May 29th, 2009 by Jed

In The Financial Times, Roula Khalaf calls on the Obama administration to support the outcome of Lebanon’s elections - regardless of who wins. Khalaf echoes the sentiments of other analysts who say the race between the March 14 coalition and the opposition March 8 coalition, which includes Hizbullah, is too close to call. Khalaf claims that by rejecting the results of the election, the United States would give the current opposition an excuse to blame their problems on the west and would create an environment of little accountability. Rejecting the results of the election would also send a message contrary to the one President Obama is likely to deliver in Cairo only three days prior to the election.

The Economist also examines the upcoming election, discussing the willingness of other states to take sides. The Americans want the current majority to maintain their strength while the Iranians and the Syrians would clearly prefer March 8 to prevail. Regardless of the outcome, Hizbullah is most likely to play a similar role, given their ambivalence towards parliamentary politics and the fact that the Aonists tend to see their coalition with the Shia group as one based on strategy not on ideals. No matter what the result of the June 7 elections, volatility will remain in Lebanese politics, as the Economist asserts.

Posted in Hezbollah, Iraq, Islam and Democracy, Lebanon, Syria |