Does the shuffling of cards that followed the debate about holding the cabinet meeting on Monday—a discussion that ended with a blow from the "Shiite duo" to the "Free Patriotic Movement," thwarting the latter's attempt to knock it up with a blocking third- reach a stage where alliances are adjusted to reflect on the balance of parliamentary powers in the presidential elections?
Although Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati was the primary beneficiary of that blow, which Hezbollah, the most prominent ally of head of the Free Patriotic Movement MP Gebran Bassil, participated in, the leaders of the "FPM" and then Basil himself in his press conference yesterday did not leave room for doubt that they consider the "party's" support for holding the session not only as a stab in the back, but rather a new climax in the differences between the two teams of the "Mar Mikhael Understanding," which essentially remained a “mere ink on paper”.
The theoretical clauses of this understanding were not for implementation but only a cover for General Michel Aoun's accession to the presidency in exchange for the Christian and legal cover to turn Lebanon into a platform for the regional axis to which the "party" belongs.
The "FPM" has been blaming and criticizing the "party" in recent months, sometimes because it appeases Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri at the expense of the alliance's relationship, and other times because it intends to refrain from supporting it in its conflict with Mikati for power, provided that the party is content to play the role of mediator between it and the caretaker prime minister, opposing to what Basil and former President Michel Aoun desire from both Berri or Mikati.
In fact, Bassil was not alone in paying the price for that alliance as a result of his rushing with enthusiasm that exceeded what was required (according to Christian allies of the “party”, including Sleiman Frangieh, who were quoted as saying), in harmony with Iran’s project and the Syrian-Iranian axis regionally.
Among these costs, the US sanctions on him, which he is now striving to lift.
The party, too, paid a great deal of price as a result of letting Aoun and Basil seize power in most cases, and letting them take from it gains that exceed the usual, in return for the service they provided to the party in legitimizing its interventions in a number of wars and conflicts in the region.
Although Hezbollah, its capabilities and the high mobilization that guarantees popular loyalty among the Shiite public is more capable of absorbing and containing it than the “Free Patriotic Movement”, its cadres, bases and masses have accumulated over the past six years a resentment that is no less severe than the resentment and objection of the public of other political parties about leaving Basil and Aoun persisting in this monopoly.
The party's leaders and deputies admit behind closed doors that this policy, which the party was forced to follow for reasons of force majeure, was harmful.
Indeed, some of them were expecting it immediately after the election of Aoun in 2016. It is worth mentioning that the “party” followed up with complicity Bassil and Aoun’s attacks against leader of the “Future Movement”, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and head of the “Lebanese Forces” party, Samir Geagea, and the “incursions” against the head of the “Progressive Socialist Party” Walid Jumblatt in the mountain.
Of course, the two arch-allies did not care about the consequences of their alliance, as each of them practiced it, on the nation and the Lebanese, who have been suffering from its infernal outcome for the past three years. Their relationship is primarily driven by interests that don't consider the suffering of the nation.
The bitter truth has been revealed to the two allies: the "party" believes it has fulfilled its obligation by assisting Aoun in ascending to the presidency and supporting him for six years and must make some bargaining in the process of re-configuring power, to ensure renewal of protection for its regional role, as Bassil has turned into “a burned card” that is no longer sufficient.
While Bassil, for his part, cannot leave the lusts of power and its benefits and lose the gains he has achieved, in the name of pact, partnership and obtaining the rights of Christians.
In this context, Bassil's stance on the presidential candidates comes in this context, fitting himself into the role of the necessary corridor for any future president, who must make sure he gets what he wants in exchange for presidency. Nevertheless, despite the "party's" willingness to assist him in this, none of the candidates respond to him.
It is the habit of “Hezbollah” to be patient with Basil and Aoun, and to allow the time factor to reduce their intransigence, because they have no alternatives.
The "Free Patriotic Movement" leadership, however, started to wave, after the final blow it received, a separation that might amount to a tendency to elect the candidate of the sovereign powers, MP Michel Moawad, by claiming that the “Shiite duo” attempt to make the FPM fail in using the obstructing third to prevent the Cabinet session will cause “tensions” in its ranks, leading to “revenge.”
However, Bassil's revenge by threatening to siding with Moawad versus Sleiman Franjieh means crossing the "red line" in the rivalry with the "party", which is difficult to comprehend. Therefore, those who know the nature of the relationship between the two sides exclude it.