The Mullahs and the General
Aoun’s visit to Tehran is a declaration of loyalty and another betrayal to his Christian bloc
Michel Aoun needed an excuse to justify his trip to Iran two weeks ago. He found it by declaring that he would use the visit to protect and strengthen the Christians’ role in the region. But in reality, it was a courtesy call, one that was spun by the opposition March 8 bloc to style the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader as a Christian statesman with regional clout, while his main Christian opponents such as Samir Geagea of the Lebanese Forces and Amin Gemayel of the Kataeb are perceived as nothing more than minor players squabbling over parochial scraps. However, Aoun’s latest attempt to position himself as the defender of Lebanon’s Christian identity has backfired. Simply, he is Iran’s Christian in Lebanon.
The visit in itself was not shocking; his alliance with Hezbollah is by extension an alliance with Tehran but this recent cozying up to the mullahs in their own backyard threatens to set the FPM on an agenda the course of which contradicts the Lebanese Christians’ historical inclination of being open to Western and moderate cultures. Given its record of religious persecution and violations of human rights, Iran is a bizarre place to kick off his campaign, and only Aoun’s hardcore supporters would have seen the trip as anything other than another attempt to consolidate his Machiavellian alliance with Hezbollah and feed his insatiable presidency fantasies.
A friendly mullah
Aoun’s statements from Iran were clearly a declaration of loyalty to one of the world’s most controversial theocracies. Ignoring the fact that Iran is facing international isolation, a situation that is impacting both economically and socially, he told reporters, momentarily forgetting about the existence of both India and Pakistan, that Iran was the most powerful regional power “from Lebanon to China,” and that, also forgetting about Hezbollah’s attempted coup on May 7, that Iran had “never helped one Lebanese party against the other.” In Aoun’s world, using Iranian financed arms is not Iranian “help.”
By constantly attacking Saudi Arabia and brandishing the constant Sunni threat with regard to the Palestinian debate and the Salafists of North Lebanon in parallel with his statements of fealty towards Iran, Aoun is helping both Syria and Iran neutralize regional Sunni influence on Lebanese politics.
A savior?
“Iran was open to all parties and for that reason MP Michel Aoun was invited to visit Tehran, and because he represented the Christian majority in Lebanon,” said Hezbollah MP Amin Cherri on al-Manar television.
The last part of the statement is debatable but even if it were so, one wonders why Aoun, who is still trying to convince Lebanon’s Christians that the Taif Accord gave-away their rights, would throw himself wholeheartedly and with such gusto into the arms of a nation that is debating a draft law, that passed the first of two votes in the Iranian Parliament, that mandates the death penalty for anyone who converts from Islam. Tehran has executed Christian converts in the past, and this legislation – which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lobbied for – would allow the regime to kill more (interestingly, although Article 23 of Iran’s own constitution states that no one may be persecuted simply for his beliefs, the majority in favor of the new law was 196 votes for, with just seven against). No wonder the number of Iranian Christians has fallen from 250,000 in 1973 to 100,000 today.
But does Aoun really care about the Lebanese Christians? One of his objectives has been to attack the Patriarch, Christian institutions, and political parties. In short his strategy has been to divide.
It’s about power
Aoun, a former general, has a fondness for dictatorships. In 1988, according to Saad Kiwan, a columnist at the Kuwaiti daily al-Anbaa, during the presidential vacuum created after President Amin Gemayel’s term ended, he wrote to former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, to tell him that he was a military figure, hoping that Assad would consider him an officer in his army.
Aoun also expressed his appreciation of Syria’s role in Lebanon and what it had offered the Christians. He also said that he understands Syria’s interests in Lebanon, because Lebanon’s and Syria’s security are one. Aoun also wrote that he supported legitimizing Syria’s military existence in Lebanon, and signing security agreements between the two countries. When Damascus let him down, Aoun turned to Saddam Hussein for military and financial support, later to be used against Syria and other Lebanese Christians.
Today, his visit to Iran and his alliance with Hezbollah is just another example of how Aoun bets on power. But in return for Iranian support he will have to obstruct any efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s arsenal and Iran’s interests in Lebanon. But then again, this is not surprising. Aoun, as well as embracing Iran, forgives Syria for its past mistakes in Lebanon, although the Syrian regime has never apologized. And yet he cannot accept the apology made by Geagea. Who is dividing who?
Then again, what are his options? Since he signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah, Aoun has backed himself in a corner. He’s got no one else.