After going two years without a president, Lebanon’s parliament selected Michel Aoun for the post on Monday. Aoun, a Christian, was once one of his country’s most anti-Syrian politicians; but since 2006, he and his Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) have unabashedly sided with Syria, Hizballah, and Iran. While Tehran has, quite reasonably, proclaimed the election “a victory for Hizballah,” David Schenker notes that it is not a complete one:
Given current realities, Hizballah will continue to possess a massive arsenal of weapons outside the government’s authority for the foreseeable future. It will also continue deploying into Syria at will to fight on the Assad regime’s behalf, with or without Beirut’s consent. . . .
For these and other reasons, many in the United States and the region are declaring Aoun’s election a victory for Hizballah and Iran. Yet . . . it is difficult to imagine an Aoun presidency being worse for [the anti-Syrian] March 14 [alliance]—or for U.S. interests—than the ongoing vacuum. Aoun may even surpass the extremely low expectations for his presidency. . . . Most importantly, the agreement to elect him apparently received Saudi Arabia’s blessing [and] perhaps will spur Riyadh to reengage in Lebanese politics as a useful counterbalance to Iran. . . .
Finally, . . . with or without Aoun, Hizballah and Iran remain the country’s dominant political actors. Absent an effective U.S. policy that deals Tehran and its proxies a setback in Syria, Lebanon will remain on the precipice of crisis.
Read more on Washington Institute: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/a-new-president-for-lebanon1