It seems that one visit to Iran was enough for Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun to become Tehran’s informal mouthpiece in Lebanon, as last week, during the national dialogue session, the General presented his blueprint for the national defense strategy which would, in effect, empower Hezbollah and turn Lebanon into a giant unified resistance to face off against internal and external threats.  

The strategy

Aoun’s proposed defense strategy, based on his 2005 Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah, called for combining the Resistance and the Lebanese army, and establishing a “community resistance” that would command the loyalty and resources of the state along with all its institutions and citizens. This, Aoun pointed out, would require the nation’s unity to rally around the Resistance and form a central front to face the threats against the country.

The opposition would, of course, be the winner in this equation, as with the Resistance controlling the government, Hezbollah and its ally, Aoun, would be the main power brokers. In fact, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah approved of Aoun’s blueprint in his Martyrs’ Day speech on Tuesday.

Resistance community

But Aoun’s defense strategy proposal seems familiar. In an interview with An-Nahar in June 2007, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, when describing his party’s vision of a national defense strategy, called for generalizing the “Resistance model” across Lebanon. Aoun seconded that when he explicitly stated while presenting his blueprint that “the resistance forces [should be] constituted of ordinary Lebanese residents, which is why these forces should cover all Lebanese territories.”
 
What is even more intimidating for moderate Lebanese is that this nationalized resistance would persist as long as Israel, the main external threat, still posed a threat to Lebanon, tying the continuation of Aoun’s defense strategy to the Jewish State’s very existence.

Further, when the General implied that his defense strategy negated the need for UN resolutions 1701 and 1559 during his proposal, and when Nasrallah adopted it during his speech on Tuesday, the dangerous implication of the opposition’s lack of respect for those documents came to light: If the resolutions will not be respected under the new defense strategy, how can Lebanon expect the opposition to respect the national dialogue itself and the upcoming parliamentary elections?

Internal threats

During his proposal, echoing Syria’s recent claims, Aoun suggested that the number-one threat to Lebanon, besides Israel, of course, is terrorism, with the existence of armed Palestinian groups and Lebanese militias following in second and third place, and which his nationalized resistance must face.

But Aoun, without differentiating between Palestinian political factions – whether the Palestinian Authority and Hamas – declined to mention that Syria provides Palestinian groups with weapons, both inside and outside the camps, while also backing the Resistance. He also seemed to forget that disarming the Palestinian factions outside the camps was already agreed upon during the first national dialogue in 2006, just before the July War.

And when describing the threat of Lebanese militias, Aoun did not mention Hezbollah and its arsenal, which he sees as part of the nationalized resistance, regardless of the fact that in May, the opposition turned their guns against other Lebanese, more than half of whom still consider the weapons a threat.

Knowing that there would be no national unity around Hezbollah’s arms, Aoun insisted that “Losing [national unity] might lead to conflict, and arms could then be dragged to be used internally… Instead of defending borders, arms will be used as a tool for civil strife” – a threat of a repeat of the violent attacks of last May.

Constant war

Aoun’s call to militarize the state and its citizens is, in effect, a push to transform the country into a giant militia, which, as MP Boutros Harb said in a press conference Saturday, “would certainly lead to the creation of several armed groups in each and every village, [which] would lead Lebanon to civil wars.”

In an article published by the Progressive Socialist Party’s weekly newsletter al-Anbaa, PSP leader MP Walid Jumblatt wrote that carrying out Aoun’s proposition would transform Lebanon into a “constant war field, which topples stability, torpedoes investment and increases emigration… It is time for stability, prosperity and economic development.”

So at a time when the region is moving in the direction of economic development, and Syria is contemplating direct diplomatic negotiations with Israel to liberate its occupied territories, Aoun’s nationalized resistance and perpetual war on Israel would only guarantee the thwarting of progress and constant internal and external conflict.

Aoun’s blueprint for the national defense strategy crossed many lines. And since he knows that it will not be well received by everyone, it was only meant to be a message from Hezbollah to the Lebanese that the Party of God and its arms cannot be touched.

The counter argument is very simple, however: The state is not a tool; it is the only authority. Any defense strategy that does not respect the state and Lebanon’s pluralism cannot be taken into consideration in any further discussion.