Rarely have elections in a small country carried such high importance or raised such interest so far beyond its borders as have the Lebanese parliamentary elections that will be held next June 7.

"The stakes are high in the (Lebanese) elections," Les Campbell, a senior associate and regional director for the Middle East and North Africa with the National Democratic Institute, said Monday at a briefing at the Aspen Institute in Washington. Campbell will monitor the outcome of the elections along with other international observers, the first time Lebanon allows observers to monitor elections.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, the United States and Russia, France, Qatar, Syria, Egypt and Bahrain, the United Nations, the European Union, all these countries and entities have vested interest in the June 7 elections. Saudi Arabia and Iran have each invested millions of dollars in supporting their respective parties. Both are also spending millions more flying voters from as far away as Australia and North America to Beirut, covering their travel expenses and putting them up in hotels so that they can vote. The Saudis are backing March 14 and the Iranians March 8.

March 14 is made up of the current majority led by Saad Hariri and his Future Movement. Saad is the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose death served as the catalyst that got the Syrians to finally withdraw their troops from Lebanon. Allied to Hariri is the larger of the two Druze clans, led by Walid Jumblatt, whose father was also killed; the (Christian) Lebanese Forces, led by Samir Geagea; and the Kataeb or Phalanges Party.

On the side of the March 8 opposition are Hezbollah and the smaller of the two main Shiite groups, Amal; the Lebanese Patriotic Movement led by Gen. Michel Aoun; the smaller of the two Druze clans led by Talal Arslan; and a few smaller groups.

Why is this election so crucial? In simple terms because it is seen as a showdown -- a political arm-wrestling game with very high stakes -- between the United States and Iran. For 30 years now, ever since the Islamic Revolution overthrew the shah and installed a theocratic regime in Tehran, the United States and Iran have been fighting -- mostly by proxy -- over who will have greater clout and influence in the Middle East.

As Campbell noted: "If Hezbollah wins, not only is it a victory for Syria and Iran, but it would be a defeat for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United States and for the European Union, including France."

The fear that many observers share is that Hezbollah will win the elections, giving the Iranians and the Syrians a clear upper hand in Lebanon and the region. That would be a great drawback for the forces of democracy in the Middle East.

What makes Hezbollah's force? First it's their sheer numbers. The Shiites in Lebanon are in the majority, although they are officially recognized as a minority.

Second, the vast majority of Lebanese vote along family, clan and religious lines rather than what they believe in or what is best for the country. That has always been one of Lebanon's plagues.

Although many have been quick to give Hezbollah an early victory next week, some see good reason to think otherwise. Campbell believes what will emerge is a national coalition, and despite the fact that March 14 said they would not participate in a government if they lost, politicians do change their minds.

In the final analysis what may emerge is a situation without a clear winner or loser.

(Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.)