“If civil war were to erupt in Lebanon this time around, the 1975 war will be a picnic by comparison." This expression was attributed to Hezbollah Deputy Muhammad Raad and the party's representative to the national dialogue table held two days ago under the chairmanship of President of the Republic Michel Suleiman. It summarizes the Lebanese situation to a wide extent, but also the numerous fears of the interlocutors. This sentence might feature implicit warnings and threats, due to Hezbollah's strength as an armed organization representing the Shiites, and in light of its regional role in connection with the Iranian nuclear file crisis and the Syrian crisis, amid mounting talk about possible military interventions in both of them. Nonetheless, the statement issued by the convened so far reflects a wish to achieve domestic appeasement and forced and temporary disconnection from the two major regional crises, which means the exclusion of internal violence – at least for the time being – despite the incidents and armed clashes erupting here and there. It is likely that the current insistence on calm in Lebanon is linked to the mystery surrounding the course of the Iranian nuclear crisis and the future of power in Damascus, rather than being an expression of political convictions. Indeed, what happened around the dialogue table revealed that the issues of dispute are unchanged, especially in regard to the weapons, be they the ones in the hands of the Lebanese, the ones in the hands of the Palestinians outside the camps, or the ones in Hezbollah's hands. Moreover, the relationship with Syria at the level of the normalization of relations and the demarcation of the border is unchanged, and it is unlikely that the June 25 session will be able to settle these issues. In the meantime, what was leaked about the dialogue session reveals that the voicing of the political positions featured acute verbal clashes, without this preventing the issuance of the statement which insisted on calm. We must mention at this point what was featured in the Baabda statement about the Taif Accord, namely its upholding by all the parties. This reveals that Hezbollah, which did not publically demand its annulment, recanted the call made by its Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for a constituent conference to regulate the relations between the Lebanese, by using the military balance of power to reallocate political influence. It is believed that this recanting is due to the mystery surrounding the Syrian situation, the denominational clash it features, and its possible extension into Lebanon. What is happening in Tripoli on the friction line between the Sunnis and the Alawis and the mutual kidnappings which even affected the Shiite pilgrims in Syria, confirms the impossibility of isolating Lebanon from the denominational clash in Syria. Hezbollah might have read into the field and political developments in Syria and discovered they went against its interests, thus carrying out a tactical retreat in the context of the announcement of the insistence on calm and the Taif Accord. Moreover, the March 14 forces are politically supporting the Syrian opposition and are not concealing their hostility toward the Syrian regime. They also agreed to reject the smuggling of weapons and the presence of buffer zones in Lebanon to protect the Syrian refugees, after they had called on the government to intervene and provide this protection and the necessary aid. Also at this level, there is a wager on the developments inside Syria. Indeed, the March 14 forces believe that these developments are in their favor on the middle run, especially if the parliamentary elections are held on the set date without direct Syrian intervention for the first time since the Taif accord, seeing how the regime in Damascus is preoccupied with its domestic crisis and the loosening of its security grip, and hence of its previous ability to impact the events.
