Two days have passed since Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, and everything is still all quiet on the Middle Eastern front. The Western-backed March 14 coalition retained a majority in Lebanon’s 128 seat parliament. Both Hizballah and its Shia ally Amal had strong showings in their districts, but it was not enough to put its March 8 block into the majority.
Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah took the defeat graciously stating that “We accept these results … with sportsmanship and in a democratic way and we accept that the ruling camp has achieved the parliamentary majority.”
This may have actually been the outcome that Hizballah was looking for, or at least is one that it can accept. In the areas it controls, Hizballah had clean sweeps and solid margins, which they are interpreting as a mandate for continuing its agenda of social programs to aid the Lebanese Shia, as well as its resistance to Israel.
If Hizballah’s block came out of this with control of parliament, it would have had a lot harder time justifying its retention of weapons. If they were leading a government, Hizballah would have had to “grow up”, and that is something they may not be capable of at this point.
The way things stand today, Hizballah’s position is very strong in the government and their political base is solidified, yet they still retain the the faux aura of an underdog leading a resistance. Had their block succeeded in taking a parliamentary majority, the calls for Hizballah to disarm would have been vocal and numerous, from inside Lebanon, but also from the West and from Israel.
The West, particularly the United States, must be pleased with this result. The Obama administration is going full steam ahead with its plan for peace in the Middle East. A Hizballah win would have forced a showdown with the group, which could have been a potential monkey wrench in Obama’s plan for the region.
For the United States, the “good guys” still control Lebanon, a country it views as a strategic ally. Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton would not have been dispatched to Lebanon in the month before the election if this were not the case. Obama has been negotiating detentes with Syria and Iran, and a Hizballah victory on Sunday would have complicated things for him.
Two years ago, when the rhetoric between the US and Iran was much more threatening in tone, this election would have been very different and the stakes would have been a lot higher. However, a thaw in the relations between Tehran and Washington took some of the tension out of the Sunday’s polls and allowed the event to be more about Lebanon than it otherwise would have been.
Lebanon itself is also a winner in this. Even though March 14 won at the polls, it is unlikely they will try to disarm Hizballah or dismantle its communications infrastructure again. Short of this, Hizballah and its leaders should be content with the results and the status quo for the time being.
Also, it looks like all parties that were apprehensive about Lebanon can exhale. Summer tourists, who are such a boon the the Lebanese economy, will soon be arriving for the summer tourist season. Investors worried about pouring money into a Hizballah-led country can re-evaluate their strategies there. This affirmation of stability will be especially felt in the Beirut’s banks. And the United States, which has given over a billion dollars in aid to Lebanon since 2006 can remain steady as Lebanon’s largest provider of aid, mostly military. All these things would have been in question with a March 8 win.
This is not to say that a March 8 win would have led to the ruin of Lebanon. Hizballah would have led the majority in parliament, but they alone would not be the majority. They still would have had to work together with Amal and the Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement to get things done. The Prime Minister would still be a Sunni and the President would still be a Maronite Christian. It’s just that a March 8 victory would have complicated things both internally and externally, and would have created more questions than it answered.
With a March 14 win, the US is happy that its friends in Lebanon are still in charge. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf states are happy because a Hizballah win would have meant a substantial increase in Iranian influence in the region. Hizballah should also be happy because they have come out of this strong in their power base, but not so strong that they will forced to behave as leaders of a country. They can keep doing what their doing.
Israel is the tough read in this situation. On the surface, they should be pleased with the March 8 defeat. But they are also at odds with the Obama administration at the moment, and a Hizballah win might have been helpful in garnering support from Washington.
The way it stands now, Hizballah peacefully participated in the election, is respecting the results, and is plegding to work with the new government. They just are not coming across as the menace that Israel makes them out to be at this point. If the situation persists, Israel will have no impetus to go back into Lebanon with any sort of external support.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, things are calm and the future of Lebanon looks bright. While a March 8 win would not have meant the end of the world, a March 14 win looks like the best outcome for peace and stability, both in Lebanon and in the region.
