WASHINGTON: While world delegates gathered in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss Middle East peace, US Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman was contesting claims that election of a new Lebanese president with absolute parliamentary majority would lead to civil war.

"The [Fouad] Siniora government did not resign after the December 1 strike last year or after approving of the tribunal or after [the tenure of former President Emile] Lahoud [ended]," he told officials and experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Peace (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank, by phone Tuesday.

"Is absolute majority voting of a president different?"

Feltman said the March 14 alliance scored "half a victory" with Lahoud's exit from Baabda without him appointing a second cabinet or putting the military in charge. But despite their victory, time is not on their side, he said.

"Christians might accept temporary [presidential] vacuum, but not for long," he added.

He argued that the presidency needs to be filled quickly, the "question is how?"

"Last Friday, Lahoud's term expired. No one replaced him. There was no election because MPs of Hizbullah, [Speaker Nabih] Berri, and [Kesrouan MP Michel] Aoun did not show up," said Feltman.

"Representing March 8, Berri vetoed five" of the six candidates proposed by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir in line with the French initiative while Beirut MP Saad Hariri, "representing March 14, said no on two." The "initiative failed," he added.

Feltman said the March 14 alliance "did not have a unified stance on the French initiative" arguing that this alliance "should be spending time unifying its ranks" because "Berri and Hizbullah are hiding behind Aoun telling everyone that they would accept [for president] anyone Aoun accepts." But "Aoun accepts no one."

He added that he prefers a "March 14 president," but that it was not up to him to decide. The new president, however, "should be at least leaning to March 14 and international resolutions."

He described March 14 by saying that the alliance "still stands for victory of the state over militias and the end of crimes without impunity.

"The March 14 position, since that great demonstration in 2005 ... they faced threats and continued to move the March 14 way, on the tribunal and international resolutions," he said. "But on the presidency, they behaved differently."

When asked about the effects of the Annapolis meeting on Lebanon, Feltman said that in Lebanon there is a false perception about this meeting that has become reality. "In reality, it should not have much effect on Lebanon," said Feltman.

For his part, David Schenker, WINEP's senior fellow on Arab politics, questioned the durability of the March 14 alliance. "How many crises can they survive?"

Schenker noted "the evolution" of Chouf MP "Walid Jumblatt's stances" saying that Jumblatt's "cold feet" were probably "because of violence and civil war."

Schenker said that Israelis were behind Syria's attendance at the Annapolis peace conference, arguing that Israelis "miss the old days of Syrian control of Lebanon."

The WINEP expert disputed the Western hypothesis that it was possible to lure Damascus

away from Tehran.

"Iran bought Syrian debt from Russia. It supplied Syria with $750,000 worth of anti-aircraft missiles and is helping [Damascus] in weaponization," Schenker said.

Guest speaker Tony Badran, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that during his visit to Damascus, Jordan's King Abdullah II told Syrian President Bashar Assad that the offer the world was making him would be his last.

Yet, Syria would not give up on its ally Iran, Badran argued. "Syria and Iran are coordinating their positions, including the anti-Syrian demonstrations in Tehran."