Aoun and Nasrallah in primetime
Now Lebanon Editorial
Now Lebanon Editorial
We don’t know about you, but we soldiered through two-and-a-half hours of the Aoun-Nasrallah interview on Wednesday night (with an hour to spare), and it wasn’t easy. It’s not that the general and the Sayyed had nothing interesting to say; they did, even if we’ve heard it all before. However, we were left wondering what that weird encounter was all about.
Here’s our theory. The Aounists have been unable to take to the streets in support of the opposition’s demands – largely because most Christians and, now, the Lebanese army disapprove of such an endeavor. That bothers Hezbollah to no end, because without Christian frontage, the opposition looks exclusively Shia. In many ways, it is, but that’s not the impression Hezbollah wants to create. Instead, the party wants to show that it is part of a broad, multi-confessional movement – one as diverse as the parliamentary majority.
Aoun is unable to confirm this in the streets, but he can confirm it on television. Hence, the joint interview.
We can focus on content, of course. What did you think of Nasrallah’s statement that Rafik Hariri told him he would have been willing to allow Syrian troops to remain in the Bekaa Valley for 10 years? Right, given an honest choice between a full Syrian withdrawal and a decade-long Syrian presence inside Lebanon, Hariri would have chosen the latter.
Or what about the interesting sliver of difference between Nasrallah and Aoun on the future of Hezbollah’s weapons? Nasrallah once again tied Hezbollah’s retaining its weapons to the existence of an Israeli threat. But since that threat is, presumably, everlasting, does that mean that Hezbollah will remain permanently armed? Aoun tentatively ventured out of his shell to offer that the weapons could perhaps be held by the army.
However, it was the body language, the atmospherics, the bulky Regency style table, which to us were more important than the details of the discussion. For starters, Aoun was a pussycat in Nasrallah’s presence. Virtually everything the Sayyed said, the general agreed with. When Aoun stumbled, Nasrallah came to his rescue, clarifying a vague thought, tightening the script, gently telling Aoun what he should say. The interview was a tour de force for Nasrallah and a wet firecracker for Aoun.
Does that matter? In a way it does. Aoun’s chances of becoming president are nil. However, the general could have at least looked presidential. On Wednesday night, though, he was positively anemic.
For hours we had to hear the two guests talking about the past; about the details of their courtship going as far back as 2005. We heard at great length about that joint document they penned in February 2006, whose signature the interview was intended to celebrate. We heard about the summer 2006 war and the significance of the resistance. But we hardly heard anything at all about the vision the two men share for Lebanon’s future. Instead, they again made clear that they would deny us a vision by continuing to hold the presidential election
hostage to their very different priorities.
That’s not surprising. Aoun and Nasrallah have no common vision. They do share a deep contempt for traditional Lebanese politics and regard themselves as hovering above the political gutter. They personally dislike the March 14 leaders. They’re willing to look the other way on whatever Syria does in Lebanon. But that’s it. Each man has something of the absolutist in him, and no town is big enough for two absolutists.
We have made the argument here before, and will do so again. Aoun has lost much of the Christian goodwill he enjoyed in 2005. There are those who will follow the general into a new October 13 debacle if they have to. However, many more Christians refuse to do so. They voted for the general in 2005, but now they’ve changed their minds.
Even within the Free Patriotic Movement, we can confirm that there are leadership tensions, though perhaps not quite as severe as some would like to make them. Without a presidential project guiding him, Aoun is in disarray.
Which takes us back to the Aoun-Nasrallah interview. The Sayyed deftly explained why Hezbollah had not publicly supported Aoun’s candidacy. The explanation may have even convinced a few. But the reality is that Aoun’s name was not on the recent list sent by the Syrians to the French, via the Qataris. The Syrians don’t want Aoun as president, and therefore Hezbollah won’t truly support him – officially or unofficially. The old general is being used, and that was again obvious on Wednesday evening.