Acting Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s decision to step down from his designation to form the Lebanese government on July 15, 2021, reflected a state of internal political crisis in Lebanon, while also highlighting the external factors impacting Lebanese politics. Although Lebanon has been an area of overlap and involvement by various regional and international powers for decades, the impact of this involvement has increased significantly in recent years, especially with the escalation of the country’s economic and political crises. This posed a good opportunity for several forces to serve their interests, as part of their influence-strengthening strategies, in addition to using Lebanon as a bargaining chip in other issues. Consequently, it is generally not expected that the start of parliamentary consultations to assign a new figure to form the government on July 26, after the Eid al-Adha holiday, will contribute to containing the crisis of delaying the formation of the government.

Core dilemma

Foreign impact in Lebanon is among the possible explanations for the delay in forming the government and Hariri’s recent decision to step down, resulting in a dilemma with numerous implications.

1. Growing internal polarization: The multiplicity of external actors in Lebanon has deepened complications within the country, especially as many of these actors have their own interests and separate visions of the situation inside Lebanon that may not necessarily align with the interests and visions of other parties. This is in addition to the intricate network of links between each external entity and internal allies, resulting in increased polarization within Lebanon. This is most clearly evidenced by the state of polarization and conflict between the Future Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement, which, in part, reflects regional and international conflicts. This was reflected in Hariri’s tweet on Twitter on July 19, in which he said that “If it were not for the stubbornness and selfishness of some, we would have been able to put an end to this terrible collapse,” referring to the critical economic crisis Lebanon is currently facing.
   
2. The role of the Vienna nuclear talks: Over the past decades, Tehran has become accustomed deploying a one-pack policy in dealing with regional issues. This means it is likely to have a major role in disrupting the Lebanese government formation process through its ally Hezbollah, to utilize the Lebanese issue as a bargaining chip with international powers to reach the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and prompt the United States to lift the sanctions imposed on it. This was evidenced by Lebanese politicians’ statements over the past days; in an interview with Al-Arabiya channel on July 15, former Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora stated, “Hezbollah is using Lebanon as a negotiating card in favor of Iran in the nuclear negotiations.”
   
   Conversely, the US has been keen to link the July 20 decision to extend the state national emergency in Lebanon with “the continued transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, which includes advanced systems, undermining Lebanese sovereignty,” given these activities are seen as threats to US national security.
   
3. French-American disagreements: Disagreements between France and the US may have had a negative impact on the Lebanese government formation process. Over the past months, especially towards the end of former US President Donald Trump’s presidency, the divergence in the American and French views on the Lebanese issue and how to deal with Hezbollah became apparent. The US did little to hide its discontent with the French initiative in Lebanon, especially given it is based on integrating all political forces, including Hezbollah, on which Washington implemented a blanket designation of terrorist organization without distinguishing between the group’s political and military wings. France, on the other hand, rejects this classification, and insists on separating the military and political wings, dealing with Hezbollah as a political actor with whom communication and dialogue is key.
    
4. Russian-American rivalry: For Moscow, the Lebanese issue is part of the broader Russian policy in the Middle East, which Russian policymakers feel has become an arena for confronting US influence and reasserting Russia’s position as a global power over the past few years. Accordingly, Middle East conflicts and crises, such as that in Lebanon, provided Moscow with the opportunity to assert its position and influence vis-à-vis Washington, especially as the US has had a monopoly on influence in the Middle East for decades. Many in Russia believe this would mean enhancing Moscow’s ability to create problems for Washington, as the US seeks to do in neighboring regions, and increase Russia’s influence, particularly in the former Soviet space.
   
   The rivalry between Washington and Moscow has led to more entanglements within Lebanon, especially as Moscow utilizes any available opportunity to differentiate its role in Lebanon from the US role. This was perhaps indicated by former Russian ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin’s statements on June 29, 2020, criticizing US ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea following her statements accusing Hezbollah of “swallowing billions of dollars of state money.” At the time, Zasypkin used these statements to draw a negative image of the American role in Lebanon, saying “Washington holds the party responsible for corruption, the economic impasse, the banking system crisis, the situation of customs and border crossings, while we all know that the financial and economic reality in Lebanon is greatly affected by US sanctions and restrictions on transfers, especially since Washington controls the dollar and the management of global financial affairs.”
   
5. Conflict over the role of mediation: The multiplicity of external actors in the Lebanese scene has led to increased competition over the role of mediator in the crisis, with countries such as France, Russia, and Turkey attempting to assume the role. These attempts may have had a negative impact on the internal situation in Lebanon, as each country seeks to serve its own interests through the mediation, reducing the efficacy of the internal mediation process.

External variables will remain an important and essential factor in the Lebanese political equation. The large number of influential external actors imposes the need for an external political consensus on settling the Lebanese crisis, making such a resolution a major challenge given its connection to other issues, such as the Iranian nuclear file. It is thus essential to prevent the situation in Lebanon from worsening, as it would certainly have severe regional repercussions.