Dialogue... for installing Iranian tutelage on Lebanon

Traditionally it is unheard of for any Lebanese party to be against dialogue, as dialogue is vital for Lebanon. However, this dialogue needs requirements to be fulfilled in order  to achieve the expected results, namely, carrying out the dialogue between equal parties and without any preconditions. If these two conditions are met,  so each party can exchange views with the other in a serious debate, but no concrete results can be expected if the main party in this dialogue announces that arms are out of the discussion, knowing that these arms are owned by a sectarian militia supported by a foreign power called Iran. If this issue is not part of the discussion in Lebanon, then dialogue in no longer appropriate if there is a party which feels stronger than the Lebanese state itself. Such a thing cannot be called a "dialogue," when it is actually a cover for a stealthy coup  to make Lebanon a spearhead for the Iranian-Syrian axis led from Tehran. How can this be called a "dialogue" when everybody knows that the final objective for it breaching the constitution and the state's foundations is to adopt a new tripartite nature for Lebanon (Sunnite-Shiite- Maronite) instead of the dual nature (Muslim-Christian) agreed in the Taef treaty? Perhaps this is what the Hezbollah leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, meant when he sought to move from a dialogue table to a "constituent congress." Is this "congress" intended to abolish the state's constitution in order to pave the way forHezbollah's tutelage on the Lebanese state, which will actually be an Iranian tutelage? It seems like Nasrallah wants an Iranian hegemony in the country to replace the Syrian hegemony regardless of how the Syrian crisis will end. The Lebanese parties, or at least some of them can enter into  a dialogue, but this will not make any difference to  the fact that no serious outcome is expected of it and in fact, these kinds of dialogues can create more harm than good, especially as Hezbollah and its allies still refuse to admit that the current government doesn't enjoy any legitimacy, as it was imposed by an armed coup and nothing else. So we also have the right to ask if this dialogue is intended -- in addition to preparing for the "constituent congress" -- to create a legitimate cover for an illegitimate government headed by Naguib Mikati, which was meant only to humiliate the Sunnite and Christian populations of Lebanon, as well as ensuring that the Druze will be subject to Hezbollah's will, as their homes and villages have been under threat? These facts, which are undeniable,  show that there is no hope in this so-dialogue called by President Michel Sleiman, who believes that such an initiative could ease the tension in the country. This may be a debatable point, but what is certain is that tensions will be raised if the dialogue ignores the fact that a certain Lebanese party owns illegitimate arms, and acts as a brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces, as well as being a fierce defender of the Syrian regime, which is convicted of killing its own people, enraging sectarian disquiet in the country and transferring it to Lebanon with the goal of keeping the regime alive. Dialogue can't just be for dialogue's sake. It must have an objective in order to be meaningful, and there is no objective expected from a dialogue held under the supervision of a government imposed by Hezbollah, because this dialogue will surly ignore the main problem Lebanon is enduring since the ominous 1969 agreement in Cairo, which paved the way for the existence of illegitimate arms in Lebanon, first sent from Syria to the Palestinian groups, then sent from Iran to Hezbollah also through Syria. Since then, Lebanon has never been able to maintain its sovereignty. The calls for this dialogue come amid daily violations from Syria on Lebanon's sovereignty, while the Lebanese government looks unable to respond to the lies of the Syrian regime included in the message of the Syrian delegate to the United Nations. The Lebanese response to this message was absolutely not enough. It is true that PM Mikati has spoken about this message, but it is also true that his words fell below what is required. It was expected that the cabinet would respond in strong words to these allegations, but it has become once again clear that this government is unable to protect Lebanon  from what can be called a  "declaration of war" from the Syrian regime against this small country. It is better to call it "Hezbollah's government," which adopts an agenda that has nothing to do with what is good for Lebanon. True dialogue can only take place between free and autonomous parties, which is not the case for Hezbollah and its "stoodges" like the Maronite MP Michel Aoun. if that is not true, so why did neither Hezbollah nor its' "stoodges" do anything towards the militant Palestinian groups associated with the Syrian regime in Lebanon? The time Hezbollah comes up with a reasonable answer to this question, will be the time for holding a dialogue between the Lebanese parties, which could result in real benefits other than legitimatising the illegitimate arms directed at the Lebanese people. -- The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.