[This article has been published in Restoring America to consider how the U.S. ought to respond to the changing power dynamics in Lebanon.]
Lebanese went to the polls this weekend to elect a new parliament. The elections come after a tumultuous couple years dominated by the Beirut port explosion, a currency crisis, and assassinations of prominent civil society activists. The preliminary news was not good for many of the incumbents, including Hezbollah.
A year and a half ago, I visited Nabatiyeh, a town in the Hezbollah heartland. Against the backdrop of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “Maximum Pressure” campaign, Hezbollah was hemorrhaging support for a simple reason: Their Iranian funds had dried up amidst a shortage of dollars. Hezbollah was quickly learning that perhaps 90% of their rank-and-file prioritized power and privileges over ideology. This weekend, Hezbollah tried a “Hail Mahdi” pass and gave Hezbollah and Amal vouchers to those at petrol stations seeking to fill up their tank. It did not work, and Hezbollah conceded the loss of at least one seat in the district.
Nabatiyeh appears to be the rule rather than the exception. Hezbollah and its allies are on the verge of a surprise loss of a majority since the Iranian-backed party was not able to provide its usual coattails in many districts. The Lebanese Forces — a Christian group traditionally opposed to Hezbollah — will have the largest block in parliament. Anti-Hezbollah Sunnis also did well. The Lebanese Forces’ victory strips Hezbollah of the Christian popular cover it enjoyed through the support of Michel Aoun who, along with his son-in-law, former Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, only managed to get around 12 seats. Hezbollah’s loss is more striking given how gerrymandered Lebanese districts can be.
As important as Hezbollah’s loss is the fact that three of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s proxies also lost, most prominently Deputy Speaker Elie Firzli.
While election results give hope, Lebanon’s elites have a well-practiced capability for self-dealing at the expense of the broader population. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, for example, cooperated with Hezbollah by refraining from running his own candidate in Marjayoun in southern Lebanon. Perhaps he thought he would need their help elsewhere should they win in order to keep his own patronage network alive.
The White House should absorb three lessons from the Lebanese elections.
First, elections matter. They are not the sum total of democracy, but the corrupt hate accountability whereas the victims of the corrupt crave liberty and accountability for their oppressors. The United States should never write off liberty simply because it is difficult or they condescendingly believe that certain cultures are impervious to the desire for a better life.
Second, maximum pressure was working. The Biden administration might want to jumpstart diplomacy, but resourcing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or their proxies to do so is policy malpractice that will reverberate far beyond Iran’s borders. Do not snuff out Lebanon’s hope to cast off Hezbollah because of Washington partisan animus.
Lastly, aid matters, but the amount given is not the metric to judge its success. When the United States or international community channels money through Beirut, they empower those whom the Lebanese see as parasites feeding off their nation. A better strategy would be to bypass Beirut and direct microloans and grants to the municipal level, where transparency is greater and opportunities to steal more difficult.
After Lebanese put their lives on the line to defy Hezbollah this weekend, it is essential that Biden not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.
