March 14 Coalition Triumphant in Lebanon
The ruling March 14 Coalition, heirs to the Cedar Revolution, have somewhat unexpectedly carried the day in Lebanon. This is being reported as a defeat for Hezbollah, since Hezbollah was (and is) the main party in the opposition. But Hezbollah’s actual level of electoral support is unchanged. Instead, as I said the other day, the key player was Michael Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement. Aoun, a Christian, had aligned himself with the Hezbollah-led coalition. But he ultimately wasn’t able to carry enough of the Christian vote to put the opposition in power.
Since the March 14 Coalition is pro-Western in its orientation, this counts as a win for US foreign policy. At the same time, it’s not actually clear to me how anyone’s life in the United States is actually impacted by Lebanese electoral politics and my general sense is that it’s not wise to get too invested in these kind of proxy struggles. The fundamental issue of Hezbollah’s role in Lebanese society will, one suspects, remain unresolved as Hezbollah has no intention of surrendering its weapons and it seems it will still be the case that the Lebanese government isn’t going to be willing or able to forcibly disarm it.
14 Responses to “March 14 Coalition Triumphant in Lebanon”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am
At the same time, it’s not actually clear to me how anyone’s life in the United States is actually impacted by Lebanese electoral politics and my general sense is that it’s not wise to get too invested in these kind of proxy struggles.
I wonder if Obama’s speech to the Muslim world helped the pro-Western coalition in any way? The best thing the US could do to help Lebanon is help do an Israeli-Palestinian deal. Anyway I think the outcome is a good thing in a region with too few good things. Yes Hezbollah represents the poorer Sunni segment of society, yes they were formed in response to Israel’s invasion, but they’re religious crazies.
It’s sort of patronizing to say we’re too good for extreme relgious (Christian) politicians here in the West, but for the poor of Lebanon it’s okay.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
good for extreme relgious (Christian) politicians here in the West, but for the poor of Lebanon it’s okay
June 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I have trouble getting too worked up about an insurgent organization that was formed to fight against an invading foreign power and that provides all kinds of social services to the poor.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Glad to see Poptarts has no clue what he/she is talking about. Hezbollah represent the SHIA not the Sunnis. Why can’t you yanks– who go and invade Muslim countries– wrap your minds around the difference between the two?
M14 are pro-western in the same sense that Saudi Arabian royalty is. Throw in some of the most right wing Christian mass murderers and you have your “pro-western alliance”.
In fact, Hezbollah’s allies, the FPM led by Michel Aoun, are far closer to a western “secular” party. Go figure that that would be too complex for you people to wrap your mind around. Good guys= Go USA!
June 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hezbullah are in direct opposition to the idea of lebanon ever becoming a real nation. Aoun has just as much blood on his hand as any of the others with his insane wars of liberation – ironic that he is now buddies with Syria and Hizbullah, the two parties that are anathema to his supposed agenda, the one that he espoused for 10 years in exile and discarded within 2 months of returning in his don quiote quest for the presidency.
The internal lebanese politics are beside the point. A hizbullah victory would have bolstered hardliners in Israel and Iran, Syria, and made any peace moves on any tracks all the more difficult. As such it is a symbolic victory for the Obama policy even if his speech etc… played a minor role. Does anyone doubt that if Hizbullah won, this would have been shoved in Obama’s face as a repudiation of his outreach etc..
June 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@ Rob Mac: yeah, they “provide services” to the poor with money stolen from the Iranian poor by the Iranian govt.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Glad to see Poptarts has no clue what he/she is talking about. Hezbollah represent the SHIA not the Sunnis. Why can’t you yanks– who go and invade Muslim countries– wrap your minds around the difference between the two?
Yeah, Shia, my mistake, I was still half asleeep when I wrote that. In fact Hezbollah are part of the “Shia Crescent” that the King of Jordan (Sunni) was warning about, which us “yanks” added to by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Iraq, free the Shia majority.
M14 are pro-western in the same sense that Saudi Arabian royalty is. Throw in some of the most right wing Christian mass murderers and you have your “pro-western alliance”.
In other words Saudi Arabia doesn’t threaten to wipe Israel off the map every other week as Iran does? And the Saudi king doesn’t deny the Holocaust in public every other month? In the middle east you have to settle.
The funniest story to me in recent weeks was the news that Hezbollah was in talks with the IMF and EU. Not very revolutionary.
I think it’s bizarre Matt doesn’t feel the election turned out well.
Hezbollah strength will grow when Iran gets nukes, but then what? Their dream of an Islamic state is a pipe dream.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The problem is that Lebanon still has two armies. It is inevitable that they will end up fighting each other. And, of course Israel and Syria will have to get involved. I see another messy civil war coming up.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
In the end, Nasrallah’s hubris was M8’s undoing. He scared many Christians that voted for Aoun last time. His recent fiery speeches reminded people (if they actually needed that) of the civil war that he almost unleashed on the country in May of 2008. Force of arms and control of government was too much for many Lebanese. As the only one in my family supporting M14, I’m so relieved.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
As always, with this type of Mid-East policy you’re missing the point – missing the point I tell ya!
You have to grasp Lebanon in terms of Israel on the one hand and Syria on the other. Otherwise, there is no point in even talking about inner Lebanese politics. The Hezbollah exist (indeed was created as) a responsive force to Israeli occupation. They are not a faction or a sect with weapons – they represent the reaction to Israeli policy, continuing till this very day (!!) in the south of the country (assuming there even IS a whole country of Lebanon, and no two). Second – all of these problems, Hezbollah-Iran, independent Lebanon et cetera, will only end when the Israelis give back the Golan heights, forming peace with the Syrians. It all starts and ends there, in what the Americans can make the Israelis do. How can you not see that???
June 8th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Iran has never, not even once, threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
You’ve been had, Poptarts.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Iran has never, not even once, threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
You’ve been had, Poptarts.
Yes they do, all the time. Hezbollah and Hamas want to “destroy Israel” too, and Iran funds them. It doesn’t mean they’ll do it.
You’ve been had by people like Juan Cole who misrepresent Israel’s enemies just b/c they don’t like Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s opponent in the election said his denial of the Holocaust is bad for Iran! While Cole makes excuses for him!
June 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias [...]
June 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Poptarts, you are a frickin’ moron. Official Iranian policy towards Israel is that the Zionist state is illegal and should be removed. They’re one hundred percent right about that, since the UN had no legal authority to partition Palestine as they did in 1947.
And once again for the retarded like Poptarts, Iran has NO nuclear weapons program. None. Zip. Zero. And very likely never did.
As for the election outcome, basically the status quo remains. Therefore it’s NOT a win for US foreign policy which is supporting the wrong side. Matt is correct, however, to say that the US probably shouldn’t support EITHER side. That was not Bush policy, however. Bush policy was to arm the Sunni nutcases in Lebanon to try to start trouble with Hizballah – not to mention supporting Israel’s illegal war against Lebanon in 2006 and Israel’s war crimes in said war.
Obama has yet to deal with that issue directly, and THAT negatively impacts US foreign policy throughout the region.