Lebanese Alliance Shifts Ultimately Depend on Syria

Rumors have been circulating in Beirut for weeks about a change in political positions and alliances, with Gen. Michel Aoun, the most prominent Christian leader, appearing to have adopted a new political stance. Speculation abounds that Aoun has been gradually moving away from his Shiite allies while making overtures toward Sunni leader and former prime minister Saad al-Hariri. What are the reasons for this situation and to what extent are the expectations of a radical repositioning in the Lebanese political scene plausible?

The end of May was the constitutional deadline for Lebanese MPs to make a decision on a new electoral law. They had to pass a new one, approve holding elections based on the law still in force or extend their own mandate, which was to end on June 20. After they failed to pass legislation for holding parliamentary elections, talk began to be heard of Aoun changing his political alignment.

Aoun's position had been clear: A new electoral law was a priority, otherwise elections should be held under the provisions of the existing law. Postponing the elections or extending the mandate of parliament was, for him, out of the question. The general's Shiite allies, however — especially Hezbollah and the Amal movement, the latter headed by parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — took a different view of the matter.

The Shiites were not confident of victory if elections were held under the extant law. The Shiite camp believed that holding elections in light of mounting tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, as well the volatile security situation in many areas, would exacerbate sectarian conflict, possibly resulting in major sectarian "strife," which they believe would spell doom for their existence and be the end of Lebanon. In addition, at the time Hezbollah was preoccupied with events in Syria, with its fighters in the midst of the battle for Qusair, which eventually fell to them on June 5.