[ad_1]
Antoine Al-Asmar wrote in “The Brigade”:
As of October 14, Lebanon will officially enter the orbit of the US presidential elections. The negotiation station for the demarcation of the maritime borders has become part of the presidential battle in Washington, and the team of President Donald Trump is counting on it to supplement the gains it has accumulated as a result of the peace accords sponsored by the administration between Israel and several Gulf countries.
Of course, Trump’s team has no illusion that the Lebanese broadcaster will bring him revenue similar to the signed peace accords, but in itself it is seen as a breakthrough that will work for use in the electoral context. The US and international political and media coverage prepared for the Naqoura negotiations will be of great weight and importance. Some describe the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations as an October surprise, which would bridge the gap between the two election campaigns. This name refers to 3 critical points in the American electoral context during the last four decades:
R.- The 1972 elections, when it was announced on October 8, during the Paris negotiations to end the Vietnam War, that the North Vietnamese side agreed to the US conditions for a ceasefire, an agreement that collapsed in about days. However, the campaign of the candidate for president Richard Nixon, found in this development an opportunity to promote the next end of the war, which raised Nixon’s fortune against his rival, George McGovern, who called the statement a political stunt. . That war lasted until 1975.
The vanguard of the understandings is the return of the Syrian party and the reopening of the debate on defense strategy.
B – The 1980 elections, when the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s team agreed with Iran, according to the account of former National Security Council official Gary Sick, to delay the release of American hostages at the embassy in Tehran from October 1980 until January 1981 to ensure Reagan’s victory. Then, the Iranian authorities responded and released them minutes after President Jimmy Carter left the White House. The new president rewarded Tehran by supplying it with weapons through Israel, which would later become known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
C- The 2000 elections, when the campaign of candidate George Bush Jr. was shaken after the revelation of his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol in 1976, which exhausted his campaign and affected his popularity. But he won the result of the vote by Supreme Court decision, although his rival Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote nationally by a narrow margin.
The US administration is moving closer to the Lebanese agreement to start border demarcation negotiations through the Iranian gate. In other words, it is certain that Hezbollah would not have agreed without the coverage provided by Tehran.
Officials in Washington believe that the Iranian leadership wanted the Shiites in Lebanon to be at the center of the future equation at the regional level, giving them an amount (demarcation and then gas) that would qualify them to negotiate internationally, and to strengthen their position in Lebanon whenever the need for an international discussion on role and weapons arises, reflecting the desire. By linking the concession of resistance with the harvest of political results at the level of the Lebanese system, the so-called Shiite “effective participation”, which I finally expressed, as has become clear and clear, is the question of the third signature in the Ministry of Finance.
US officials do not deduce from their calculations that Tehran, in parallel with all this, is putting in its account that Lebanese Shiites charge an internal price for the developments that are taking place, similar to the legalization of the current Shiite participation in power. executive, which is a participation that exists by virtue of practice, not by virtue of the constitution, which is required in a later stage, perhaps soon, an adjustment in the form of the system and its equilibrium, the triangle may be one of its demonstrations.
From the development of the debate in Washington, it seems that American decision-making circles are not far from covering the Iranian price required in Lebanon should the United States achieve, and by extension Israel, what they want soon in the demarcation , and then in the decline of the regional influence of “Hezbollah” (one of its aspects may be the military return from Syria and then from other places of conflict), and then on the issue of weapons when reopening the Lebanese debate, they arrived to a defensive strategy that accommodates the party’s weapons and re-engages it politically – exclusively – in the Lebanese system, as an inevitable result of the legalization of Shiite participation in the executive power.
[ad_2]
