By Dr. Makram Rabah
Over the last week, leaders of the Arab world, excluding Syria, met in Jordan’s Dead Sea region for this year’s Arab League summit to discuss, as they have done on numerous other occasions, perceived challenges to -- and the collective failures -- of the Arab world.
The summit also reaffirmed the league’s position on Palestine and the Arab commitment to a “two-state solution” as the only viable means of achieving peace in the Middle East.
But the summit -- and the many statements that emanated from it -- could not hide the elephant in the room: namely, Iranian meddling in Arab affairs and Iran’s hijacking of some of these countries, most notably Syria and Lebanon.
One of the unfortunate moments of the summit was the 82-year-old Lebanese president’s nose dive as a ceremonial picture was being taken, which could be perceived as an ominous sign of Lebanon’s fragile position vis-à-vis the Gulf States, particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Much of the Saudi disenchantment with the Lebanese government stems from Michel Aoun’s blatant support of Iranian policies in the region, as well as his insistence on justifying Hezbollah’s actions locally and regionally.
Originally, Aoun had hoped to use the summit as an opportunity to perhaps appease these countries by reaffirming his commitment to Lebanon’s earlier stated position of neutrality regarding the region’s Sunni-Shia schism.
With this in mind, Aoun had planned to lead a delegation including Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri so as to project a united Lebanese front and reassure skeptics that Lebanon would remain within the broader Arab fold.
Aoun’s plan, however, was nipped in the bud, when, hours before he and al-Hariri boarded the plane to Amman, two former Lebanese presidents (Amine Gemayel and Michel Suleiman) and three former PMs (Fouad Siniora, Najeb Mikati and Tammam Salam) sent a letter to Jordan’s King Abdullah II -- chairman of the summit -- to denounce Iran’s role in the region and reaffirm Lebanon’s commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which Aoun had earlier appeared to disregard.
The content of the letter essentially revealed these veteran leaders’ mistrust of Lebanon’s new president and prime minister. Complicating matters further was the fact that two of the signatories (Siniora and Salam) are affiliated with Hariri’s “Future” parliamentary bloc, which is chaired by Siniora.
In a desperate attempt to save face, al-Hariri, while still airborne, told an accompanying press delegation: “In Lebanon, there is a train going forward and whoever fails to recognize this will be left behind.”
Interior Minister Nouhad Machnouk was also critical of the letter, describing it as a "national sin”.
A more violent condemnation came from Hezbollah, which felt directly threatened by the letter’s content. Hezbollah MP Ali Ammar, in his usual manner, branded the letter “a malicious bomb sent by five slaves”.
The letter acted as a safety net for Lebanon and succeeded in trivializing Aoun’s keynote address to the summit, which contained little beyond calls for Arab unity and the need to address the Syrian refugee problem.
The letter sent by the five leaders also revealed the existence of a silent majority in Lebanon that still rejects Iranian tutelage and deserves the support of the Gulf States.
Another surprise came at the end of the summit when al-Hariri left Jordan for Riyadh together with the Saudi king.
This symbolic gesture ended much of the speculation surrounding al-Hariri’s lukewarm relationship with his Saudi patrons, who had been annoyed by his Faustian deal with Aoun that had secured the latter’s election as president.
Al-Hariri, the prodigal son, received a royal welcome in Riyadh back into the Saudi fold.
This last assumption, if proven correct, would certainly introduce a set of challenges to -- and impose constraints on -- Hariri’s relationship with Aoun and consequently with Hezbollah.
Al-Hariri, for his part, would not remain silent over any perceived transgression committed by Aoun -- or any member of his party -- in terms of showing support for Iran.
In the past, al-Hariri has reacted to Aoun’s lapses by directing his attacks at Hezbollah. As it stands, however, al-Hariri will have to bring the Lebanese government into line with the five leaders’ letter.
Ultimately, al-Hariri can tell the public that the train has left the station and that his relationship with Aoun remains steadfast.
But his trip to Riyadh was a brutal reminder that, while Iran does indeed exert a degree of control over the Lebanese government, it is al-Hariri’s Arab allies who will ultimately help push Lebanon forward.
The writer is a lecturer at the American University of Beirut’s history department. He is the author of ‘A Campus at War: Student Politics at the American University of Beirut, 1967-1975’.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.