Lebanon, Suffering from 'Color Blindness'... Held Hostage by Ballot Boxes from Tel Aviv to Washington

Elections in Israel seem like those in Lebanon. The meeting of the Mecca Agreement countries and Iran in Tehran seems to be about Lebanon... This is how Beirut appeared today, Monday, closely monitoring the countdown to the opening of ballot boxes that will determine the fate of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister and the trajectory of the front with Hezbollah, as well as the outcome of the Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani meeting with the leadership of the Islamic Republic, seen as the final step toward reaching understandings that would spare the region from opening the gates of the “last war,” for which Washington had been sending readiness signals, with nothing left but to press the button.

For the third day, the noise of domestic files, including those related to the Lebanese front, both militarily and diplomatically, has receded under the roar of the mother of confrontations, with Washington beating the drums against Iran, racing against what appeared to be the last attempts to avoid it through the meeting of the Mecca Agreement countries with Iranian officials in Tehran today, Monday, and awaiting the results of the Israeli Knesset elections today and their constitutional aftermath, all before the midterm elections in the United States on November 3, which are no less important for Beirut.

What unites these three developments is that their potential impacts intersect on the “fire lines” in the region and on the Lebanese front. Thus, whether the region escapes a major explosion or slides into it will have direct repercussions on the “Land of the Cedars,” which is drowning in a sea of unanswered questions, including the so-called “million-dollar question”: Will Hezbollah remain outside the war if it erupts on the Iran front, or will it repeat its involvement as it did on March 2 last year?

The most prominent paradox characterizing the Lebanese scene lies in the fear that closing the scenario of an Israeli strike on Iran before the Knesset elections might merely be a postponement of that possibility, unless the diplomatic channels activated in the “last minute” before finalizing military options “either white or black” succeed in creating a breakthrough that prevents the worst. There is a belief that, regardless of whether Benjamin Netanyahu returns to head the government or the opposition wins, higher risks will remain latent during a highly sensitive transitional phase.

Political circles believe that Netanyahu’s defeat and the opposition’s assumption of power in Israel would not significantly change the “expected” situation on the Lebanese front, provided the current storm in the region does not turn into a “fire hurricane.” Thus, the security of the Jewish state and the disarming of Hezbollah are transient titles in the political alignments in Tel Aviv, and the safety of northern settlements and their residents remains a governing issue for Netanyahu’s performance and that of any successor, even if the tools used to achieve the same goals differ.

While circles express concern that Netanyahu’s defeat, if it occurs, might lead to miscalculation by Iran and Hezbollah, leading them to treat it as an opportunity for the former to regain maneuvering room in the region and for the latter in Lebanon, they point out that after the Knesset elections, especially if Netanyahu does not win, a very sensitive transitional period will emerge. Fears exist that this period could be exploited militarily, either to “complete a mission” before the official transfer of power to the successor, or to attempt to impose the shape of the new Israeli government and make the battlefield shape its balances.

The preoccupation of monitoring circles in Beirut with the “day after” the Knesset elections was no passing concern. Estimates suggest that the two-week period between the elections and the swearing-in of Knesset members could be fraught with the risk of militarily activating the front against Iran or Hezbollah, aiming to force the formation of an emergency government akin to that of October 2023, or a national unity government prior to the outbreak of the “Six-Day War” (June 1967), thereby enabling Netanyahu to prolong his political career.

Equally dangerous is the scenario of such a war breaking out after the new Knesset is sworn in, while the process of forming the new government through the designated formateur continues, potentially lasting weeks. The realism of these two scenarios is bolstered by the fact that Israeli caretaker governments are not constrained in their war decisions, even if theoretically defensive, and the period between the elections and the completion of Knesset oversight mechanisms over the government is not short, leaving these governments outside the “eye” of parliamentary scrutiny.

Adding another layer of concern, the US midterm elections also carry a delicate transitional phase. The translation of the results from the November 3 polls will not be finalized until January 3 next year, when the newly elected Congress convenes and legislative power officially transfers. If the Republican Party loses its majority in both chambers of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), the Trump administration could be freed from the pressure of the electorate in determining its options toward Iran, thereby accelerating strikes against it unless diplomatic breakthroughs occur before November 3.

Amid these fears, Beirut remains in a state of “color blindness” regarding Hezbollah’s decision to either plunge into a new war supporting Iran or abstain from doing so, amidst contradictory signals from the party on this matter.

While Reuters quoted sources stating that “Hezbollah is preparing for a new regional war with Iranian funding,” Hezbollah’s deputy, Hassan Fadlallah, affirmed that “the resistance in Lebanon is in a defensive state regarding its country, and its current cause is working to liberate the land, return the residents, release prisoners, and rebuild. Its decision is Lebanese, taken by its leadership, and no one, neither abroad nor domestically, dictates it to them.” He added, “Some in Lebanon always propagate the notion that the resistance takes decisions regarding confrontation with the enemy based on external requests, which is an insult to people’s intelligence. Apart from leaks concerning our stance, whether true or false, this stance stems from our will, our assessment, and our diagnosis of the national interest, and it is announced by the resistance leadership at the appropriate time, all under the umbrella of the cause we fight for. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not asked us in the past, nor does it ask today, to support it in facing the American-Israeli aggression. On the contrary, when we meet with Iranian officials, they ask what we want, what our interests are, and what Lebanon’s interests are, so as to support us. This means that we are the ones who rely on Iran and its strength, and on the equation it seeks to consolidate to help us liberate our country from Israeli occupation.”