Even before he had been sworn in as Lebanon's new President, General Michel Sulaiman had earned a sobriquet: Tawafoqi (Man of Consensus). In his first address to the nation as president yesterday, the ex-chief of he army staff, proved that he merited the label. He had something for everyone.
He waved an olive branch towards Syria, the power behind much of Lebanon's troubles in the past four decades. At the same time, he suggested that Syria and Lebanon establish diplomatic ties, something that Damascus has always rejected because, deep down, it does not recognise the Lebanese state as an independent entity.
On his first full day in office, Sulaiman also arranged his busy schedule to meet the visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Motakki.
After all, the Islamic Republic is a key player in Lebanese politics thanks to its control of the Shiite Hezbollah militia and the Maronite bloc led by ex-General Michel Aoun.
However, the "Man of Consensus" knew that, at least in part, he owed his election to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose support led to the success of the Doha peace conference among Lebanese factions last week. This is why the new president spent a good part of his first day in office on the telephone with Saudi and Egyptian leaders.
Sulaiman became the "Man of Consensus" because, initially, nobody wanted him as president. The Western-backed democratic coalition, headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, wanted Nassib Lahoud, a former Ambassador to Washington.
The Hezbollah-led opposition, backed by Iran and Syria, wanted Aoun. Had it acted with greater courage six months ago, the democratic coalition might have been able to elect its candidate.
Instead, it hesitated, thus allowing the Iran-backed faction to heighten the crisis and draw in the Arab League. Once the Arab League was in, the Lebanese coalition had lost a good part of its independence.
Hailed
Sulaiman's election is hailed throughout the region as a sign that neither side in Lebanon has won. In a sense, however, the side that had the bullets rather than the ballots, that is to say Hezbollah and its Maronite allies, did win.
They managed to show that even if you did not have the votes, provided you have the guns, you could still prevent the election of someone you do not like.
To thank Hezbollah for its support, Sulaiman has made it all but clear that he would not press for the disarmament of the militia, although this is something that the United Nations has demanded in two Security Council resolutions.
This is why some members of the democratic bloc, known as the 14 March Coalition, appear to be less than enthusiastic about Sulaiman.
At least one, the Maronite leader Samir Geagea, for example, has even hinted at fears that Sulaiman may be a Syrian "tope" because he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
However, other members of the coalition, the Druze leader Walid Junblatt for example, describe Sulaiman as " a true patriot".
To be sure, no one knows how the Sulaiman presidency might shape up in the difficult years ahead.
Nevertheless, two points are clear.
The first is that his election restores Lebanese politics to a certain level of normality, within state institutions, that it has not known for the past 18 months.
The struggle for power can now shift back to the political arena, rather than the streets, city districts and mountains. Everyone would have to focus on the general election next year, promising a decisive showdown between two opposing visions of the nation's future.
With a new president "consensus" in place, Hezbollah gunmen might find it harder to invade Beirut neighbourhoods.
Rival powers
The second point is that rival powers bidding for influence in Lebanon might have understood that they cannot achieve exclusive domination for their proxies without provoking civil war.
That understanding might enable Lebanon to return to its traditional neutrality, including on the Palestinian issue, thus resuming its role as a haven of peace, as well as political intrigue, in the Middle East.
Tactically, Hezbollah looks like one of the winners. Strategically, however, it could e one of the losers.
The reason is that Hezbollah, while it can try to seize power by force because it is the strongest military power in the country, lacks the electoral base needed to dominate the government. In the last general election, the Iran-backed party collected 11 per cent of the votes. It would be glad to do as well next year.
The new electoral law would help increase Shiite representation in the parliament. But it is not at all certain that Hezbollah, and not its rival Amal, not to mention independent Shiite candidates, would benefit from the change.
Worse still, from Hezbollah's view, the bloc led by Aoun looks like the biggest loser in the new electoral districting system. Aoun is likely to end up with fewer seats in the next parliament, further weakening the Hezbollah-led bloc.
An enigmatic part of Sulaiman's speech included potentially more important. The new president promised to work for a reform to enable at least some of he Lebanese citizens abroad to vote in the country's elections.
Since there are twice as many Lebanese abroad than in Lebanon itself, such a decision could open a range of probabilities none favourable to Hezbollah.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.
