Efforts to break the stalemate in Lebanon-Israel negotiations amid regional tensions
- What is the secret behind the US ambassador to Beirut’s visit to Tel Aviv and his meeting with Netanyahu?
- A US rebuke of the General Security’s role in facilitating the movement of “Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps” elements from and to Lebanon!
September was not yet complete in its nature as a crossroads that signals a potential turning point for Lebanon and the region toward either explosion or détente, until Iran rekindled its hot military dynamite, the extent of which is difficult to predict and whose final outcome remains uncertain.
While neither the Lebanese authorities nor the Arab and international communities have raised the white flag in response to attempts to disrupt the “magnet system” that keeps “the Land of Cedars” attached to Iran’s front via “Hezbollah,” this trajectory remains threatened with collapse—at the level of its effects linked to deterring Israel from any new war with the party under the guise of its refusal to hand over its weapons—at the first slip of the confrontation between Washington and Tehran toward a “point of no return.” Such a scenario would trigger a multi-layered collapse, making the “flood of fire” continuous from the Strait of Hormuz to Lebanon.
This explains the extraordinary monitoring in Beirut of wind directions on the Iranian front and any movement by “Hezbollah” in the southern field, which, in the view of its opponents, is an echo of the clash between the United States and Iran, and consequently a prelude to perhaps “spilling the blood” of the small nation and its people in a “deadly round” of successive proxy wars. Nevertheless, the ring of fire that has reignited in the region has not halted efforts aimed at maintaining the “safety ring” that, until now, has prevented the collapse of the “selective ceasefire” adopted by Tel Aviv in the south for over four months, along with the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations under US sponsorship. These negotiations follow two parallel tracks: the withdrawal of weapons and withdrawal of forces, and the achievement of political-diplomatic “construction” capable of ending the “state of hostility” between the two countries.
In this context, the extraordinary move recorded on Tuesday evening can be understood, when it was announced that an unprecedented meeting in Israel brought together Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US Ambassador to Beirut Michael Weiss, and US Ambassador to Tel Aviv Mike Huckabee. Huckabee stated that the meeting was “to discuss talks between Lebanon and Israel.”
Although no details emerged about this meeting, its nature—particularly its occurrence with Netanyahu (Weiss and Huckabee had previously met at the US Embassy in Amman last January)—appeared laden with highly significant dimensions, especially in light of obstacles facing Lebanese-Israeli negotiations and the “experimental zones” reaching a kind of dead end, given Beirut’s inability to bear the prospect of this arrangement becoming a replica of the “evacuation orders” phase during the war, which were issued by the Israeli army.
This was evident in Tel Aviv’s drawing of a red line regarding any withdrawal from towns located entirely within the “security zone” before agreeing on a mechanism to verify the withdrawal of “Hezbollah’s” weapons within “Zone Alpha” (Western Zouk, Froun, and Srayfa), while simultaneously attempting to impose an equation that involves lifting the fire blockade from an area (such as Ali al-Taher hill) in exchange for its entry by the Lebanese army. This was considered part of a process to dismantle the party’s military structure north of the Litani River, viewed as an integral part of the weapons withdrawal agenda. This partly explains the latter’s refusal to hand over the Ali al-Taher facility, even if the price were its occupation.
As the Lebanese Army leadership issued a statement on Wednesday carrying significant implications, refuting “allegations attributed to hostile Israeli media outlets regarding the Army’s positions and its missions in the south, among other fabricated news,” and warning against “the danger of attempts to target the Army and its leadership, sow doubt within the institution’s ranks, and undermine trust between it and the Lebanese people,” the overall atmosphere was viewed as confirmation of the difficulties obstructing the negotiation process and the possibility of a breakthrough. This assessment came before developments on the Iran front and the upcoming Knesset elections added further layers of complexity.
Consequently, political circles observed that Issa’s visit to Israel and his meeting with Netanyahu were certainly not intended to convey an American position that Hakeem could have communicated directly. This implies that the U.S. Ambassador to Beirut was undertaking a more “Lebanese” mission, appearing closer to an envoy engaged in shuttle diplomacy.
In the view of these circles, the essence of Issa’s maneuver cannot be separated from the advanced and clearer position issued by Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun from Greece on Monday. Aoun affirmed, “We have assigned our official armed forces the mission of saving Lebanon from its two chronic, interrelated crises: the crisis of an occupation on our land, and the crisis of a weapon outside the authority of our state. This situation persisted for decades. Today, we have decided that the only possible solution is to address both problems simultaneously, synchronously, and in parallel: a complete withdrawal of the occupation, and complete control by our armed forces alone over all our land.”
Beneath the lines of this statement looms an endorsement of a position based on the parallelism between a complete Israeli withdrawal and a complete withdrawal of weapons. Political circles believe that the United States, which recently and explicitly through Issa emphasized the necessity of the Party declaring its commitment, even if only through a statement, to disarm in order to help push Tel Aviv toward withdrawal—“not asking everything of it alone”—is attempting to broaden the negotiation circle on the basis of a clear schedule for Israel’s exit, even if according to the experimental zones formula, with a resolution on the verification mechanism, its leadership, members, and operational system. This would practically provide Beirut with an assurance that Israel has no ambitions over Lebanese territories, while the likely “counter” expected of the “Land of Cedars” would be the withdrawal of weapons on a step-by-step basis from all of Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Israeli Channel 12 reported that the round of talks in Rome might be postponed to a later date if no practical steps are recorded on the ground, noting that the eighth round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel is not expected before mid-September. Meanwhile, the field has written old-new chapters of escalation, which Tel Aviv linked to Hezbollah launching two rigged drones toward its soldiers “in the security zone in the Ali al-Tahir heights.” In response, it launched an attack “on Hezbollah’s infrastructure in the Nabatieh area,” continuing to target the surroundings of Ali al-Tahir hill throughout the day, with indications that it has become tightly besieged and that Tel Aviv is “knocking on its underground doors.”
Amid Defense Minister Israel Katz’s threat that “if Israel is attacked by Iran because of our operations in Gaza or Lebanon, our planes are ready to take off immediately,” monitoring circles in Beirut paused to observe two developments related to “Hezbollah.” The first links it to facilitating the movement of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps elements to and from Lebanon, and the second to training remnants of the ousted Assad regime in Syria in the Bekaa, in preparation for sabotage against President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s regime.
The official Lebanese National News Agency reported that the Internal Security Forces’ Information Branch arrested five Lebanese and Syrian nationals suspected of smuggling fighters from Syria into Lebanon across the northern border and transporting them to the Bekaa Valley for training. The suspects are being interrogated under the supervision of the Chief Public Prosecutor, Judge Jamal Al-Hajjar, who has ordered an expanded investigation to uncover the details surrounding the network, which was found in possession of machine guns, sniper rifles, and explosives.
The agency noted that several individuals whose names have emerged for questioning are being tracked down before the preliminary investigation is concluded and referred to the military judiciary for appropriate legal proceedings.
In the same context, Agence France-Presse quoted a Lebanese judicial source stating that the network includes two Lebanese nationals and three Syrians, one of whom holds the former rank of colonel in the intelligence services. Authorities seized machine guns, hand grenades, sniper rifles, and explosives from them. They were arrested on suspicion of plotting attacks against government forces in the Syrian coastal region.
The source added that the network is run by a former Syrian army major general residing in Moscow and close to ousted President Bashar al-Assad. Network members received military training in eastern Lebanon from Hezbollah fighters.
Meanwhile, Al-Arabiya channel cited a US intelligence source as saying, “We have reservations about certain elements within the Lebanese General Security,” and that there are “suspicions that elements within Lebanese security are facilitating Hezbollah’s activities at the airport and the port.”
The source continued, “We have information indicating that documents belonging to deceased Lebanese citizens are being used to register Iranian operatives. There are suspicions that elements within Lebanese security are involved in issuing passports to these individuals, and we are scrutinizing the crossing of Iranians using Lebanese documents at Beirut Airport and land borders. There is a loophole in the registration of deaths within Hezbollah-affiliated circles, which is being exploited to smuggle Iranians into the country.”
