As violence continues in Syria, and despite the recent wins by the Syrian rebels, Lebanon remains split between two camps: one supporting the rebels and another siding with the Syrian regime. Until the dust settles in Syria, Lebanese party leaders are unlikely to switch allegiances, fearful of landing on the on the losing side of the battle. Political paralysis is driving several voices within the March 14 coalition to call for a change of government. Indeed, this recommendation was endorsed by a recent International Crisis Group report, which urged Lebanese authorities to replace the current government with a technocratic one in order to limit the impact of the Syrian crisis.
 
The rationale holds that the current cabinet would become a caretaker government unable to make administrative appointments or executive decisions. It would support the status quo until a new cabinet is appointed. This, however, is a complicated and time-consuming process that needs the support of various parties - something that is still missing.
 
Hezbollah and its allies, currently dominating the government, have not entertained this idea. Instead, they argue that this government is better than a power vaccum. In reality, the government provides Hezbollah with the political cover it needs to achieve its goals domestically and regionally.
 
Despite fears of Hezbollah's reaction to the conflict with Israel, the Party of God chose to stay out of this fight. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah instead wrote Gaza's postwar victory narrative, and threatened to shower Israel with rockets should it launch an attack on Lebanon. Many analysts argue that Hezbollah knows better that to start a conflict with Israel at a time when its Syrian ally is fully occupied with a revolution. Additionally, a new conflict with Israel would tarnish its image domestically and strain the Shiite community, which often takes the brunt of war with Israel.
 
Nasrallah's speech on Ashura, the tenth day of Muharram and a day of mourning for Muslim Shiites was bellicose and dramatic, and it was aimed more at publicly reaffirming Hezbollah's mantle as a resistance movement than it was at any concrete action. It is hardly a coincidence that his statements came on the heels of a visit to Beirut by Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and former top nuclear negotiator. While in Beirut, Larijani addressed the Iranian position on nearly the full-spectrum of crises in the Middle East, with a special focus on 'dialogue' as the way forward in Syria, and condemnation for those whose aim is instability within Lebanon. As expected, Larijani drew a clear line of strength and commitment between Tehran, Damascus, Hezbollah and Hamas.
 
This visit and ensuing statements by Hamas's leadership dispelled claims that the relations between Hezbollah and Hamas have gone cold over Syria. Some analysts argue that Hamas is turning towards the Egypt-Qatar fold, seeing as it is essentially a part of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and supports the Syrian revolution. The Gaza war proves, however, that the strategic security ties between Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are stronger than ever. And Hezbollah's leader made it a point to emphasize that in his speech.
 
As Lebanon catiously avoids one pitfall at a time, one grave danger, highlighted in the ICG report, lies in controlling the rank-and-file of political parties. Lebanon's authorities must take action to limit the impact of the regional crisis, including an immediate investigation into the killing of the head of the security intelligence General Wissam al-Eid; deploying the Lebanese Army at the Syrian-Lebanese borders; halting cross-border weapons movement; and supporting Syrian refugees in Lebanon. However, without some control by political and religious leaders, there is a growing concern over what militant partisans can do on the streets should they be left to their own devices.