Lebanon’s abstention in last week’s United Nations Security Council vote on Iranian sanctions should have surprised no one. The vote not only represents internal divisions among the Lebanese political establishment, but also that country’s precarious position in the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West.
Steadily over the last thirty years, Hizballah has gained traction in the tiny Mediterranean country both as a successful Shiite resistance and as an Iranian (and somewhat Syrian) proxy. Today, the confrontationalist Party of God and their political allies, in a measured power arrangement engineered by President Suleiman, are equally balanced out by the pro-West Sunni’s and Christians. This is reflected in the 50:50 split in the cabinet vote prior to the UNSC vote. No side could manage a majority, so Lebanon abstained.
This course of action is indicative of a greater policy of Prime Minister Hariri and President Suleiman that tries to balance Lebanese internal politics (compromise and consensus), shore up support from as many allies as possible, and try not to make any one country too angry. Lebanon’s abstention achieves all three.
While the United States would have loved to have a unanimous Security Council vote endorsing sanctions, Washington must recognize the position that Lebanon is in as it tries to navigate its way through these troubled times. This conflict pits Iran and Syria against Israel and the United States, but it’s not hard to imagine where the bombs will likely be dropped. It is likely that Mr. Hariri and Barak Obama discussed this very topic during their summit last week before the Security Council vote, and it’s doubtful that Lebanon’s abstention really came as a shock to the Obama administration.
