The complications in Lebanon, both overt and covert, are on the rise; the political groups and government in the country are facing challenges which warn of ending the political formula that brought the current Cabinet to power and cemented a new parliamentary majority, after the toppling of the leader of the Future Movement, Saad al-Hariri, from the prime minister's post last January. When this political equation led to the formation of the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, it was understood by some as a true expression of the real balance of power on the ground, based on the strength of Hezbollah and Syria's allies in Lebanese political life, which cannot be measured without taking into account the impact of the resistance's weapons and the surplus of force enjoyed by Hezbollah and Damascus. This influence extends to powerful institutions, especially security-related ones. Others, however, understood this formula as a means to prevent an explosion of the political and security situation in the country, because of the dispute over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and its accusations against members of Hezbollah of involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the dispute over Lebanon's regional policy options, the division of the political class and, therefore, the struggle over power. In other words, this equation would create a truce that could be extended as long as possible, to avoid an explosion, until external conditions around the country create regional controls that would prevent this explosion. This understanding of the political formula was relied on by Mikati as a justification for himself to accept the prime minister's post, wishing, by doing so, to spare the country the potential escalation. All of the parties concerned with this formula, whether they understood it as a reflection of the balance of power, or as a temporary measure to spare the country this explosion, were taken by surprise by the Arab spring, particularly when its popular uprisings spread to Syria. While it appeared that Lebanon was in need to adapt itself to the developments and changes of this Arab spring, to benefit from them where possible, and avoid the negative ramifications, as its limited capabilities prevent the country from keeping abreast of these developments, there was a gradual move toward standing up to the Arab spring and showing enmity to the phenomenon. After there was a near-consensus over the source of the Arab uprisings being the peoples of the region themselves, there were those who increasingly favored the theory of the foreign conspiracy as being behind these developments. The impact of the division in dealing with the revolutions was to deepen the schism in Lebanon, even among the parties of the equation that produced the current government. What increases the impact of the division about that equation on the Lebanese political situation is the fact that the Syrian leadership has returned to relying on an old rule of maintaining its grip of power over the authorities in Lebanon and managing this country's affairs as a prime means of defending the regime in Damascus. This rule could be justified in the past, by saying that the attack on Syria came from the outside, after the American occupation of Iraq, and the repercussions of Hariri's assassination on regional and international powers. There were states that tried to use Lebanon in order to weaken the Syrian regime and impose conditions on it. However, this base is no longer valid today, since the domestic Syrian factor is more of a threat to the regime than the external factor. In the past, it was valid because the majority of Syrians, domestically, supported the regime against external threats, of which Lebanon was one of the presumed gateways. A return to using the rule of defending the regime in Lebanon hints at the imaginary and unrealistic notion that there are those in Lebanon who can actually threaten the regime in Damascus. No sane person believes such a thing, at a time in which some external powers, whose influence and capabilities far outweigh Lebanon's – such as Iraq, Iran, Russia, China and others – are supporting the regime… against the Syrian people. The damage from returning to the older rule of defending the regime in Lebanon is not limited to the delusion that the battle is being waged in this fashion, but extends to constituting a threat to the current Lebanese political formula. This delusion is leading to old-style behavior that is increasing every day. Borders are witnessing chaos and there are security problems in some parts of the country, where kidnappings take place. In addition, some security bodies are out of control, while the Cabinet is experiencing pressure from members of the government, who are notifying the prime minister that they can create problems for this government, as happened with the recent moves to allay worker grievances. These are practices that go beyond the understanding on the part of some groups that the current political equation reflects the dominance of a certain party in the balance of power, or that the equation's objective is to avoid a general explosion. This behavior will destroy the existing formula, because it will take Lebanon back to a state of chaos.
