Erdogan wants to join any force that ensures regional security and stability
Amid the continued tightening of belts on Iran’s front, as tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington and a frantic race unfolds alongside brinkmanship diplomacy, Lebanon remains tense, watching the region’s shifting winds and the likelihood of being drawn into a new “firestorm.”
As Hezbollah’s operation in the Ali al-Tahir area on Wednesday—which marked its first breach of the ceasefire declared nearly two months ago—reignited Israel’s launch of the strategic “Hill Battle” and lower fortifications, with Israel insisting that dozens of Hezbollah fighters have been trapped for weeks, this charged atmosphere has left major questions regarding its potential repercussions on two levels:
The first is the possibility that Hezbollah’s operation against an engineering mechanism belonging to the Israeli army serves as a “precursor signal” of its readiness to return to the “same trench” alongside Iran, should matters slide into a major confrontation. This view is held by political circles, noting that this development coincides with Tehran’s “tug-of-war” and its expansion of targeting operations carried out by its proxies in Yemen and Iraq against Gulf and Arab states.
This implies that any escalation in the region would be difficult to imagine without Hezbollah joining in, despite all external advice to Beirut to the contrary, to avoid Israel restarting the war from where it left off—namely, from the frontline of the security zone it occupies in southern Lebanon, covering an area of approximately 600 square kilometers.
The second level concerns the path of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, which are set to see a new round in Rome between August 4 and 6. There is a belief that Hezbollah’s renewed display of “claws” will strengthen the hand of hardliners in Tel Aviv, which enters this round refusing to approve a second typical withdrawal zone (after Zar’it al-Gharbiyah, along with Froun and Sraifa) in exchange for the deployment of the Lebanese Army there and its assumption of responsibility for dismantling any Hezbollah military infrastructure and preventing its return. This stance is maintained under Israel’s insistence that a comprehensive verification mechanism be established first, one in which UNIFIL plays no role, and which preserves Israel’s freedom to conduct security operations within the areas being withdrawn from and its right to return to them, to ensure the removal of Hezbollah’s weapons and the complete absence of its presence.
While Lebanon rejects these conditions, and amid reports that its delegation to the second Rome round will seek to cement the ceasefire, including the cessation of hostile acts, clearing, destruction, and arson, it was not coincidental that Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir deliberately visited his troops in southern Lebanon. He affirmed that his army “will not withdraw from the security zone before ensuring long-term security,” adding, “If necessary, we will expand our operations and reach additional areas.”
These highly complex and dangerous dynamics formed the core of the prominent summit held in Ankara between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The talks also addressed the file of relations between Beirut and Damascus, given Turkey’s active role in the new Syria, and the post-UNIFIL phase, in which Turkey participates and whose mission ends at the end of the year. Other topics included support for the army and files related to the economy and energy. Reports indicated that Ankara attaches strategic importance to the port of Tripoli and the maritime route linking it to the port of Mersin, as part of a vision aimed at enhancing trade flows in the Eastern Mediterranean.
During a joint press conference with Aoun, Erdoğan affirmed that “Lebanon is among the countries that will benefit most from the atmosphere of stability and cooperation in the region,” clarifying that “we have assessed with President Aoun the nature of the assistance we can provide to Lebanon.”
He stated that “the continuation and development of dialogue between Lebanon and Syria will be beneficial and fruitful for both countries,” affirming that “we are fully prepared to offer assistance in developing relations between Lebanon and Syria.”
He added, “We wish to join any force that ensures the security and stability of the region, including any alternative force in Lebanon.” He further noted that “our support and backing for the Lebanese Armed Forces will continue uninterrupted.”
Erdogan pointed out that “we have highlighted the war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon,” emphasizing that “we are ready to assist in the reconstruction of southern Lebanon.”
For his part, Aoun, the third Lebanese president to visit Turkey, declared, “Today we are more determined than ever to restore our state’s sovereignty, rebuild our homeland, and build a secure and stable future for all Lebanese.” He said, “This is what we are truly committed to achieving: an Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territories; the return of our displaced people to their villages, as well as their inevitable return to their state and homeland; reconstruction and economic recovery; the restoration of trust in the state; and ensuring the exclusive sovereignty of our legitimate forces alone, to protect every inch of our land and our entire people, within the framework of one state, one army, and one sovereign decision.”
He noted that “we are progressing toward this goal without any compromise of our national dignity, without surrendering to a dominant power, without provoking a neighbor, friend, or brother, and without unilateral interference in our internal or sovereign affairs. This has been the nature of Turkey-Lebanon relations since the establishment of our modern states.”
He added, “I sensed in President Erdogan a clear vision and sincere will to elevate our countries’ relations to a new level of cooperation, and I found a statesman who deeply understands the region and recognizes that Lebanon’s stability is not solely a Lebanese concern, but part of the stability of the entire region. I am convinced that this visit will mark the beginning of a new phase in our relations, characterized by partnership, trust, and joint action.”
Aoun thanked Turkey for “its continuous support for the Lebanese Army and its active participation in UNIFIL, a commitment we appreciate and rely on to continue.”
Meanwhile, Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri received a call from French President Emmanuel Macron, during which they discussed the latest developments in Lebanon and the region, as well as political and field updates “due to Israel’s continuation of its aggression against Lebanon and its systematic destruction of dozens of villages and towns in occupied southern Lebanon,” according to Berri’s media office.
Macron affirmed “France’s continued support for Lebanon and its prioritization of Lebanon’s stability, safeguarding its sovereignty, and supporting it on various levels, especially supporting the army and reconstruction. He also highlighted France’s readiness and that of friendly countries to back Lebanon in overcoming the delicate phase it is currently experiencing.”
Berri thanked the French President and his country for “their constant and supportive stance toward Lebanon,” stressing “the importance of swiftly making exceptional international efforts to compel Israel to halt its war on Lebanon and withdraw from the territories it occupies, reaching the international borders, and enabling the deployment of the Lebanese Army and the return of residents to their towns, cities, and villages, paving the way for launching a reconstruction initiative.” He also emphasized “the importance and centrality of maintaining UNIFIL’s presence in southern Lebanon and its role in implementing all provisions of Resolution 1701.”
In response, Hezbollah continued its escalation against both the President of the Republic and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. MP Hussein Jashy described them as “fully responsible for the consequences and damages resulting from the Framework Agreement,” calling for its “retraction” and asserting that it “will not be better than the May 17, 1983 agreement, which collapsed along with its architects.”
