Maneuvering Room Narrows for Beirut After US 'Firmness'

Lebanon enters October in a tense, breathless atmosphere in the region where the Iran front stands at a crossroads. Efforts to achieve a political breakthrough are advancing alongside “diplomacy of force,” which translates into heightened readiness on the ground, as maneuvering room narrows for Beirut regarding the file of monopolizing weapons in state hands, which, together with the Israeli withdrawal from the south, represents two sides of the same path.

While the region was preoccupied with the incident involving a Flydubai flight en route to Tel Aviv, particularly in light of the official Israeli classification of the event and its potential implications, Lebanon remained under the influence of the echoes of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s high-profile visit to Washington. This visit occurred at a highly sensitive time for the “Cedar Country,” which is caught between an unfinished war on its front and a peace process that must begin to clarify the situation on the Iran front.

This parallel deepens the troubles of the Lebanese state, which, by virtue of the facts on the ground imposed by Hezbollah, found itself since signing the Framework Agreement with Israel and the United States (June 26)—which significantly reduced escalation on the Lebanon front—facing the test of implementing a decision to monopolize weapons in state hands across the entire country. Its priority, parallel to the Israeli withdrawal, was hidden behind the mechanism of experimental zones that organize a phased withdrawal confined by the geography of the occupation in the south of the Litani River and part of the north of the river. The June 26 agreement stipulated that this would be matched by the deployment of the Lebanese Army in every area vacated by Tel Aviv to dismantle any Hezbollah military infrastructure there and prevent its return.

However, as Israel took charge of “monopolizing weapons” within the south of the Litani over the past five months, the equation—which is no longer hidden—gradually emerged, particularly in recent days. This equation holds that phased withdrawal cannot be exchanged for the entry of the Lebanese Army, but rather for the withdrawal of weapons from areas not under Israeli occupation. Lebanon is now being tested on this equation, as it is the party that committed to this through government decisions and phased plans, before reiterating this commitment in the Framework Agreement. The agreement includes provisions calling for the complete and verified withdrawal of weapons from all non-state armed groups, stipulating that these groups “shall have no military or security role, or any armed capabilities, anywhere in Lebanon.”

What was reported on Tuesday night from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who met with Salam in Washington on Monday—that “the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south, important as it is, is not sufficient on its own without concrete steps leading to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the monopolization of weapons in state hands,” was interpreted as an encouragement for Beirut to launch a process of dismantling Hezbollah’s arsenal north of the Litani. This aims to move direct negotiations with Israel out of the stalemate they entered due to Tel Aviv’s refusal to expand the experimental zones, for electoral reasons and others related to making Lebanon accept that Hezbollah’s weapons in all areas are the price of its withdrawal, and to act accordingly.

Salame’s remarks from Washington were viewed as a signal to Lebanon that there is no longer room to delay the arms file, as the government had pledged, amid efforts to frame the issue on the basis of reciprocity and phased implementation, calling for “a clear timeline for the Israeli withdrawal and for the state to monopolize arms,” insisting that these two tracks proceed in parallel. This was seen as reflecting the conviction that more is needed than mere positions demanding that Israel cease its violations and withdraw from the experimental zones, particularly regarding the activation of the arms withdrawal track.

Political circles believe that if Lebanon succeeds in turning the arms file into a lever to extract a timeline for Israeli withdrawal based on it—thereby forming a document in which Tel Aviv confirms there are no intentions to remain in the south—this would open a door to placing Hezbollah before the “hour of truth.”

This challenge is expected to be present in the round of negotiations rumored to take place in Beirut between Lebanon and Israel, under US sponsorship in Tampa, Florida, and likely on October 20, i.e., before the Israeli elections. US Central Command Commander Admiral Brad Cooper is expected to participate, with former Ambassador Simon Karam leading the Lebanese delegation, accompanied by Ambassador Nada Hamadeh Mouawad.

This new development was approached as a “compromise solution” to avoid the failure of the military and political-diplomatic wings of the negotiations to convene in Rome this month, thereby keeping the negotiation line alive and protecting its principle, while monitoring whether Lebanon will bring to the anticipated meeting any timeline, its nature, and its “limits.”

The agenda is expected to discuss the experimental zones and continue exploring the verification mechanism, which has become intertwined with the post-phase of the UNIFIL mission’s mandate in the south at the end of the year, amid a Lebanese acknowledgment that any extension of the mandate has exhausted its possibilities due to US rejection, which Salame likely heard in Washington. Beirut is attempting to find an alternative under the UN banner, a move complicated by the delicate alignment between the “function” of the alternative and its coexistence with the verification mechanism governing the Framework Agreement, as well as the need to generate it by providing intersections that prevent any veto in the Security Council, whether from Russia and China (if the alternative is granted a mandate that UNIFIL did not have) or from the United States (if the Blue Helmets experience is to be replicated under another name).

At the same time, US National Security Council Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Needham praised the efforts made by the Lebanese government to extend state authority over its entire territory and to advance its economy, affirming that “Israel has no ambitions in Lebanon, and its presence is limited to securing the northern areas,” and emphasizing the “necessity for Hezbollah to hand over its arms in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal, and to succeed in implementing the Framework Agreement and identifying the appropriate body to verify its implementation.”

Needham’s stance came during his meeting with Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raje in the White House, where the discussion covered the general situation, the Framework Agreement, and ways to ensure its success.

After a detailed presentation of the current reality in Lebanon, Raje affirmed that Lebanese people want to live in a normal country, stressing that monopolizing arms in the hands of the state is a sovereign Lebanese decision, not to appease anyone, neither Israel nor the United States, but to enable Lebanese to live under the umbrella of a normal state.