Lebanon 'Tackles' Presidential Vacuum...with Army Generals

LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun (LAF website)
LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun (LAF website)
TT

Lebanon 'Tackles' Presidential Vacuum...with Army Generals

LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun (LAF website)
LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun (LAF website)

As Lebanon’s political blocs have failed to elect a new president for the country, all attention turns, as usual, to the military institution, which enjoys the people’s trust as the most cohesive authority within the Lebanese state.

In addition to MP Michel Moawad, two candidates share the electoral stage; but no party has endorsed their candidacy. Those are former MP Sleiman Franjieh, and Army Commander General Joseph Aoun. The latter’s chances are rising with the faltering elections, especially since he also enjoys international confidence that was expressed on more than one occasion.

The Army tends to disregard talks about the candidacy of its commander and refrains from making public statements about it.

A security source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the commander’s directives were firm in this regard.

“His main concern today is to spare the institution the catastrophic repercussions of the crises that afflict the country; he is not envisaging political work,” the source remarked.

Asharq Al-Awsat presents an extensive investigation, based on the experience of four Army generals - Fouad Chehab, Emile Lahoud, Michel Sleiman, and Michel Aoun - who assumed the Lebanese presidency.

All of the four generals were elected as a result of consensus and the inability of politicians to propose solutions to the crises that afflict the country. Paradoxically, the tenure of each of them witnessed a change in the international and regional balance of power that further scattered the country’s torn papers.

Fouad Chehab: The era of institutions... and intelligence services

General Fouad Chehab played two pivotal roles in the two biggest crises that afflicted Lebanon. The first was the resignation of President Bechara El-Khoury in 1952 under the pressure of massive demonstrations against his internal policies, and apparently, his endeavor to renew his mandate after amending the constitution.

The second crisis was represented in the events of the so-called 1958 revolution at the end of the term of President Camille Chamoun, who sided with the policies of the West in contrast to the policies of Egyptian President Abdel Nasser, who was overwhelmingly popular among Muslims in Lebanon.

In the first crisis, Chehab was appointed head of a transitional government for three days, which oversaw the transfer of power between the resignation of Khoury and the election of Chamoun. In the second, the army stood neutral between the two parties to the conflict and prevented supporters of the opposition and the government alike from occupying strategic sites such as airports, radio stations, and government buildings.

Although Fouad Chehab rejected the temptation to run for the presidency in 1952, he accepted that in 1958.

His tenure was known as “the era of institutions,” but was also marked by the strong involvement of the Army Intelligence - known at the time as the Second Bureau - in political life, as well as in administrations and civil societies.

Renowned Author Emile Khoury described Chehab’s rule as the “era of stability and reforms.”

Emile Lahoud... A failed reproduction of Chehab’s Experience

With the end of President Elias Hrawi’s term in 1995, Army Commander General Emile Lahoud was the preferred candidate for Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, who at that time had the last say in the appointment of senior positions in the country.

However, external pressure and wishes made Assad postpone this election, and accept the extension of Hrawi’s term for an additional three years, after which Lahoud would be elected as president in 1998 after amending the constitution for this purpose.

Lahoud’s tenure saw a decline in the power of the Syrian regime in Lebanon. Moreover, Assad’s support for amending the constitution to extend Lahoud’s term for an additional three years resulted in the latter’s international isolation, especially since it occurred before the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the great upheaval that followed.

Former Minister Karim Pakradouni, who was a supporter of Lahoud’s election, says: “There is a rule in Lebanon: every time politicians fail to agree on a candidate’s name, they resort to the army. This is what happened in 1958 when differences prevailed between political and sectarian forces… This also happened when they elected General Emile Lahoud as president…”

Pakradouni continued: “In this context, President Lahoud summed up the policies of his era with ‘liberation, alliance with Syria, and reform’. Lahoud succeeded in achieving liberation, as the land was liberated from the Israelis in 2000, and he was able to ally with Syria, but he did not succeed in the issue of reform, knowing that much was expected of him in reforms…”

The Era of Michel Sleiman… The Golden Trio turns into Intense Rivalry

President Michel Sleiman assumed the presidency following a compromise between the parties to the conflict at the end of Lahoud’s term, and after a presidential vacuum that lasted for nearly six months. Sleiman was a consensual president produced by agreements in Doha in the aftermath of a military operation carried out by Hezbollah against its political opponents in Beirut and the Mountains in May 2008.

Alike his military predecessors, he faced changes in the international equation, with the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings and their arrival in Syria with the direct involvement of Hezbollah.

The “honeymoon” with the party did not last long, and talk of the “Army, People and Resistance,” which was adopted in the ministerial statement during his tenure, turned into intense rivalry with Sleiman, to the extent that his supporters described this slogan as the “wooden trio”, ridiculing Hezbollah’s description of it as the “golden trio.”

Former Minister Nazim al-Khoury, who was close to Sleiman, considers him “a national figure who succeeded in playing the role of arbitrator between the political parties. His election came as a realistic solution to a crisis that almost brought the country back to civil war.”

Khoury noted that Sleiman’s main accomplishments included his success in managing the national dialogue and achieving consensus on the famous Baabda Declaration, which was considered a complement to the Taif Document and the Doha Agreement, and later became an official document approved by the United Nations and the League of Arab States.

Sleiman wanted the declaration to be a pre-emptive Lebanese agreement that would fortify it internally. Unfortunately, Iran entered the war line in Syria, which made Hezbollah retract its support for the Baabda Declaration and directly engage in the Syrian conflict.

Michel Aoun… The Era of Crises

Michel Sleiman’s term ended in a new presidential vacuum. The March 14 team had the necessary parliamentary majority to elect the president (about 70 deputies). However, the opposite team disrupted parliament sessions and prevented voting for two years and five months, after which a settlement was reached to elect General Michel Aoun, provided that MP Saad Hariri assumes the premiership.

This experiment has drastically failed. Lebanon suffered a relapse in the middle of the mandate, with a new international and regional change, accompanied this time by a financial and economic collapse, the greatest in the country’s history.

Aoun could not rule. Hezbollah, which closed Parliament to secure the election of its ally, “did not help him succeed,” says a senior official in the pro-Aoun movement.

MP Alain Aoun, the former president’s nephew and a member of his parliamentary bloc, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “President Aoun’s experience was not up to his ambitions or the aspirations of his supporters because of the financial collapse that occurred during his tenure…”

“This setback, despite its magnitude, cannot abolish the positive accomplishments during the era of President Aoun, in terms of the return of security and political stability in the first half of his tenure, thanks to the understandings that existed at the time, and the electoral reform that saw the adoption of the proportional system for the first time in the history of Lebanon, and finally and most importantly, the agreement on the maritime border demarcation with Israel,” the deputy said.



Iran Holds Military Drills as it Faces Rising Economic Pressures and Trump's Return

A handout picture provided by the Iranian Army media office on October 4, 2023 shows locally-made drones during a military drill at an undisclosed location in Iran. (Photo by Iranian Army office / AFP)
A handout picture provided by the Iranian Army media office on October 4, 2023 shows locally-made drones during a military drill at an undisclosed location in Iran. (Photo by Iranian Army office / AFP)
TT

Iran Holds Military Drills as it Faces Rising Economic Pressures and Trump's Return

A handout picture provided by the Iranian Army media office on October 4, 2023 shows locally-made drones during a military drill at an undisclosed location in Iran. (Photo by Iranian Army office / AFP)
A handout picture provided by the Iranian Army media office on October 4, 2023 shows locally-made drones during a military drill at an undisclosed location in Iran. (Photo by Iranian Army office / AFP)

Iran is reeling from a cratering economy and stinging military setbacks across its sphere of influence in the Middle East. Its bad times are likely to get worse once President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House with his policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Facing difficulties at home and abroad, Iran last week began an unusual two-month-long military drill. It includes testing air defenses near a key nuclear facility and preparing for exercises in waterways vital to the global oil trade.

The military flexing seems aimed at projecting strength, but doubts about its power are high after the past year's setbacks.

The December overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who Iran supported for years with money and troops, was a major blow to its self-described “Axis of Resistance” across the region. The “axis” had already been hollowed out by Israel’s punishing offensives last year against two militant groups backed by Iran – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel also attacked Iran directly on two occasions.

According to The AP, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general based in Syria offered a blunt assessment this week. “I do not see it as a matter of pride that we lost Syria,” Gen. Behrouz Esbati said, according to an audio recording of a speech he gave that was leaked to the media. “We lost. We badly lost. We blew it.”

At home, Iran’s economy is in tatters.

The US and its allies have maintained stiff sanctions to deter it from developing nuclear weapons — and Iran's recent efforts to get them lifted through diplomacy have fallen flat. Pollution chokes the skies in the capital, Tehran, as power plants burn dirty fuel in their struggle to avoid outages during winter. And families are struggling to make ends meet as the Iranian currency, the rial, falls to record lows against the US dollar.

As these burdens rise, so does the likelihood of political protests, which have ignited nationwide in recent years over women's rights and the weak economy.

How Trump chooses to engage with Iran remains to be seen. But on Tuesday he left open the possibility of the US conducting preemptive airstrikes on nuclear sites where Iran is closer than ever to enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

“It’s a military strategy,” Trump told journalists at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida during a wide-ranging news conference. “I’m not answering questions on military strategy.”

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, yet officials there increasingly suggest Tehran could pursue an atomic bomb.

Europe's view of Iran hardens. It's not just Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime foe of Tehran, that paint Iran's nuclear program as a major threat. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking Monday to French ambassadors in Paris, described Iran as “the main strategic and security challenge for France, the Europeans, the entire region and well beyond.”

“The acceleration of its nuclear program is bringing us very close to the breaking point,” Macron said. “Its ballistic program threatens European soil and our interests."

While Europe had previously been seen as more conciliatory toward Iran, its attitude has hardened. That's likely because of what Macron described as Tehran's “assertive and fully identified military support” of Russia since it's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

France, as well as Germany and the United Kingdom, had been part of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Under that deal, Iran limited its enrichment of uranium and drastically reduced its stockpile in exchange for the lifting of crushing, United Nations-backed economic sanctions. Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, and with those UN sanctions lifted, it provided cover for China's to purchase oil from Iran.

But now France, Germany and the United Kingdom call Tehran's advances in its atomic program a ”nuclear escalation" that needs to be addressed. That raises the possibility of Western nations pushing for what's called a “snapback” of those UN sanctions on Iran, which could be catastrophic for the Iranian economy. That “snapback” power expires in October.

On Wednesday, Iran released a visiting Italian journalist, Cecilia Sala, after detaining her for three weeks — even though she had received the government's approval to report from there.

Sala's arrest came days after Italian authorities arrested an Iranian engineer accused by the US of supplying drone technology used in a January 2024 attack on a US outpost in Jordan that killed three American troops. The engineer remains in Italian custody.

- Iran holds military drills as worries grow

The length of the military drills started by Iran's armed forces and its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard may be unusual, but their intended message to the US and Israel — and to its domestic audience — is not. Iran is trying to show itself as capable of defending against any possible attack.

On Tuesday, Iran held air-defense drills around its underground nuclear enrichment facility in the city of Natanz. It claimed it could intercept a so-called “bunker buster” bomb designed to destroy such sites.

However, the drill did not involve any of its four advanced S-300 Russian air defense systems, which Israel targeted in its strikes on Iran. At least two are believed to have been damaged, and Israeli officials claim all have been taken out.

“Some of the US and Israeli reservations about using force to address Iran’s nuclear program have dissipated,” wrote Kenneth Katzman, a longtime Iran analyst for the US government who is now at the New York-based Soufan Center. “It appears likely that, at the very least, the Trump administration would not assertively dissuade Israel from striking Iranian facilities, even if the United States might decline to join the assault.”

There are other ways Iran could respond. This weekend, naval forces plan exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Iran for years has threatened to close the strait — a narrow lane through which a fifth of global oil supplies are transported — and it has targeted oil tankers and other ships in those waters since 2019.

“Harassment and seizures are likely to remain the main tools of Iranian counteraction,” the private maritime security firm Ambrey warned Thursday.

Its allies may not be much help, though. The tempo of attacks on shipping lanes by Yemen's Houthis, long armed by Iran, have slowed. And Iran has growing reservations about the reliability of Russia.

In the recording of the speech by the Iranian general, Esbati, he alleges that Russia “turned off all radars” in Syria to allow an Israeli airstrike that hit a Guard intelligence center.

Esbati also said Iranian missiles “don't have so much of an impact” and that the US would retaliate against any attack targeting its bases in the region.

“For the time being and in this situation, dragging the region into a military operation does not agree (with the) interest of the resistance,” he says.