Lebanese went to the polls this weekend to elect a new parliament.
The elections come after a tumultuous couple years dominated by the Beirut port
explosion, a currency crisis, and assassinations of prominent civil
society activists. The preliminary news was not
good for many of the incumbents, including Hezbollah.

A year and a half ago, I visited
Nabatiyeh, a town in the Hezbollah heartland. Against the backdrop of Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo’s “Maximum Pressure” campaign, Hezbollah was hemorrhaging
support for a simple reason: Their Iranian funds had dried up amidst a shortage
of dollars. Hezbollah was quickly learning that perhaps 90 percent of their
rank-and-file prioritized power and privileges over ideology. This weekend,
Hezbollah tried a “Hail Mahdi” pass and gave Hezbollah and Amal vouchers to
those at petrol stations seeking to fill up their tank. It did not work, and
Hezbollah conceded the loss of at least one seat in the district.

Nabatiyeh appears to be the rule rather than the exception.
Hezbollah and its allies are on the verge of a surprise loss of a majority
since the Iranian-backed party was not able to provide its usual coattails in
many districts. The Lebanese Forces—a Christian group traditionally opposed to
Hezbollah—will have the largest block in parliament. Anti-Hezbollah Sunnis also
did well. The Lebanese Forces’ victory strips Hezbollah of the Christian
popular cover it enjoyed through the support of Michel Aoun who, along with his
son-in-law, former Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, only managed to get around
12 seats. Hezbollah’s loss is more striking given how gerrymandered Lebanese
districts can be.

As important as Hezbollah’s loss is the fact that three of Syrian
President Bashar Assad’s proxies also lost, most prominently Deputy Speaker
Elie Firzli.

While election results give hope, Lebanon’s elites have a
well-practiced capability for self-dealing at the expense of the broader
population. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, for example, cooperated with
Hezbollah by refraining from running his own candidate in Marjayoun in southern
Lebanon. Perhaps he thought he would need their help elsewhere should they win
in order to keep his own patronage network alive.

The White House should absorb three lessons from the Lebanese
elections.

First, elections matter. They are not the sum total of democracy,
but the corrupt hate accountability whereas the victims of the corrupt crave
liberty and accountability for their oppressors. The United States should never
write off liberty simply because it is difficult or they condescendingly
believe that certain cultures are impervious to the desire for a better life.

Second, maximum pressure was working. The Biden administration
might want to jumpstart diplomacy, but resourcing the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps or their
proxies to do so is policy malpractice that will reverberate
far beyond Iran’s borders. Do not snuff out Lebanon’s hope to cast off
Hezbollah because of Washington partisan animus.

Lastly, aid matters, but the amount given is not the metric to
judge its success. When the United States or international community channels
money through Beirut, they empower those whom the Lebanese see as parasites
feeding off their nation. A better
strategy would be to bypass Beirut and direct microloans and grants to the
municipal level, where transparency is greater and opportunities to steal more
difficult.

After Lebanese put their lives on the line to defy Hezbollah this weekend, it is essential that Biden not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The post Biden Shouldn’t Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory in Lebanon appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.