has usurped the decision-making process and sovereignty of the state; it gives military support to all extremist organizations in the region and provides them with training camps, expertise and logistical support as well as media and propaganda platforms, in order to practice its role in Wilayat Faqih.

And so, for Lebanon to find its way towards being a state looking for its sovereignty and freedom, recapturing its political institutions, and regaining its right to free political decisions, there must be an Arab and international stance against organized armed groups in the area, and an end should be put to the interferences in the Arab region in support of terrorism, by Iran, who is now arrogantly talking about its control of political decisions in four Arab capitals. Thus, the international community is expected to stand with resolve against any attempts by Iran to support extremist groups and undermine the stability of the region, the latest attempt being the dangerous step of sending ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, which was carried out by the Houthi militia.

The international community must stand by Lebanon’s prime minister Sa'ad Alhariri in his next mission and rid Lebanon of Iranian hegemony. Additionally, support should be extended to the national and political powers, as well as those personalities that are against Iranian influences and its usurping of Lebanese sovereignty and decision-making at the hands of Hizbullah, and against giving any concessions regarding the right to confiscate weapons outside the jurisdiction of the state. There will not be any semblance of a state, nor any kind of democratic atmosphere under the shadow of weapons that are in the hands of an extremist party that works in accordance with an extremist ideology that pays homage to a reactionary regime in another country. So, the ball is in the court of the Lebanese people and its political and social powers who must choose between living in a sovereign state that has an atmosphere of safety and where there is no authority above the authority of the state; or living under the shadow of the state of Hizbullah, a shadow state filled with fear, isolation and political and social frustration.

 **

Dr. Naif Alhadari is a Saudi writer, researcher and media advisor. He has worked for several prominent Saudi media outlets.