The election of Joseph Aoun to the presidency of Lebanon has profound implications for the country, both domestically and internationally. Aoun served as the Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) for years and is known for his neutrality and professionalism. These qualifications make his presidency a fit for the country’s current situation.
Lebanon has historically experienced the intertwining of several competing influences: Western, Arab and Iranian. While Aoun’s presidency will not change this dynamic, it will influence its balance. His close relations with the United States, and the LAF’s reliance on American military aid, aligned him with Western support. Nevertheless, this orientation will not affect Lebanon’s relations with other major actors, such as Iran and Syria.
Aoun’s presidency might bolster the nation’s institutions, countering Hezbollah’s monopoly and curbing Iranian influence in the long run. However, considering Lebanon’s sectarian and power-sharing system and Hezbollah’s entrenched power, the president’s ability to navigate these dynamics carefully and avoid destabilizing the country will be tested. Though Aoun’s policies would contain Hezbollah’s activities, he will likely refrain from confrontation to maintain stability in the country.
Regional implications
Joseph Aoun’s election indicates a potential adjustment of Lebanon’s position in the prevailing regional power competition between Iran and its rivals, including Saudi Arabia. While Aoun has maintained good relations with Hezbollah as part of his responsibilities in the LAF, his presidency may challenge the group’s unrestrained power. Unlike previous presidents, Aoun is perceived as a unifying figure who can represent the state and not a specific political party.
During his presidency, one may witness a step towards increased Lebanese engagement from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. In recent years, strained relationships between Lebanon and some Gulf states have led to a reduction in economic support, exacerbating Lebanon’s economic crisis. On the contrary, Aoun’s commitment to neutrality and political order might alleviate the Gulf states’ concerns about him, encouraging them to invest politically and economically in Lebanon.
Iran, which has significantly influenced Lebanon via its proxy, Hezbollah, could be apprehensive about Aoun’s presidency. While Aoun worked with Hezbollah to ensure law and order as an LAF commander, he is considered an independent figure. This independence could show a shift away from the Iranian interests that dominated Lebanon’s governance, which could strain relations between Tehran and Beirut.
Aoun’s presidency may shift towards a more restrained and steady approach to dealing with Syria. Due to his background as a military figure, Aoun may devote greater attention to preserving Lebanon’s independence and limit Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs. However, his spirit of practical politics may enable collaboration on border security and the management of refugees, as long as it serves Lebanon’s interests.
Domestically, Aoun’s presidency may affect Hezbollah’s involvement in the Lebanese state. The organization has exercised tremendous power over the government and the security establishment. Still, Aoun’s presidency may seek to break this norm and expand the powers of state institutions such as the LAF. Also, Aoun’s willingness to practice neutrality, along with Aoun’s institutionalism, may constrain Hezbollah’s unilateralism.
This development could escalate tensions between the presidency and Hezbollah, particularly if Aoun pursues strategies that challenge Hezbollah’s power, such as strengthening the LAF’s presence in areas traditionally under the group’s control or pushing for greater state authority. However, Aoun must be cautious not to provoke internal conflict, as Hezbollah remains a powerful and entrenched force in Lebanon’s political and military landscape.
International dimensions
Lebanon is caught in a geopolitical competition of prevailing powers and will always be caught in the tug-of-war, to varying extents. While Aoun might bring the country closer to American-aligned policies, his presidency is more likely to reflect a policy of equidistance to these influences rather than shift Lebanon’s orientation entirely towards the West.
For instance, while Aoun could strengthen relations with the US, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, he will also be required to practice pragmatic relations with Iran and Syria to secure internal stability. Aoun’s military background, along with his image as an impartial figure, creates the belief that his main objective is to distance Lebanon from the influence of any foreign bloc, steering the country toward the independence it desperately needs.
Washington likely views Aoun’s presidency as continuing its strategic investments in the Lebanese Army. For decades now, the U.S. has viewed LAF as a counterbalance to Hezbollah and as a key force in ensuring stability on the Lebanon-Israel border, not to mention the Lebanon-Syria border. Aoun will likely strengthen the perception of LAF as the enduring factor of Lebanon’s independence, thereby solidifying Lebanon’s relationship with Western powers in regional security matters.
In addition, Aoun’s presidency can catalyze progress in cementing long-pending international agreements, such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which is related to the cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel. His leadership may also attract international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund to offer more significant assistance, provided Lebanon is ready to undertake relevant reforms.
A path towards stability?
Aoun’s discipline and reputation of independence make him a unique candidate for any multifaceted Lebanese crisis. His presidency may inspire greater trust in Lebanon, international donors and regional allies.
Lebanon’s consociational political system, based on sectarian power-sharing, prevents any president from unilaterally reshaping the nation. The country’s politics will continue to be divided into spheres without consensus among different actors, limiting Lebanon’s ability to pivot fully towards Western support, even with Western aid.
Aoun’s discipline and reputation of independence make him a unique candidate for any multifaceted Lebanese crisis. His presidency may inspire greater trust in Lebanon, international donors and regional allies. However, significant challenges remain — primarily, entrenched sectarian and political interests that have frozen decision-making. Still, Aoun’s leadership might provide the state with the institutional credibility necessary to reclaim authority.
His election may pave the way for Lebanon’s more stable and prosperous future. It could help merge domestic reform efforts with international support. This may indicate a shift within the region and enable Lebanon to move away from its reliance on Iranian influence and become part of the Arab world and the international community.
In summary, Joseph Aoun’s election to the presidency may afford Lebanon a rare chance to stabilize its governance and repair its damaged international relations. His impact will be felt in Lebanon and the region, and his election will transform Lebanon’s role within the intricate relations that exist in Middle Eastern countries.
The election of Aoun as Lebanon’s president could signal a shift in the country’s political trajectory. However, this change is unlikely to mark a dramatic break from the past or a complete embrace of Western dominance. Instead, Lebanon is expected to recalibrate its position within the both foreign and domestic policy frameworks. The focus will be on adjusting the balance between competing influences, navigating Lebanon’s historical challenges and ensuring that these forces work together for the country’s stability.
Vera Yacoubian
Be the first to comment