Al-Buri "calls on" Trump and covers for "Al-Tajribiya" as the Lebanese Army takes over "Ali Al-Taher"
As the region braces for potentially fiercer confrontations, Lebanon is on edge, interpreting the US-mediated direct negotiation track between it and Israel, as well as the Framework Agreement signed under its auspices on June 26, as a lifeline to avoid a new flood of blood and destruction. This peril stems from the “marriage by fire” with Iran, which Tehran insists upon and can translate into action at will through Hezbollah.
Against the backdrop of the region’s exposure to the unraveling of Iran’s “safety circle” established by the memorandum of understanding with the United States, and the crystallization of diverging “front lines” branching from the main theater—as seen in Yemen and Iraq, or emerging along the Israel-Turkey-Syria axis—Lebanon is intensifying its efforts to avoid being drawn into the most severe “hurricane corridor.” It seeks to stabilize its reality as much as possible, managing its multi-layered crisis on the basis of containing obvious risks and fortifying its “defense lines” against them. These lines were established, despite all adverse conditions, through a flexible strategy that broke “diplomatic taboos.”
Lebanese efforts center on keeping the negotiation track with Israel alive, viewing it as the “runway” that will allow, albeit after a delay, an emergency landing for both Tel Aviv—once its “electoral storm” subsides—and Hezbollah, when Iran faces its greatest trial or experiences deeper exhaustion in terms of its weight and position within domestic Iranian politics, the region, and its spheres of influence. This would ensure that the “foundations” are ready for a final solution... however delayed, it is inevitable.
Lebanon benefits in this endeavor from a similar desire in Washington to preserve the negotiation track, which has gained greater urgency now that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding is effectively expired. This makes the track the de facto and “unrivaled” regulator of the prevailing ceasefire in the Land of Cedars, even with Israeli violations in the south. Previously, Hezbollah had used the “memorandum” and its first clause, which stipulated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts and designated Lebanon as the sovereign of its front, relying on a “diplomacy of force” that failed to deter Tel Aviv from targeting. Hezbollah subsequently hid behind this clause to restrict itself from directly confronting these attacks.
It was not coincidental that signals emerged from Hezbollah’s “elder brother,” Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, suggesting that he openly contradicts the party’s “war” against the negotiation track and the Framework Agreement. The core of this agreement rests on “experimental zones” (the operational mechanism for a gradual Israeli withdrawal in exchange for the deployment of the Lebanese Army in liberated areas). Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, had previously launched a fiery attack on these zones and sounded the drums of an impending “explosion of anger” against the domestic front, awaiting the “zero hour.” This culminated in an unprecedented threat by one of his deputies against President General Joseph Aoun, stating, “He is unjust to us, and we have a grievance with him,” in the context of justifying the refusal to withdraw from Mount Ali al-Taher and hand over its infrastructure to the Lebanese Army.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, during a meeting with the U.S. Working Group on Lebanon delegation led by Ambassador Edward Gabriel, adopted a stance widely regarded as a pragmatic concession, characterizing the framework agreement as “the unavoidable evil.” This position came in light of the expiration of the U.S.-Iran “memorandum of understanding,” which Berri had long viewed as laying the foundations for security and stability in the region and the country, particularly due to its clause concerning Lebanon. Berri cited the United States and President Donald Trump, describing the latter as the only figure capable of compelling Israel to end its war, halt the fighting, and withdraw to the international border in the south. Meanwhile, Gabriel reported that Berri was “very interested in achieving progress regarding the experimental zones” and “personally wanted to see these zones succeed.”
In a statement released by his media office, Berri added that once Israel ends its war and withdraws to the international border in the south, he would “guarantee the immediate deployment of the Lebanese Army in the area south of the Litani River, ensuring that the Lebanese Army becomes the sole security force and the only entity possessing weapons in that area.” He emphasized that this is a region where residents are eager to return and rebuild, hoping to see the Lebanese Army safeguard their security and stability.
Despite the significance of this stance, monitoring sources considered it neither sufficiently appealing to the Americans nor to the Israelis. They argued that it effectively amounts to applying UN Security Council Resolution 1701, even though events, facts, and developments have already surpassed that resolution and the ceasefire agreement of November 27, 2024. This perspective aligns with Washington’s firm rejection of any continued presence of UNIFIL, the guardian of Resolution 1701, after its mandate ends at the end of the year, while stressing to Tel Aviv that the requirement is the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantling of its military structure as a “final product” accompanying Israel’s complete and gradual withdrawal.
What drew attention from observers was the apparent discrepancy between the “Lebanese discourse” issued by Berri’s media office and the “American discourse” conveyed by Gabriel, who quoted Berri “verbatim and visually” in his speech at Ain el-Tineh following the meeting. No official denial was issued regarding the content of Gabriel’s statements, which were absent from the official statement.
Gabriel, reading from a prepared text, stated: “We feel that President Berri is very interested in making progress on the experimental zones, and he said he personally wants to see these zones succeed.” He also announced that “if a ceasefire is reached, Berri will personally guarantee the disarmament of Hezbollah.”
He added, “Regarding Ali Tahr, Berri stated that if the Israelis agree to allow the Lebanese Army to take control of the land to prevent Israel from causing widespread destruction, Berri will do his utmost to speak directly with Hezbollah and persuade it to accept the agreement. Israel must be clear about its desire for the Lebanese Army to take control of this area.”
Gabriel continued, “Berri concluded that the people of the South do not want weapons, but homes. We will ensure that these statements are conveyed to decision-makers in the United States.”
In a statement from Berri’s media office, it was noted that “in response to a question regarding the Ali Tahr hill and its handover to the Lebanese Army, Gabriel stated that Israel must be clear about its acceptance of the Lebanese Army controlling the Ali Tahr hill to prevent comprehensive destruction by Israel, but Israel must also be clear regarding its desire for the Lebanese Army to take control of this area.”
Gabriel added, “The people of the South do not want war; they want to return to their homes. We believe it was a very good meeting, and the Speaker of the Parliament was very straightforward. We will ensure that his vision and perspective are conveyed to American policymakers.”
This ambiguity has also gained significance in light of the impression that Ali al-Tahrir’s battle is merely a matter of time before the Israelis attack the strategic facility beneath it, where dozens of his fighters, along with members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, are besieged. The party has absolutely refused to surrender, stating, “We will not raise the white flag,” nor to hand it over to the Lebanese Army, as that would mean, for the party, acknowledging acceptance of the dismantling of its weapons north of the Litani River. This is in addition to one of its deputies declaring a lack of confidence in the Lebanese political decision and expressing fear that the Army might be asked to withdraw from this site, “handing it over as a gift to Israel.” Furthermore, the party views this strategic point as critical, believing that its fall would mean the collapse of the second line of defense north of al-Nahr, and possibly a domino effect of Israeli advances toward the Apple Region and the Western Bekaa, and perhaps even further toward Hermel.
- First, US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott announced that the situation in Lebanon was among the regional security issues discussed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a phone call with UAE National Security Advisor Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
- Second, President Aoun received a written message from French Chargé d’Affaires in Lebanon Bruno Pereira da Silva, containing an invitation from President Emmanuel Macron for Lebanon to participate in the preparatory meeting for the International Conference to Support the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces, to be held in Paris on September 17.
The invitation highlighted “the importance of this meeting in supporting the Lebanese Army, aiming to enable it to possess the necessary capabilities and resources to effectively fulfill its responsibilities. This requires international support and collective effort to meet its practical needs, logistical equipment, training, and capacity building, according to priorities, an action plan, and the needs identified by the Lebanese Army.” The invitation also notes that “Internal Security Forces share the burdens borne by the Army, and strengthening them would allow the Army to focus on its priority tasks.”
Leaders of the armed forces from several countries, along with representatives of intergovernmental organizations and experts, will participate in the meeting.
Lebanese channel LBCI reported that the preparatory meeting for the army support conference will be jointly organized by France and Jordan. It is worth noting that this conference was originally scheduled for March last year, but conditions of war in the region contributed to its postponement. The level of participation in the September 17 meeting is being closely monitored, as it will indicate the extent of Arab and international confidence in the path Beirut is adopting regarding the issue of withdrawing Hezbollah’s weapons, especially since strengthening the army is a key element in enabling it to proceed more effectively in this task, which the authorities prefer not to implement harshly.
President Aoun affirmed to his visitors that “the situation in the south requires close follow-up. We must seize every opportunity for the benefit of Lebanon, and we will do everything in our power to achieve our aspirations for stability in the south, where the greatest challenge is Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied southern villages and towns, the deployment of the Army up to the international borders, and reconstruction. We will work with all our means and with our friends around the world to pressure Israel to commit to the Framework Agreement.”
In this context comes the visit launched by Aoun to Rome, where he will meet Pope Leo XIV on Thursday, followed by a meeting on Friday with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. This takes place against the backdrop of substantial Vatican patronage for Lebanon and its “peace route,” as well as the Italian capital’s hosting of the executive phase of Lebanese-Israeli-American negotiations, specifically the sixth and seventh rounds. There is keen anticipation that Rome will also host the eighth round in September, once Washington secures the appropriate conditions for holding it, particularly regarding preliminary agreement on a verification mechanism within the experimental zones—a mechanism in which Rome is likely to play a leading role, along with its expansion.
