Some in Lebanon speak of a “coup” as if they were surprised by what is happening. They also focus on the incident of trespassing on airport grounds as if the breaching of all other state institutions were taken for granted and accepted. They drown in the details of quibbles and of responses to them, then of responses to responses, while oblivious to the big picture, where the whole country has been hijacked, chained and paralyzed, where no decision can be taken there without the consent of those who hold sway and weapons, and where none of the country's state institutions can do some of their work without obtaining prior approval from parties who care neither about state institutions nor about their work. Indeed, ever since the end of the 2006 war and the issuing of Resolution 1701, Lebanon and the Lebanese have been paying the price for the Resistance moving from the Southern front to the Riad El-Solh Square front, where it in effect remains present. Indeed, paralyzing the government does not require breaking into the Grand Serail or repeating the same armed clashes in the streets. The Doha Agreement has proven that it was possible to walk into government headquarters “peacefully” with regional cover and to paralyze it from within. The rest consists only of variations, theatrics and marginal play. And ever since the expression “Lebanon with its army, its people and its resistance” entered the Ministerial Statement, there is no longer a pretext for discussing the role of each of the parties to the new formula. Indeed, while the army represents the state, the Resistance has become, as everyone recognizes, an entity independent from it. As for the “people”, it is a surrealist term that does not refer to anything tangible or to opinion that can be measured, but rather to groups of people whose loyalties are divided between the two sides, groups that do not meet or even come close to each other. Thus, efforts have now become focused on defining the limits, interests and influence of each of the state and the Resistance. However, because the latter is made up purely of a specific sectarian and security group, the cohesion of which would be difficult to breach, while the state is made up of a mixture of political trends, sectarian communities and families trying to coexist, the Resistance has become the stronger side, as its sect is also represented in the government. In other words, the Resistance now has two shares: one formed purely of its sect and its geographical areas, and another in the shared fabric of the state and of its institutions. This is why it is no longer difficult for it to impose its opinion and its logic on others, especially as it holds weapons that are unmatched and enjoys exceptional regional support, financially and militarily, that is unparalleled. Reinforcing Hezbollah's trend towards seizing a greater share of the state is abundant talk of an undeclared understanding between Iran and the United States, the features of which have begun to take shape in Iraq, and the final and explicit form of which is nearing completion. Indeed, the US Secretary of State made sure a few days ago to clarify statements she had made by saying that she “did not mean changing the Iranian regime” but rather reducing the grip of the Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) on power, a stance Obama will reiterate on the podium at the United Nations. As for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, he did not hesitate to say yesterday that diplomatic relations could be resumed between the two countries as long as “the US government (…) respect[s] the Iranian nation”, considering that “in such a case, matters would get resolved. There will remain some secondary issues which we can discuss, but they are unrelated to bilateral relations”. Perhaps one of those “secondary” issues is the military might of the Lebanese party, which realizes that there will surely come a day when its mission of “liberation” will be suspended by request from Tehran itself, before it is cancelled out on the background of a broad regional understanding that would include other “defiant” parties. In the meantime, its policy of gradually gaining more power threatens to cancel out the idea of Lebanon itself.
