Why assigned Al-Miqati to form the government?


The Bulletin is not responsible for the opinions found in the “Selected Articles” box, but rather expresses the opinion of its author and the media outlet published in it exclusively, and was published at the request of the author.

After two successive assignments and apologies that took up nearly a year and after an era of political vacuum under a government that practiced conducting business with the minimum possible, and with Western and regional international pressure and local handover, Najib Mikati was assigned to form the Lebanese government for the third time since 2005. In light of the Lebanese scene and beyond, with a private and inquiring mindset, a mandate that requires asking the big question about how to accomplish it and about the ability of the person in charge to form a government, and then that government’s ability to exercise governance in a way that brings Lebanon out of the abyss of its general collapse, especially the monetary collapse It brings it back to the orbit of natural movement, or at least puts it at the beginning of this orbit, in which the citizen secures his minimum living needs.

Here, the big question arises in connection with the history of the designated president, his practice and his performance in governance, as his past and history do not include anything that encourages confidence in his ability to provide what reassures him nationally from various aspects, or what encourages his support to enable him to succeed in addressing the current situation or what suggests that The country, under its government, will emerge from the cycle of darkness, darkness and starvation in order to secure the minimum requirements for a secure life. However, the international situation formed in support of it raises question marks and contradictory questions that must be stopped. Especially since the man was clear that he would not have taken this step without external guarantees, and therefore we ask the following questions:

In a first question and in sympathy with America’s enthusiasm for the appointment of Najib Mikati as prime minister of Lebanon, nearly two and a half years after the launch of Pompeo’s plan to destroy Lebanon, we ask whether America has retracted this Pompeo plan and decided to work in another direction, starting with an end to the political vacuum that began in October 2019 With the resignation of Saad Hariri? Was America convinced that the fourth stage of that plan (the security explosion) and the fifth stage of it (the Israeli invasion) had become almost impossible to implement, and that without their realization many obstacles and impeding difficulties, especially since Hezbollah succeeded in disabling the multiple detonators that prepared its face internally? And that the Lebanese army, by its performance, suggested to the plan that blowing up the security situation in Lebanon would not be in its interest, which made it retreat? And he obliged the Israeli enemy not to launch aggression against Lebanon and to resist it, because this aggression is conditional on the security explosion that did not and will not happen?

In a second question, in conjunction with the first, we say whether America, which realized that Pompeo’s plan stumbled or even turned into counterproductive effects after the fourth and fifth stages of it were not possible to implement, and that it should reconsider its policy in Lebanon, and that it has to retreat from the policy of terrorism and the economic war on Lebanon And his siege, for fear of losing control completely in Lebanon, and that in that process of retreat she decided to allow Iraq to provide one million barrels of oil in order to run power stations in Lebanon, so that the offerings would be the first message suggesting that retreat?

As for the third question, that America, despite its decision to put forward Najib Mikati’s name after Hariri’s apology, wanted to create a Sunni-Shiite split over him that would be a prelude to the security bombing envisaged in Pompeo’s plan in preparation for the implementation of the fifth phase of it, which explains the proliferation of “Israeli” talk about the proximity of the “third war” with Lebanon or what Israeli experts say, “It is only a question of time,” given that the security explosion is an inevitably reality, especially after the steps of the political vacuum, monetary collapse and economic collapse succeeded, which prompted the Lebanese to starve and deprive them of the most basic requirements for a decent life, including food, medicine, electricity and other resources. other energy.

In a fourth question, we say: Did America see that the siege and starvation that it carried out achieved its goals and tamed the Lebanese character of resistance and resistance and enabled America to appoint someone whose history testifies to the work against the resistance and who has the theory of disassociation and the global war on Syria from measures that were not in the interest of the regime The Syrian saw this and wanted to rush to invest by forming a government that excludes the parliamentary majority from power under the title “government of specialists” and implements the Western policy set for Lebanon, and for that it granted the man the foreign guarantees he talked about and made him undertake his mission, which will also include holding reliable elections. To form a parliamentary majority with opposite directions to the existing majority?

And in a fifth question, and in line with what was mentioned above, and it revolves around the position of the resistance towards a person with major question marks that form his negative image against the resistance and its axis and its coup against it. In it, did the resistance acquiesce and accept the matter and accept such a character out of helplessness or for some other reason?

Here the response may be in terms of security and the citizen’s living need, and includes saying that the resistance sees that the situation requires the existence of a working government and that the formation of a government is better than its absence, and that the return of work to the wheel of government stops the political vacuum, and it is reassured that it has the means and capabilities of self-defense and rights capable It is more important to consider and adhere to than anything else, and with it the paths of danger within the Shiite sect are closed, and it is more important than paying attention to other benefits and gains, i.e. in a profound sense that “warding off evil takes precedence over bringing Benefit” and proceeded to do so knowing that dreams of reform and dealing with corruption, starting with the criminal investigation and what follows it, will not be achieved and does not think that anyone is waiting for the Miqati government to follow it, for a sane person does not work against himself.

This is some of what may be presented in the interpretation of Najib Mikati’s assignment to form the government. Will authoring the assignment follow the same ease by disbursing external guarantees on the composition table? Or did the concerned parties get what they wanted in the assignment, and they had no need for a composition that they feared would come at the expense of their plans, accounts and interests?

The designated president committed himself, as he was quoted, for a month to write or apologize, and I think that this month is sufficient to clarify the lines of the regional scene internationally and the results of the negotiations taking place now between the countries of the region and between them and America. Therefore, it can be said that Mikati may form a government that manages the crisis until the elections, or he may apologize And then Hassan Diab’s government will continue to rule while easing US restrictions on it?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here