Connect with us

Middle East

Lebanon finally got a president

Published

on

Lebanon, which has been in a presidential vacuum since October 30, 2022, finally got its fourteenth president.

It is difficult for a poor, fragmented and weak country like Lebanon, where the presidency is the most important part of its government, to remain without an administrator for more than two years.

Joseph Aoun, the country’s army chief, was finally elected by Lebanon’s parliament as president. Aoun is being backed by several key political parties inside the country, as well as US, France, and Saudi Arabia in international affairs.

Aoun was sworn in as the president after winning 99 votes from the 128-member parliament and will remain in this position for six years.

While the parliament held thirteen special sessions over the past two years, it failed to elect a president. Aoun is the fourth military figure from the Maronite Christians who sits on the Lebanese presidential seat. Being a military man made him stay out of political circles and enter the field as a “cross-party candidate” and win the votes of many political currents.

Here are three points over selection of Aoun:

Frist:

Hezbollah fell short of its previous position, which if this does not indicate its weakness, it shows its flexibility. Of course, according to his critics, this flexibility is due to the weakness that has emerged after the attacks of Israel.

Hezbollah and the Amal Movement are two Shiite parties that have 27 seats in the parliament. Salmian Faranjieh, the leader of al-Murda movement, was the candidate of Amal and Hezbollah, who withdrew from the competition. While he entered the campaign in June 2023, he did not get votes and did not give his opponent a chance to win. One reason for delaying the election of the president was the difference between the candidates of Hezbollah and Amal and the candidates of other groups.

As a Maronite Christian, Franjieh had a favorable view of Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the so-called “axis of resistance” whose victory was unacceptable to the United States of America, France and Saudi Arabia. These five countries are mentioned because the foreign factor acts more strongly than the domestic factor in directing the developments in Lebanon.

Now this time, Farnjieh refrained from entering the elections and supported Aoun – which made the latter win. It is clear that if the two Shiite currents had not shown flexibility, it is very likely that Aoun would not have won either.

For example, he got 71 votes in the first round and failed to get two-thirds of the votes (86 votes), Because the Shiite representatives were content with refusing to vote – but in the second round, after getting their consent, he managed to get 99 votes, while he needed 65 votes.

But since he was the head of the army, he could not become the president based on the provisions of the constitution, and he still needed two-thirds of the votes. Of course, it happened in 2008 as well, when Michel Suleiman, the commander of the army at the time, was a candidate for the presidency, the speaker of the parliament announced that if he won more than two-thirds of the votes in the second round, he would waive the amendment of the constitution, which happened.

Now it seems that this has become a tradition. Amal and Hezbollah apparently fell short because their candidate had no chance of winning and the latter is under more internal and external pressure than ever before. Maybe they did so in exchange for receiving promises or because they had no choice.

Second:

Although Aoun won the support of two Shia currents in the second round, after his victory, he made some points in his speech that were not pleasing to Hezbollah – it is in the situation that this group has been weakened and trying to revive it is time-consuming and costly.

The new president of Lebanon said “I will use my role as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to confirm the government’s right to carry weapons. We should not rely on the outside to bully each other.”

If you pay a little attention, you can understand that Aoun is referring to Hezbollah, because when it comes to the disarmament of militias and the monopoly of weapons in the hands of the government, this group can be the target. It is also Hezbollah that does not respect the rulers of Beirut and other groups and bullies Aoun. Because the arsenal has weapons that the Lebanese army does not have. When Aoun talks about external forces, he apparently means Iran because it supports Hezbollah.

More importantly, Aoun played a role in the ceasefire talks between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanese army is also responsible for implementing the provisions of the ceasefire agreement. Being a military man, he understands well the importance of arms monopoly in the hands of the government, and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council are also available in the field.

Therefore, it is not unlikely that he will make efforts to disarm Hezbollah, evacuate southern Lebanon from the presence of this group’s militias, strengthen the army, etc.; so as to arouse the dissatisfaction of the supporters of this group. If he did not do so in the past, it was because he was not in a decision-making position and perhaps, he did not want to involve the army in doing something that he could not handle. Now what is helping him is the support of America, the different UN resolutions, the absence of Bashar Assad and the weakness of Hezbollah.

Third:

Saudi Arabia’s greed for role-playing is also interesting. Aoun is on the receiving end of Riyadh’s support. It is even said that he made his financial aid to Lebanon conditional on his victory. America and France also wanted Aoun’s victory, which would pave the way for Riyadh to act in Lebanon.

While the Saudi rivals (Iran and Qatar) were looking for other options: Franjieh and Elias Albusiri, as mentioned in (first analysis), Farnjieh was the candidate of the Shiites, which is also favorable in Tehran’s opinion, but he withdrew. But al-Basiri, who is supported by Qatar, went against Aoun and did not get a vote.

More importantly, Yazid bin Farhan, adviser to the Saudi Foreign Minister, has been in Lebanon for a few days now, and his role was prominent in Aoun’s victory. Even one of the members of the Lebanese Parliament wrote the name of Ben Farhan on the ballot as “Joseph Amos Ben Farhan” and showed it to others. All this indicates the presence of Riyadh in the context of developments in Lebanon, something that can be interpreted as unfavorable space for Tehran and Doha.

All in all, the political deadlock in Lebanon was broken and now there is a promise of political opening. Now it is expected that Beirut will be removed from the conflict of interests of major regional and global powers and sectarian conflicts in order to find a way to get rid of the current chaos.

Middle East

Türkiye and Israel in Syria talks, likened to ‘Sykes-Picot’ agreement

Published

on

Israel and Türkiye have initiated direct contacts in Azerbaijan, citing the need to “avoid confrontation in Syria.” The Israeli press has interpreted these meetings as a path toward the de facto division of Syria. A former navy commander described the meetings as “a kind of Sykes-Picot agreement.”

Israel and Türkiye have begun technical-level talks in Azerbaijan to prevent a potential conflict in the Syrian arena after Bashar al-Assad. The primary goal of the meetings is to “reduce the risk of conflict in military movements on the ground and to determine the red lines of the parties.”

However, according to comments in the Israeli press, these contacts may signal a tacit agreement on the de facto division of Syria. Al-Mayadeen reported from Israeli media that Israel’s former Navy Commander Eliezer Marom made a striking comparison, saying, “A kind of Sykes-Picot agreement has been made between us and Türkiye.” According to Marom, “Syria will not remain a single and whole state; it will be fragmented. Türkiye also has interests in some of these fragments.”

Israeli television channel News 13 also interpreted the meetings in Azerbaijan as “a sign of a new era in which Syria will be geographically divided.”

Prior to these contacts, Israel’s attack on the T4 airbase in Syria had raised tensions. This base is alleged to be among the points where Türkiye plans to deploy militarily.

The first confirmation regarding the meetings came from Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. In a statement on CNN Türk, Fidan announced that technical negotiations had begun with Israel to establish a “non-conflict mechanism.” The Ministry of National Defense also announced that the first meeting took place in Azerbaijan. On the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office also confirmed the direct talks, thanking Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for his mediation.

Israel’s public broadcaster KAN reported that no agreement was reached at the meetings held on Wednesday, and the second round would take place after Passover, which ends on April 20. The same source also claimed that Türkiye did not allow the plane carrying Israeli officials to Azerbaijan to enter its airspace, and the plane had to take a circuitous route via Bulgaria and Greece.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, an Israeli official said that Türkiye establishing a military base, especially in the Palmyra region, is a red line for Israel, and this position was clearly conveyed to the Turkish side at the meeting in Azerbaijan. The same official stated that the new administration led by HTŞ leader Ahmed Shara (Abu Muhammad al-Julani) would be held responsible for possible threats against Israel in the Syrian arena.

Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen also expressed a cautious attitude towards the process, saying, “We do not want a conflict with Türkiye,” but he also emphasized, “We are against the Turkish military presence in Syria.”

However, in Israel, it is assessed that the Netanyahu government does not have many options to balance Türkiye’s influence in Syria.

Gallia Lindenstrauss, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a semi-official institution reflecting the views of the Israeli security bureaucracy, told The Times of Israel, “Ultimately, when it comes to Syria, Türkiye is much more interested in and invested in that country than Israel is. Israel’s interest in Syria is only security-focused. This gives Ankara an advantage.”

Lindenstrauss also stated that US President Donald Trump’s support for President Tayyip Erdoğan further narrowed Israel’s room for maneuver.

Lindenstrauss made the following assessment: “President Trump made it clear during his last meeting with Netanyahu in Washington that he was willing to help Israel on the issue of Türkiye, but that Israel needed to make ‘reasonable demands’ for this to happen. Trump wants to force Israel into a more minimalist approach in Syria. Israel must prioritize and insist only on its most critical red lines, such as preventing the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

HTS-led Syria forms ties with South Korea

Published

on

Syria, which was an ally of North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) under the Assad regime, has signed a diplomatic recognition agreement with South Korea under the administration of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

According to Al Jazeera, this development is seen as a significant diplomatic achievement for HTS leader Ahmed Shara, who declared himself president. It also represents a strategic blow to North Korea, which has been an ally of Syria for years.

The agreement to establish diplomatic relations was signed yesterday evening in Damascus between South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul and Syrian Foreign Minister Assad Hasan al-Sheybani. Speaking at the ceremony, Minister Cho stated that South Korea is ready to contribute to the reconstruction of Syria with investments and humanitarian aid after 13 years of civil war.

Sheybani stated that they expect support from Seoul in easing the international sanctions on the Damascus government. This statement was also confirmed in a written statement by the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It was reported that diplomatic negotiations between the two countries began in February, gained momentum with the approval of the South Korean cabinet, and were officially completed this week, according to the Yonhap news agency.

This development occurred at a time when both countries are undergoing a political transformation. In December, armed groups led by HTS overthrew the Assad regime and then formed a transitional government. South Korea is also facing a major political crisis. President Yoon Suk-yeol was removed from office last week by a decision of the Constitutional Court. In December, Yoon briefly declared martial law, claiming that “anti-state” and “North Korea-backed” elements had infiltrated the government, which drew strong reactions from the public and parliament.

The country is currently governed by an interim president, and a new leader will be determined by an early election to be held in June.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US quietly withdraws troops from Syria to Iraq

Published

on

According to a report by Lebanon-based al-Mayadeen television, the US military has begun evacuating some of its military bases in northeastern Syria, transferring personnel and equipment to Iraq.

This development follows the agreement signed on March 10 between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) interim administration and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which stipulates the integration of SDF forces into the Syrian army. According to the report, after the agreement, the US began removing some military bases in northeastern Syria from mid-March, quietly transferring equipment and personnel to Iraq.

Specifically, it was reported that some US soldiers at the Vezir Base in the western countryside of Hasakah and in the city of Shaddadi were transferred by helicopters to US bases within the borders of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government.

In addition, it was reported that the American military presence in regions such as the Conoco gas field, Yeşilköy, and the Ömer oil field has decreased. It was stated that military vehicles and personnel were transported to the Shaddadi base before shipment and sent to Iraq from there.

Al-Mayadeen’s report, based on field observations, stated that US helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles have been conducting intense flights in the Deir ez-Zor, Hasakah, and Qamishli regions in recent days. It was also noted that some helicopters accompanied military convoys traveling from Hasakah to the IKBY from the air.

This development comes both after the “integration” agreement signed between HTS and the SDF, and at a time when allegations have been made that Türkiye and Israel are holding talks for a “non-conflict agreement” to prevent a possible escalation in Syria.

The US administration has not yet made an official statement regarding reducing its military presence in Syria or the withdrawal process. Al-Mayadeen wrote that SDF sources also stated that they had not received any official notification from the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey