Future Movement MP Ammar Houri’s announcement yesterday to al-Arabiya TV that his bloc was ready to accept a constitutional amendment in order to elect army head Michel Sleiman has launched a flurry of speculation and rumors as to whether Lebanon’s next president could be another military man. In particular, Houry’s revelation seemed to mark a dramatic reversal of March 14’s position, after the bloc’s longstanding staunch opposition to constitutional amendments in the presidential crisis – largely to keep Sleiman himself out of the running. And indeed, Sleiman has been seen, up until this point, as an opposition candidate. Is consensus finally in the offing?

So far, a March 14 decision to gun for Sleiman is just a rumor, albeit a credible one. Speaking to NOW Lebanon, Mohammed Chattah, assistant to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, cautioned against jumping to conclusions. “I don’t know about any announcement. MP Houry may have said something to the media, but I’m not aware of a statement from the Future Movement that could be described as such,” he said.

He added that “discussions are taking place where that is an option – that is true, as far as I know. But, I would not put it as something that has been decided. I think that would be a premature statement.”

Future MP Mohammed Kabbani, however, indicated to NOW Lebanon on Wednesday that an agreement was all but complete. “There is nothing official yet, but yes, we would accept this. There will likely be an announcement very soon, in order to have things ready for Friday, possibly by the end of the day.”

Sleiman has enjoyed a strong reputation in many political circles of late, both due to the army’s neutrality amid ongoing political disputes and its performance in the Nahr al-Bared conflict this past summer. In 2005, the army refused to stop anti-Syrian demonstrations despite a ban imposed by then-Prime Minister Omar Karami; more recently, the army has been credited with preventing armed clashes, both in the opposition’s demonstrations and sit-in this past year, and in and around Beirut during the presidential crisis of the past few weeks. Sleiman also shrugged off a call from outgoing president Emile Lahoud to heed only a national unity government, pledging instead to follow orders from the current cabinet during the presidential vacuum.

Yet, until now, March 14 has opposed making any changes to the constitution to allow Sleiman to run. Many majority figures see him as Syria’s preferred candidate – an option that Aoun’s candidacy was supposed to keep hidden until the last moment. Sleiman was appointed to lead the army during the era of Syrian control, and he is personally close to former President Emile Lahoud. His sister’s husband was even the official spokesman for Hafez al-Assad. Furthermore, while its recent behavior has been admirable, the army under Sleiman had a somewhat less gleaming record vis-à-vis peaceful anti-Syrian demonstrations in the pre-2005 era.

The question March 14 supporters are asking today is why their leaders would accept a Sleiman presidency now, after months of tense struggle. Democratic Left MP Elias Atallah told NOW Lebanon that March 14 decided to embrace Sleiman as a “tool for civil peace.” He said, “March 14 is convinced of the need for civil peace, and from 2005 to today, the army’s performance has been very good.”

This explanation, however, leaves many wondering if March 14 has simply caved under pressure. The Sleiman development comes amid mounting fear and tension in the country. Prior to Houry’s announcement, the expectation was that Friday’s session would again be postponed with no consensus reached. Yesterday, peaceful demonstrations – organized by the Union of Transport Laborers, a group with ties to the opposition – broke out in Beirut and Baalbek, with protesters briefly blocking the Damascus road with burning tires. Aoun met later with union leaders at Rabieh, although no obvious coordination was apparent.

Could the acceptance of Sleiman be the result, as many expected, of back-room deals made between the United States and Syria at the US-sponsored Annapolis Conference? Negotiations and meetings on the presidential crisis had been on hiatus, awaiting the completion of the Annapolis Conference in anticipation of just such a deal. The US is keen to pump up the Lebanese army, and could view a Sleiman presidency as in line with that policy. While his latest report reveals little, rumors that UN investigator Serge Brammertz will in fact implicate Damascus in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik also sparked speculation that a president close to Syria might be less contentious if the tribunal were proceeding quickly.

On the other hand, former President Amin Gemayel issued a statement on Tuesday claiming that the one remaining issue preventing consensus was Hezbollah’s weapons. Sleiman has been a strong supporter of Hezbollah and has defended their right to retain arms. So far, Hezbollah has taken a cautious approach to Sleiman’s reemergence on the scene, with representatives indicating that while the party is not opposed to the army commander on principle, they will only accept his candidacy if opposition partner General Michel Aoun does likewise.

As the country awaits further details on the situation emerging behind closed doors, eyes are on FPM leader and presidential candidate Aoun. High-level sources indicated that March 14 accepted Sleiman, at least in part, to drive a wedge between Aoun and Hezbollah. Aoun has refrained from commenting directly on the developments, saying that he would consult with “legal experts” before issuing any statement. It is unlikely, however, that he will welcome consensus over Sleiman, as it would dash the ageing General’s own presidential hopes. In addition, a serious Sleiman bid will likely woo away much of Aoun’s support base from within the military, marginalizing his candidacy even further. Already there are intimations that Aoun may try to spike some kind of deal by staging more protests.  If Aoun comes out against Sleiman, it is unclear whether the rest of the opposition will ultimately support his decision. Change and Reform members contacted by NOW Lebanon declined to comment on the situation.

For the time being, Lebanon will have to wait and see what its leaders have in store for the country. If March 14 truly capitulated on a president who it fought so hard against until now, it would be difficult to see the outcome as anything but a total failure. On the other hand, however, if a Sleiman presidency comes as part of a grander deal, judgment must be reserved until the terms of agreement are apparent.

It is also worth remembering that in the current crisis, positions have been changing by the hour. A week ago, much of the country believed that Michel Eddé was a done deal for the Lebanese presidency. While Sleiman’s position today does seem even stronger, it should be apparent by now that the identity of Lebanon’s next president will not be certain until the MPs actually cast their votes.

When the time comes, one can only hope they will make a decision – be it for Sleiman or anyone else – in the best interests of the country.