Lebanon would not benefit if the US sanctioned Speaker Nabih Berri

The pressure has been on Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to convene a session for a vote and hold successive rounds of voting until a candidate wins. Reuters

Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah and its apparent subsequent elimination of his likely successor, Hashem Safieddine, has left a vacuum in the group’s political leadership. This creates considerable space for the senior Shiite politician in Lebanon’s governing structure, Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Parliament.

For years, Mr Berri has represented a facade for Hezbollah in the Lebanese state. A highly influential politician, he has also benefited by being the main intermediary with the group, which dominated the political system. In a recent speech, Naim Qassem, Nasrallah’s deputy, described Mr Berri as Hezbollah’s “big brother”. But that praise hid a warning to the Speaker: don’t transgress Hezbollah’s red lines, or else.

There have been reports recently that the administration of US President Joe Biden is trying to push Lebanon’s political class to bring in a new president. Since Parliament elects presidents in the country, the pressure has been on Mr Berri to convene a session for a vote and hold successive rounds of voting until a candidate wins. According to media reports, Washington would like to see the army commander, Joseph Aoun, elected.

Some influential American voices on the Middle East, such as Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute, have mentioned that there is talk in the US capital of sanctioning Mr Berri if he refuses to hold such a parliamentary session. It is doubtful, however, that the Biden administration would do such a thing, as it would only further block the political system in Lebanon and achieve nothing.

Understandably, Mr Berri has resisted holding an election, arguing that for this to happen, a consensus must exist around a candidate. He knows that Hezbollah would view a forced election as an American, and Israeli, effort to exploit its vulnerabilities today to impose on it a candidate it does not want. Mr Berri will not isolate himself within his own community on behalf of the Biden administration.

For many Lebanese, Mr Berri embodies everything that’s wrong about Lebanon’s political class. He has been in office since 1992, is regarded by many people as lacking ethics, and was a main defender of the corrupt structure that led to the financial collapse of 2020, depriving millions of Lebanese of their savings. This is undeniable.

Yet it’s also true that Mr Berri is a pragmatist. As he watches the ruin of particularly the Shiite community, because of Israeli bombing, he must surely be thinking of what this means for him and his authority. Though he is 86, the Speaker still clings to power and probably realises that the weakening of his community will necessarily make him weaker. Therefore, he has a vested interest in reaching compromises that can avert such an outcome.

Mr Berri sits at the intersection of the two logics that have prevailed in Lebanon since Hezbollah opened a front with Israel on October 8 of last year, and which escalated dramatically last month. On the one side is a logic of resistance, represented by Hezbollah, which has sustained the conflict with Israel, purportedly in support of Gaza.

On the other is a logic of the state, whereby many Lebanese feel that their country should no longer be carried into war by an armed non-state actor loyal to Iran, which has never bothered to consult the country’s government. They believe that the state must re-assert itself, as must the one institution that retains national credibility, namely the army.

When it comes to the presidency, the logic of resistance points in the direction of Suleiman Frangieh, whom Hezbollah endorsed as its candidate, supposedly because he was the person best able to “defend the resistance”. The logic of the state, in contrast, leads to Gen Aoun, because the armed forces will not only play a central role in any post-war order, but also in maintaining internal security, as the country struggles with how to care for more than 1.2 million angry, dislocated and humiliated Lebanese.

Mr Berri, as head of the last functioning governing institution in the state (the presidency is vacant and the cabinet is ruling in a caretaker capacity), will be essential in shaping which candidate prevails – or more likely what kind of compromise will be reached around a candidate. He will also play a key role in persuading Hezbollah to rally to any accord, even if he will probably have to deal with a party doubly suspicious and intransigent.

One potential direction he may explore with other members of the political leadership is to propose a dialogue to discuss a national defence strategy for Lebanon. Such a strategy has been a code word in the past to integrate Hezbollah’s weapons into the state. Hezbollah has refused to engage in any such discussion, but with many Lebanese deeply hostile to the group’s military autonomy, which dangerously isolates Hezbollah, and the Shiite community devastated, it may be more willing to talk.

There is also another major problem. Mainly Shiite-majority towns, villages and neighbourhoods have been destroyed across Lebanon. To rebuild them and avoid a backlash from its own community, Hezbollah will need assistance from the state, which alone can bring in the funds necessary for reconstruction. That means the group and the state will have to negotiate, which may compel Hezbollah to water down its refusal to compromise.

Mr Berri will be at the heart of this maelstrom, and he will try to widen his margin of manoeuvre with respect to Hezbollah, while preserving his power in the Shiite community and the leverage this gives him. Such calculations suggest he will be a dominant actor in the months ahead, if his health holds out. The only unknown is whether Iran, which today is said to have filled the leadership vacuum in Hezbollah, will go along with the Speaker.