Lebanese election / Same complex status quo

The somewhat surprising victory of the pro-Western March 14 Movement in Lebanon's parliamentary elections represents a victory for a sane Lebanon that is eager to preserve its independence and distance itself from the influence of Syria and Iran. The U.S. administration would probably like to see this as the first achievement of President Barack Obama's new foreign policy. But the result should not be viewed as a sign that a new Middle East is emerging.

Ultimately, the moderates managed to gain only one more seat in parliament than they held before the elections, which attracted the highest voter turnout since the Civil War. Lebanon will continue to be a divided country, torn between competing sects and subject to external meddling. And Fuad Siniora's government and the coalition headed by Sa'ad Hariri will still be dependent on Hezbollah's goodwill: If the Shi'ite group opts not to let them, they will be unable to govern.

Hezbollah's show of force last summer, over control of Beirut's international airport, made this point clear: The organization's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, is the real ruler of the country.

Perhaps this is why Hariri said in his victory speech that he is extending his hand to the opposition and congratulated "all those who voted for the opposition." Hariri also called for the immediate removal of all campaign posters from Lebanon's streets. And since the pro-Western camp does not want a confrontation, it is highly unlikely that it will demand Hezbollah's disarmament anytime soon.

From Israel's standpoint, the results of the Lebanese election simply preserve the complex status quo. Israel will continue to view its northern neighbor as a country controlled by a militant organization, even though Lebanon's political leadership enjoys full American support.

As on many other fundamental issues recently, Israel and Washington do not see eye to eye on the Lebanese situation. From America's point of view, there is a clear struggle between the forces of good and evil in Lebanon, and yesterday, the former won. But Israel views the different camps in Lebanon in shades of gray, since in the conflict with Israel, the moderate faction has more than once provided cover to the radical camp. During the Second Lebanon War, for example, Hezbollah was a member of the governing coalition.

The election results also once again showed the limits of intelligence assessments. Like most analysts in the Arab media, Israel's intelligence agencies assumed that Hezbollah would become more powerful as a result of the elections. The results suggest that intelligence analysts have no advantage over pollsters and media pundits in this type of assessment. Intelligence agencies have a lot of trouble predicting how a community or group of voters will behave and what forces affect it.

That means there is no point in asking for predictions about what will happen in Iran's presidential election, scheduled for Friday. We will just have to wait another three days.