New York - French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not alone in the European group that got carried away by the psychological campaign and settled on their expectations of the Lebanese parliamentary elections resulting in a victory for Hezbollah and its allies. However, Sarkozy is not known for belonging to a group of any kind. He thus decided to jump the gun on the others and began a series of nearly constant phone calls with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad during the final days of the Lebanese electoral campaign, while assuming that the victory of Hezbollah and others from among Damascus's supporters will return to Syria its precious influence and instruments to affect the fate of Lebanon. By reaching such a conclusion and making such assumptions, the French President made a basic mistake when he went further than is acceptable in diplomatic and political practice by beginning to barter with Syria on an internal Lebanese matter. Yet the other mistake lies in Nicolas Sarkozy's rush to embrace the assessment made by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki over the results of the Lebanese parliamentary elections, to the extent that it made the French President seem confident of the election results. He thus went further than interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs, further than bartering with the Syrian President and compromising over Lebanon, and further than yielding to the Iranian minister's interpretation of the future of Lebanon under Iranian influence, manipulation and hegemony. His imagination brought him to the point of overwhelming confidence in his estimations, while wagering on Hezbollah's victory, saving US President Barack Obama's administration through his indirect means and allowing himself to consider the visits of US Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Beirut an “interference” in Lebanon's affairs, while non-publicly opening a direct line of communication with the Syrian presidency to discuss the future of Lebanon and compromise over it, at the level of France, Syria and Iran. Sarkozy has harmed France, and not just in Lebanon, with this behavior, one which heads a string of unusual and unacceptable behavior. Yet the example of Sarkozy is only an introduction to the importance of what has taken place during the past week, the necessary lessons that must be learned from the mistakes that were made, and how it will be possible to build positively from now on, at the regional and international level, not just at the level of Lebanon or Iran as a result of elections in both countries. Regarding Lebanon, the parliamentary elections have resulted in a defeat, unexpected by many (but not by everyone), for Hezbollah, their ally General Michel Aoun and their smaller allies. They have also resulted in a victory that was not expected to reach 71 seats in favor of the March 14 Alliance, headed by Saad Hariri. This gives March 14 a political and moral impetus at the regional and international levels, informing all those concerned that such a decision is a strictly Lebanese decision, strictly for the sake of Lebanon's future. Indeed, the Lebanese did not vote for the Americans or the Saudis, regardless of how much US or Saudi contribution was appreciated. They voted against turning Lebanon into a base for Iran, whether a military base, a base of influence or a compromise over hegemony. They voted against plans of using Lebanon as a battlefield for Palestinian factions based in Damascus, and against the return of Syrian influence to Lebanon with its old instruments. They voted against the Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu, who was perhaps “drooling” as he dreamt of the ammunition and pretext of Hezbollah's rule of Lebanon to wage a war aimed at evading the pressures of peace that surround him, at the level of the US and internationally. What has triumphed in the elections is Lebanon's Lebanese identity, which does not refute the fact that the elections have also led to a setback for the Islamic Republic of Iran in Lebanon and in the wider Arab region. It neither refutes nor reduces the importance of the message directed at the United States, that the Lebanese choice will be American if the other choice is Iranian, and that President Barack Obama, not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, represents hope. This does not refute the fact that the Lebanese elections are the most important factor of influence on elections in Iran, Afghanistan and others, and that the “Lebanese surprise” may lead to an “Iranian surprise”, represented by forgoing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which will most probably and certainly influence the electoral balance in various Muslim countries. Indeed, Lebanon is the “laboratory” and the “indicator” of power balances. In the past few years, Lebanon has acquired another dimension, which is that it has today become the spark of daring to dream, to change and to rise up from under the wreckage of political assassinations and wretched military adventures, at both the local and foreign levels. It is a beacon lighting the way of audacity to coexistence on new bases at the Lebanese level, and the way of democracy as one of hope for the countries and people of many regions. Today, after the victory of the March 14 Alliance, all Lebanese leaders are asking to look to the future, not in the sense of “business as usual”, but rather on the basis of the opportunities available to everyone without exception to participate in making a new Lebanon, one perfectly secured against foreign interference, with a leading role in shaping the future of the Middle East, its true defense lying in lucid partnerships, rather than ones deriving from “habit” such as with France, or from unnatural belonging such as with Iran. Those who win elections, according to democratic practice, are entitled to govern for a while until the next elections. If the opposition aims at obstructing and paralyzing the winners' government to prevent it from truly governing, and to unleash anger against it based on the strategy of making it fail, then the opposition has no right to participate in government to obstruct it. More importantly, no one in the country, no party or leader, has the right to obstruct its management, paralyze its economy or immobilize people's lives in constant worry – simply in order to obtain political gains for themselves. Everything has its rules. Of course Lebanon is shaped by understandings based on sectarian considerations aimed at balance. However, this does not mean that those who win elections must fall into the meanders of the traditional understandings loose in balances. Indeed, the system of governance in Lebanon gives parliamentary elections tremendous influence, because those who win the parliamentary elections are the ones entitled to form a government and determine its tasks, including who will head it. Thus we come to the Speaker of Parliament. If the next Speaker of Parliament whom the majority (March 14) will select must be Nabih Berri, who prevented parliament from convening by refusing to open its doors to voting for political reasons, it would not at all be logical to return him to the position of Speaker of Parliament without question or guarantees from the man who kept the key in his pocket in an international precedent, refusing to allow parliament to convene. If balances and understandings dictate that there is no way but for Nabih Berri to take up the position of Speaker of Parliament, then surely there must be legal, judicial and legislative guarantees that what has happened in the past would not be repeated under any circumstances. If the parliamentary majority does any less than this, then it must be held accountable, immediately and before it is too late. Indeed, it is unacceptable to allow any arrangement that would lead to the democratic institution represented by the parliament being shut down at the whim of its Speaker or according to his political mood. This is a duty for the winners and a right for the voters that must be respected. Politically, regarding Hezbollah, which is the most important party in the opposition, especially as it maintains a military force that rivals the Lebanese Army in terms of capabilities, rockets and military equipment, the time today is that of making a decision. If only Hezbollah's leadership would choose Lebanon first and last, to be with its party a pioneer in the path of agreement in the new Lebanon. Indeed, it is a leadership of high standing, its place is reserved in the Lebanese community and the role of its party is essential in Lebanese political activity, as soon as it decides that Lebanon the state is its first and final reference. Then, and in case Hezbollah takes the initiative of merging into the Lebanese state militarily, for the Lebanese Army to be everyone's army, the Lebanese state will carry on its shoulders the responsibility of removing the attribute of “terrorism”, not befitting the party, from it, and the United States will also rush to agree to the removal of such an attribute and to dealing with Hezbollah's leadership in the best of manners. The opportunity is available. The opportunity is available for Hezbollah to play a leading and visionary role for the Arab and Muslim world if it takes advantage of the valuable window of opportunity provided by Barack Obama's enthusiasm to embrace the Muslim world with complete respect and to deal with the Palestinian issue with complete fairness. If this window is to close, then let Israel be responsible for closing it. After this, it will be a different issue and we will come to it. Indeed, there is no need for Hezbollah to bear the responsibility of making it fail, especially during a phase in which the US is opening up to understanding and sympathizing with the Arab-Israeli conflict for the first time from an Arab and Muslim perspective. Moreover, Barack Obama seeks to open a new chapter with each of Iran and Syria. Thus if Hezbollah is aware, ready and prepared to be an important party in the regional formulas being produced, it will not have its place if does not present itself strictly at the Lebanese level and within the Lebanese state. Any other approach will make it seem either as an extension of Iran or a rival of Syria. Hezbollah's standing lies in being put forth within the Lebanese approach, which necessarily requires a radical reevaluation of its political and military choices, as well as its choices in terms of identity. Hezbollah's allies are not of the same significance, yet they remain Lebanese, even if fear has possessed them with a strange obsession – making them seem as if shedding off their Lebanese identity. They need time to mull over their grief, to then realize that what took place in the elections is a blessing for them as well. General Aoun has become so congested he might explode, and it is time for him to put his dream of the presidency aside and look after the needs of his followers, in order to thank them and lead them to the Lebanon of agreement and harmony. A wise interpretation of the regional situation would suggest that Lebanon's elections have taken the region away from the threshold of the outbreak of wars of evasion, wars of arrogance, wars of hegemony and wars of revenge. Lebanon's elections have opened the doors to the dream of a civilized democracy and the right to live in peace, quiet and comfort. The leaders of the March 14 Alliance did well to insist upon appeasement even in celebration, and upon calm dialogue, far from threats. Indeed, the Lebanese have grown tired of threats and of being used as an arena for wars, compromises and tradeoffs. There remains the fact that US President Barack Obama intervened in Lebanon for the sake of coexistence, whereas French President Nicolas Sarkozy intervened in order to barter at the expense of UN Resolutions, and in fact in violation of some of them, which demand non-interference in Lebanon's legislative elections. No matter, let Sarkozy assume what he likes and act accordingly, as he is the one fidgeting before staring eyes that ask: what on earth are you doing?
