Khalil Helou

Lebanon today stands divided along a stark vertical fault line, particularly since the executive branch moved to ban all Hezbollah’s military activity. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, as the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah steadily widens. The opening of the southern front, coupled with Hezbollah’s political and media responses – in which it criticizes the Council of Ministers and the President of the Republic, and attacks Lebanon as a whole – can, at best, be described as irresponsible, if not openly defiant. The first to pay the price are Hezbollah’s own supporters; Lebanon as a whole comes next.

The dramatic circumstances the country is experiencing undoubtedly require the presence of statesmen! Lebanon has known them, and we miss them, especially since their number is limited. Certainly, a statesman must be in power to prove himself, and he can only assert himself in significant circumstances. Thus, since 1943, certain presidents of the Republic have risen to the occasion as head of state in the face of events. They have risen to the occasion either through their vision or through concrete decisions that have spared the country from catastrophe. They have also demonstrated their competence by firmly adhering to the Constitution and the laws in force, through force, diplomacy, or a wise and firm policy. Above all, they have assumed their responsibilities regarding the defense of the sovereign, independent state. Current events demand that those in positions of responsibility within the executive branch (for the legislative branch, one must refer to Mr. Nabih Berri) demonstrate that they are truly statesmen and not mere civil servants or administrators. There are statesmen in the government. The time has come for them to assert themselves and spare the Lebanese people the worst.

The Iran-U.S. confrontation recalls a quote by the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (4 th – 5 th century BC): "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting". President Donald Trump seems to adopt a strategy based on this quote, and he deliberately maintains ambiguity to keep his strategic objectives and military thinking secret. Strikes, large-scale war, sustained threats (from both sides) that risk escalating at any moment… Speculation is rife. The concentration of American war assets in the Middle East is enormous and leaves no doubt as to the vast damage these assets can inflict on Iran. In this regard, and speaking of his warships, President Trump told reporters last week: "They have to sail somewhere. They might as well sail near Iran".

The process of rebuilding the Lebanese state appears to have stalled, despite some progress on the technocratic front. After more than a year of the Hezbollah’s so-called “support war” and the party’s waning influence on the regional stage, the election of the President sparked a wave of disproportionate euphoria. The formation of a promising government had raised hopes of restoring the state’s sovereignty. Yet, a year on, that euphoria has given way to disappointment, and hope has all but evaporated. Hezbollah’s refusal, at Iran’s instigation, to bow to the will of the majority of Lebanese and to hand over its weapons to the state, coupled with its violation of UN Resolution 1701, has long served – and continues to serve – as a pretext for Israeli harassment targeting its leaders and infrastructure. This dynamic obstructs any real progress in restoring the Lebanese state.