Washington intervenes in obstruction, supporting the Army Commander

Throughout the previous period, the bets of Washington and Riyadh have been placed on a Saudi obstructive role in Beirut to prevent the leader of the Marada Movement, Sleiman Frangieh, from reaching Baabda palace.

This article was originally published in, translated from the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar. 

But upon receiving the "official stance" conveyed by Ambassador Walid Bukhari, these allies appeared more confused, even though some of them heard indirect incitement in his words, such as his repeated statement that "it is in your hands, and if you succeed in obstructing Frangieh's arrival, we will not oppose what you do."

Nevertheless, this incomprehension, coupled with the American sense of failure of the countries they believed could prevent Frangieh's access, seemingly prompted Washington to enter the game again directly. 

Sources closely associated with the ongoing US diplomatic movement regarding Lebanon confirmed the existence of a "shift in the discourse and position expressed by Ambassador Dorothy Shea in Beirut and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf."

These sources also indicated that "this atmosphere has been emerging for the past two weeks.

However, after previous confirmations by Shea that her country does not support any presidential candidate and will deal with anyone elected, whether Frangieh or others, she is now conveying contradictory positions while simultaneously having information about her communication with Frangieh's opponents, urging them to reach a consensus on an alternative candidate."

As reported, she said in front of politicians, "There is an opportunity to undermine Frangieh. The evidence indicates that those who support him are raising their rhetoric publicly, but behind the closed sessions, they open the door to other options."

It has also been reported that Shea stated that the nomination of Army Commander General Joseph Aoun "has the approval of the majority of the opposition forces to Frangieh's nomination." 

The idea of reaching a settlement could be challenging if the Amal Movement and Hezbollah insist on the Marada leader while the other side intensifies its support for the army commander.

The same sources confirmed that Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri is aware of this American shift and has conveyed to his visitors that "the Americans have started to move."

Moreover, the American shift coincides with the movement of Ambassador Bukhari and is reinforced by Syria regaining its seat in the Arab League and talk of imminent normalization steps between Riyadh and Damascus. This has led to political sources drawing the following impressions:

First, the deadline granted by Washington to Paris for reaching a "consensus" candidate and ensuring the exclusion of the March 8 Alliance candidate has ended, indicating signs of American interference within the opposition forces aiming to unite them behind a presidential candidate instead of Frangieh. 

Second, the US side initially sought to downplay its significant role in the presidential file to prevent the March 8 Alliance, particularly Hezbollah, from hardening their support for Frangieh. Paris was tasked with managing the file as it was capable of negotiating with the party.

However, the French agenda differed, as they insisted on a settlement allowing them to gain political benefits and maintain their connection.

Third, regional developments raise concerns among the Americans that an opportunity for their opposing faction in the presidential conflict may arise, as Syria's return to the Arab League and Saudi Arabia's opening towards Damascus could give the latter the ability to convince Riyadh to support a settlement in Lebanon.

Thus, the bet on the Saudi stance to halt the settlement may have failed, and while it may not be optimistic regarding dealing with Frangieh's election, its neutral position will not support the other faction.

In this context, some sources stressed that American concerns stem from Bukhari's statements, which conveyed the absence of a Saudi veto on Frangieh. This could alleviate pressure on several parliamentary blocs.

Furthermore, MP Sajih Attieh expressed a prominent stance following the meeting between his bloc and Bukhari, stating that the Kingdom "does not impose a veto on any name, meaning it does not impose a veto on Frangieh."

When asked if this position is ambiguous, he replied, "How can it be when the Kingdom has lifted the veto?" This issue may also apply to the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt, who might reconsider his position based on the Saudi stance.