Much has been said about the underlying reasons behind the "nudge" created by the French presidential envoy and former Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, among opposition forces.
This article was originally published in, translated from the Arab outlet of Asharq Al-Awsat.
This came about when he requested a group of deputies to respond in writing to two questions related to priority projects of the presidency during the next six years and the qualities the future president should possess to undertake these projects.
However, this "nudge" extended to the Democratic Gathering, Change MPs, and several independents. In contrast, the opposition factions affiliated with the resistance axis showed positive openness.
Examining the reasons that led the opposition forces to be concerned about the questions posed to them for response by the parliamentary blocs by August 31 is primarily attributed to inquiries sought by Le Drian.
The first of which is: Where does the Quintet Committee, composed of the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, stand regarding its message to the MPs? Does it have political backing? Why was it not included in the core of his message, instead of depositing it as a special envoy of the French president?
Le Drian did not need to "interrogate" the deputies to answer his questions as long as the Quintet Committee, through its meeting in Qatar, reaffirmed its specifications for the future president's qualifications and post-election tasks.
These specifications matched those outlined during a meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of the United Nations annual session in New York.
In this context, leadership sources within the opposition told Asharq Al-Awsat that during his last visit to Beirut, Le Drian was informed of their endorsement of the Quintet Committee's statement in Doha, particularly concerning the specifications the future president should possess and the priorities for the post-election phase.
These were topics he was expected to discuss.
The question was raised: Does Le Drian's posing of these questions to the parliamentary blocs intend to modify the ceiling set by the Quintet Committee, which chose not to mention the candidates' names? Even though he realizes that the issue does not lie in answering these questions but rather elsewhere.
His only recourse is to turn to Hezbollah, which insists on supporting the nomination of the leader of the Marada Movement, former MP Sleiman Frangieh, for the presidency and sees no alternative?
Furthermore, where does Le Drian stand on these specifications? Is the problem hindering the president's election related to disagreements over them, or does it concern what Hezbollah possesses regarding excess power that prevents the state's sovereignty from being established throughout its territories?
It was revealed that the opposition forces had informed Le Drian that dialogue with Hezbollah was futile. Therefore, they are not inclined to participate in comprehensive meetings.
They prefer bilateral meetings to expedite the presidential election and refrain from engaging in an extended meeting if, during his third visit to Beirut, common ground is found under the pretext that Hezbollah is unwilling to abandon Frangieh's nomination.
This would clear the way for an agreeable president who can communicate with all parties and does not pose a challenge to any team.
The opposition forces emphasized that they would not engage in time-wasting activities that hinder the president's election, potentially allowing Hezbollah to adjust the balance of power to its favor.
They believe the issue will not be resolved through bilateral, tripartite, or comprehensive meetings. Instead, it lies in Hezbollah relinquishing its control over the country's affairs.
The opposition forces returned to the question of why Le Drian postponed his third visit to Beirut until the second half of September.
There is speculation that someone advised him to delay his return in the hope that Hezbollah could convince the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, to shift towards endorsing Frangieh. Their dialogue seemed to progress, but it had not yet led to a change in Bassil's stance in favor of Frangieh.
Parliamentary sources pointed out via Asharq Al-Awsat that the dialogue between Hezbollah and Bassil could progress in the coming days, with some party officials possibly joining the coordination and liaison officer, Wafiq Safa, to expedite it.
This might encourage a move towards the agreement, especially since Bassil has not definitively closed the door to considering Frangieh's nomination. This contrasts his initial opposition, which led to the suspension of communication with Hezbollah.
It is believed that Hezbollah is attempting to "reshuffle the cards" by indicating a possible change in Bassil's position. This situation places Le Drian in a new political reality that he cannot ignore.
He must either act by his promise to come to Beirut, as he did on his second visit or decide to wait in light of the opposition forces' refusal. This is despite their differences and diversity, which prevents them from uniting.
This would mean subjecting himself to their questioning as they respond to the two questions he deposited with the General Secretariat of the Parliament. The secretariat has taken the initiative to deliver messages to the parliamentary blocs.
Despite the diverse opposition forces welcoming Le Drian's reconciliatory efforts, they do not see any value in engaging with Hezbollah and its allies. On the contrary, they believe that he could have refrained from taking a partial step, which raises many doubts among parties opposing the resistance axis.
This arises from his exclusive approach of presenting the two questions to the MPs without mentioning the Quintet Committee and its stance, mainly since he spoke in his recent visit as if acting on its behalf.
Consequently, Le Drian's omission of mentioning the Quintet Committee and its role has legitimately raised suspicions among the opposition.
This extends to them questioning the accuracy of the circulating rumors that he earnestly seeks to revive the French initiative by renewing its support for Frangieh's nomination.
This is despite not addressing this in his previous meetings. Although they refrain from making premature judgments about his intentions, they warn that the objective behind presenting the two questions might be to prolong the process and provide an opportunity for the presidential settlement between Hezbollah and Bassil to mature.