Lebanon under the influence of escalation in the south... and the threat of the "Barrel of Anger" domestically
- Kats: No account will remain open
- US State Department on Qasem: The irony is that a man who takes orders from his Iranian handlers is lecturing us on sovereignty and surrender
Is Washington attempting to hold the stick from the middle, acting as the mediator between Beirut and Tel Aviv and the godmother of their negotiations, thereby managing the complexities of this track in a way that entrenches its constants vis-à-vis the “inevitability” of disarming and dismantling Hezbollah within the framework of Israel’s gradual withdrawal, and as part of an implementation mechanism that allows for no ambiguity, while simultaneously containing Benjamin Netanyahu’s drift toward entering the October Knesset elections with “mixed” campaigns?
This question imposed itself in Beirut in light of the very clear position issued by the US State Department to Lebanese and Arab media outlets, through a spokesperson, hours after the most dangerous slide of the southern Lebanon front toward an escalation that has been the most severe in months. Israel carried out airstrikes on Saturday outside the “security zone,” killing 11 citizens and wounding 19 others, including a commander in the “Badr” unit (Abu Hassan Alaa) and another in the “Ridwan Forces” (Ali Samir Al-Hajj Hassan), both affiliated with the party that Tel Aviv accused of violating the ceasefire and targeting its forces in the vicinity of the Ali Al-Taher heights, where three soldiers were seriously injured.
The US State Department spokesperson commented on the Israeli attacks and the statements made by the party’s Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qasem, which included a new-old attack on Lebanese-Israeli negotiations and the experimental zones outlined in the “Framework Agreement” signed between the two countries, along with the United States, and his threat to change the equation domestically with an “impending explosion of anger.” The spokesperson stated: “The experimental zones track remains the only viable path to achieving long-term peace and security for Lebanon and Israel. We look forward to the completion of the Lebanese Army’s clearance operations in the first experimental zones, and upon verification of their completion, this process will be expanded. Disarming Hezbollah is an integral part of this process.”
He added, “The United States will continue to support the trilateral framework, consistent with our interest in achieving regional stability, preventing further conflicts, and with President Donald Trump’s agenda aimed at enhancing peace among nations.”
He continued, “Hezbollah has been the primary obstacle to Lebanon’s economic recovery, the sole stain on its international reputation, and the greatest threat to Lebanon’s security and stability. It alone bears responsibility for the Israeli presence on Lebanese territory. For this specific reason, Hezbollah must be disarmed and dismantled.”
He noted that Washington had reviewed Qasem’s latest statements and responded, “The irony is that a man who takes orders from his Iranian handlers is lecturing us on sovereignty and surrender, while running a terrorist organization that has spent decades turning Lebanon into an advanced operational base for Iran.”
This US stance quickly became a focal point of scrutiny in Beirut, with its implications read between the lines, as it came amid Washington’s ongoing efforts to reach agreements on “experimental zones,” fix their maps and “boundaries” as outlined in a “schematic drawing,” and, most importantly, achieve consensus on a verification mechanism for the Israeli withdrawal from all “experimental” areas, the deployment of the Lebanese Army within them, the dismantling of any Hezbollah military infrastructure therein, and the prevention of Hezbollah’s return. This awaits convergence of views on the third party that will assume this role (Washington does not want any field military presence for it) and the other countries that will participate in the monitoring process (likely European and Asian). It also involves defining the scope of searches and investigations, particularly regarding the inspection of private properties and homes, as well as defining “Hezbollah structures” and determining whether institutions with health, social, or financial characteristics fall under this definition.
At a time when no official date has been set to resume the eighth round of negotiations (tentatively scheduled for early September in Rome for the third consecutive time), amid observations on the repercussions of the “Fire Saturday” flare-up and whether it will amount to a “storm that passed” or serve as a precursor to new rounds of escalation, the US spokesperson’s remarks provided fresh confirmation that the “operational mode” for the experimental zones operates according to a “verification first” hierarchy within the first zone (Zawtar al-Gharbi, Froun, and Srayfa), where work began 27 days ago, before expanding to a second and then a third zone, and so on. This was also embedded in an equation implying that “Israeli presence on Lebanese territory is caused by Hezbollah’s weapons,” reinforcing what US Ambassador to Beirut Michael Issa said on Friday: that when Hezbollah’s weapons are handed over, “everything stops” (the war ends). In effect, this entrenches the “linkage” between withdrawal and disarmament.
Political circles viewed the US State Department’s position, spearheaded by its head, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was the main lever for the Lebanon-Israel negotiation track before President Donald Trump personally took it over, as realistically reflecting an acceptance or understanding of Tel Aviv’s narrative regarding the recent escalation and the circumstances of civilian casualties. This was justified by Netanyahu’s statement that “the army only learned later that Hezbollah deliberately placed civilians inside its command headquarters and used them as human shields.”
However, these circles considered that this understanding does not necessarily imply a green light for further escalation, but rather a way of “paying off” Tel Aviv or appeasing it in exchange for restraining it from any deviation from the rules regarding the Lebanon front, thereby avoiding anything that could sabotage or derail the negotiation process. Israel is aware of this, as evidenced by its refraining from targeting Hezbollah in areas such as Beirut’s southern suburbs.
Furthermore, the same circles observed that the nature of the US position, as expressed by the spokesperson, signals a desire to solidify Washington’s “ground position” regarding the Lebanon front and to send a message by drawing a threat of Qassem into Lebanon’s interior, which appeared to link with the vanguard of a unified “doctrine of movement” for Iran’s regional affiliates, through which Hezbollah acted “in parallel” – albeit with a stay of execution – to the Houthi behavior inside Yemen.
While Washington has settled that the file of weapons and their disarmament constitutes a cornerstone of the solution track on the Lebanon front, this matter has acquired deeper dimensions, as it will pressure the Lebanese authorities. This coincides with indications that Hezbollah, along with Hamas, is working to increase friction with the Israeli army “in coordination and with Iran’s assistance, at a time when Israel faces constraints on its freedom of response due to US pressures related to negotiations with Lebanon,” as reported by the Hebrew website “Wallah.”
This development coincided with indications from sources close to the Iranian axis that Tehran would not accept any operation against Ali al-Tahir’s site and its infrastructure, where a strategic facility for the party is located, and that it would respond to Israel in such a scenario, taking advantage of Trump’s constraints on Netanyahu and the latter’s reluctance to close “windows” that could lead to diplomatic breakthroughs needed in Lebanon and Gaza to compensate for the currently deadlocked horizon on the Iran front.
While it remains unclear whether US restrictions on Netanyahu will prevent him from attempting to forcefully seize the Ali al-Tahir site—thereby making it the “price” for his subsequent retreat toward a serious commitment to a ceasefire and halting arson, land-clearing, and destruction within the security zone—or whether he will be forced to continue besieging the site until dozens of Hezbollah and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters in its underground infrastructure surrender, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened to “strike heavily” following the major escalation in southern Lebanon.
Writing on the X platform, he stated: “No account will remain open in any arena. We will strike heavily in defense of our soldiers and citizens.”
Meanwhile, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, “I hope we are about to escalate with Lebanon. The cat-and-mouse game must be stopped, and they must also be crushed in Beirut.”
In response, amid violent Israeli air raids resembling a fire blanket on Ali al-Tahir and its surroundings, as well as severe explosions in several southern towns, and the flight of drones over Beirut’s southern suburbs and warplanes over multiple areas in Lebanon, it was impossible to determine the next step for Hezbollah and, behind it, Iran. This uncertainty followed the overt statement by Iran’s Assembly of Experts speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, confirming ongoing direct communication with Hezbollah elements on the front lines in Lebanon. This occurred alongside Qasem’s threat of a “barrel of anger,” as if signaling that Tehran is holding the southern front militarily while Hezbollah controls the “internal front,” thereby deepening fears that Lebanese-Israeli negotiations have become caught between the hammer of an escalation fuse capable of being ignited from two directions (Israel and Iran) and the anvil of a “timing clock” that Hezbollah announced it had placed on the “anger bomb,” albeit in a “after me, the flood” manner.
