Is Lebanon now in a state of reconciliation or truce? Ever since the Doha Agreement was concluded, I have not found an answer to this question. Michel Suleiman was elected president, and I am still looking for an answer. I have not even found it in the comments I read on the Lebanese developments, nor in the statements made by Lebanese, Arab, and foreign officials.

I hope Lebanon is basking in a final state of national reconciliation, heralding a new era of national consensus beyond the parties' narrow interests. I hope and pray reconciliation has finally set in. I even make vows to God in this respect. But I cannot get rid of this lingering doubt of mine that portends one or more violent rounds in a while.

Lebanon was the scene of wedding-like celebrations with the election of the Army commander. My colleague Ghassan Charbel even chose the "Post-Wedding Pains" as title of his editorial. While following the celebrations, I could not help but remember a proverb well known to mountain dwellers, a proverb that portends post-wedding hardships.

There are reasons to expect better days. The new president is a wise man who keeps the same distance from all rivals. Having previously served as army commander, he can be firm and decisive if bold decisions need to be taken.

Other reasons have to do with the Lebanese themselves who are fed up with the ongoing dispute. They are tired, bored and seek safety. Perhaps the imminent civil war has sounded the alarm bell. For any step in the direction of the abyss is likely to ignite a civil war.

The Syrian and Iranian roles, the ones with the most direct influence on the Lebanese scene, have given me another reason for caution and hope.

President Suleiman referred to the upcoming international tribunal as well as the assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri and his companions. But Hezbollah snatched the one-third veto power in the Doha Agreement, which means all government decisions require the opposition's approval. As a result, a disagreement will inevitably arise, when the international tribunal opposed by Syria starts functioning.

Syria has entered into an alliance with Iran to challenge the Bush administration and its wars, an understandable and justified step. Yet, Iran supports one party against another in Lebanon, and regardless of the statements made by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Lebanon, it was clear from his moves and meetings that he considers himself to be among his folks. Iran will keep on arming and funding Hezbollah. I confidently feel that the Syrian-Iranian alliance will remain strong, as the two countries are apprehensive about the schemes the US administration is plotting against them.

This is the negative aspect. But what about the positive one? The Doha Agreement would not have been concluded without Syria's approval first and Iran's second, which means that both countries have interest in the agreement's conclusion and implementation.

The interest, the way I see it, lies in repelling America's evil till the end of George Bush's mandate in six months' time. The ongoing talks between Syria and Israel via Turkish mediation and the upcoming direct negotiations are part of the bigger picture of developments in the Middle East, at a time Bush's term in office is coming to a fortunate end. For its part, Iran is coping with the US occupation in Iraq, and as such reduces the flow of arms to the Shiite resistance, the same arms successfully used against the Americans. The Iranian and American parties may resume direct talks in Iraq, while contacts regarding Iran's nuclear program will be maintained with the Europeans at times and with the International Atomic Energy Agency at others. Afterwards, George Bush will leave office and it will be a totally different story. In other words, both Syria and Iran are striving to thwart American pretexts.

If the above analysis is close to reality, then the détente will last till next year, especially that any new US president will need a couple of months to settle in the White House, build his team, and start implementing his policy.

Israel remains the biggest negative party in the scenario following the election of the Lebanese president. It does not favor calm in such a way that deters any military confrontation to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. It can stir up trouble in Lebanon, with the Palestinians, or with Syria itself to prevent this détente. To my surprise, all the English translations of Israeli dailies I read yesterday (except for one) evoked the defeat inflicted on Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Doha - though I find him victorious. Nasrallah's reference in his Monday speech to the return of prisoners proves - in their opinion - his need for a victory to make up for the suffered defeat.

I ignore how Israel reached this conclusion. I believe it is concocting plans harmful to Lebanon and the region as a whole. For this reason, I want Lebanon to bask in peace though I am afraid the rival parties have only reached a truce.