Basil is a burden on everyone … and Hezbollah is waiting...

Munir Al-Rabee` wrote in Al-Modon: The era of mutual interest between Hezbollah and the Aounist movement has ended. What is now bringing them together is a kind of raising the blame, and maintaining the alliance, nothing more. But it is an alliance that is fracturing more and more, in multiple accounts and files, which have emerged in succession since their great disagreement over the demarcation of borders and in dealing with US pressure and sanctions.

The ended alliance of mutual interests

The alleged social harmony between the two sides is subject to rupture and explosion: Christians cannot continue to live under the sword of sanctions and lose their gains in the foundations of the Lebanese system. While Hizbullah and its fans complain about the exhausting blackmail that the Aounist movement has practiced for many years.

When the Mar Mikhael Understanding was concluded in 2006, the signs of Sunni-Shiite discord had not yet emerged clearly in the entire region. The division was confined to Lebanon only, in one way. Hezbollah needed a Christian ally, and the Aounist movement needed a supporter to be able to extract gains in the power structure.

These circumstances are currently changing. Its change is now evident in the different views of Hezbollah and the Aounists regarding the appointment of Saad Hariri as prime minister. In light of this development, the Aounist movement threatens with its tendency to change the “stink and rotten” constitution, or by going beyond federalism, in case the expanded administrative and financial decentralization is not approved.

This is the logic used by the Aounists in refusing to conduct consultations, under the pretext of the charter, or according to what was leaked by the sources of the Republican Palace that Hariri would not have obtained the votes of the MPs of Mount Lebanon.

Aounism is a burden for an American-Shiite deal?

The Aounist movement and Gebran Bassil became a burden for everyone. Previously, Hezbollah needed them and gave them cover in confronting Nabih Berri. Today that has changed completely. This is what the Shiite duo and Saad Hariri meet.

The most prominent indications of this are the meeting of the two parties over parliamentary consultations and the formation of the government. Meanwhile, some believe that the features of a Shiite-American deal will emerge in Lebanon. Its features may appear more if Joe Biden wins the US presidential election.

On the other hand, there are Sunni Arab understandings with Israel. This necessitates a kind of a localized meeting between the Shiites and the Sunnis, especially since Hariri has always considered that Hezbollah’s power has its regional cover.

In the context of these changes, there are those who believe that the Aounist movement is losing many of its local cards, and will no longer be able to market itself, neither with Hezbollah after their disagreement over the border demarcation negotiations, nor with the Sunnis after their dispute with Hariri reached the stage of defiance, personal character and cancellation.

Does Aoun obey his brother-in-law and postpone consultations?

So Basil is betting on providing foreign credentials. Hezbollah may be keen to continue its alliance with Aoun for the remaining two years of his reign. As for after the end of the Aounist era, every incident has a modern.

The words of a member of the Aounist bloc that he wants direct negotiations with Israel, which will establish a big problem between the Aounists and Hezbollah in the future.

Had Bassil not possessed the signature of the President of the Republic and his powers to determine the dates for consultations, the consultations would not have been postponed, in search of new concessions that would make Bassil some gains. This is in line with the rule that the Shiite duo followed with Hariri, and the pattern that Walid Jumblatt followed and achieved what he wanted.

Bassil says that he will force Hariri to make the concession he wants from him, because he is the owner of the largest parliamentary bloc, and what applies to him applies to the rest of the blocs. But Hariri insisted on his initiative and his nomination.

Here the question arises: To what extent Aoun can postpone consultations? How will his local and regional image be if he disables the entitlements as a throw in the eyes of his brother-in-law? Does he repeat his previous position years ago, when he was head of the Change and Reform Bloc, and said: “To the eyes of the general’s son-in-law, no government is formed?”

And if Hariri continues to run for himself, and insists on not making any concessions to Bassil, this means that the covenant is burning and losing more and more.