Hezbollah Explosives Open 'Hot Line' Between Rubio and Aoun

As the countdown to Israel’s Knesset elections and the subsequent midterm elections in the United States continues, Lebanon appears to be in the eye of the storm sweeping the region, caught between ballot boxes and simulations of the worst-case scenarios that deploy every kind of “psychological warfare,” culminating in the American “mother of all bombs.” Its dazzling effect could either shatter the diplomatic wall of stalemate on the Iran front or make the coming days scorching for the “point of no return” from the “mother of all battles” and its aftermath.

At a time when Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani began an important visit to Beirut, meeting today with senior officials to reaffirm support for Lebanon and its government and to explore ways to strengthen its protection from the most severe regional risks and safeguard its internal stability, it was not coincidental that Lebanon found itself caught between two opposing pressures regarding the case of the half-ton-plus shipment of explosives (half of which was C-4, augmented with tens of kilograms of nails and metal balls) seized on the 5th at a checkpoint manned by Internal Security Forces in the Dahr el-Bider area (Bekaa):

- From the United States, whose Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made an unusually high-level call to President Joseph Aoun later that day, emphasizing the utmost priority of this file and holding accountable all those involved according to the chain of command. This is because Lebanon’s state performance regarding this issue has become a practical measure of its seriousness in honoring its commitments concerning the arms embargo decision, and consequently its capacity to assume the executive aspects related to it under the trilateral framework agreement signed by Lebanon, Israel, and the United States on June 26.

- And from Hezbollah—and behind it, Iran—which officially claimed responsibility for the truck for the first time, demanding the release of detainees and the recovery of the explosives. It threatened the state, stating, “We will not tolerate any targeting from any party that implements American demands against our resistance,” and warned that “attempts by some in power to issue decisions that align, intentionally or unintentionally, with Israeli and American demands and policies lead to the country’s sabotage.” It also cautioned against “the risks of implementing these demands (...) and threatening our civil peace,” as well as the repercussions and dangers if “resistance members are prosecuted” or if the case is transferred to the Disciplinary Council, noting that “no one then knows where the country will end up.”

Rubio, who is mandated to oversee the direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv, capped Washington’s signals regarding the exceptional importance of the shipment file and the negative repercussions it carries, which would rebound on the official Lebanese state in the event of any delay in pursuing this case “from A to Z” and holding accountable every actor in a hierarchical manner. The Trump administration considers it irrelevant whether the explosives are intended to confront Israel or for internal assassinations, as both are more dangerous than the other and represent two sides of the same “black coin” from the United States’ perspective: Hezbollah’s illegal arsenal, which must be withdrawn.

Prior to Rubio’s call with Aoun, which was largely dedicated to the explosives file and the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, information circulated that the US Secretary of State would emphasize the necessity of expanding the investigation into the seized shipment to include the entities that ordered its transport, its funding sources, and the chain of command, rather than limiting it to arresting the transporters.

Lebanese Al-Jadeed TV reported that the U.S. State Department considers the seizure of the shipment insufficient, stating that “what is required is to prevent the transfer of weapons and explosives outside state authority and to translate the Lebanese government’s commitments into concrete steps that strengthen the capabilities of the Lebanese Army and consolidate the sovereignty of legitimate institutions, which could impact the trajectory of U.S. and international support.”

Against this backdrop, the U.S. side remains committed to continuing negotiations in parallel with strengthening state authority, emphasizing the necessity of a clear timeline and a verification mechanism to ensure the implementation of mutual commitments under the trilateral framework agreement.

The call was also expected to address the complaint filed against Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Nada Hamada Mouawad, concerning her alleged contact with Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leter to inquire about the health of her son after he was involved in a hit-and-run accident in Israel. The complaint was filed on Tuesday while Mouawad was at the U.S. State Department headquarters to discuss the verification mechanism for Israeli withdrawal according to the experimental zones framework and the withdrawal of Hezbollah’s weapons. As one of the obstacles to finalizing the date for the military negotiation round between Beirut and Tel Aviv, tentatively scheduled for the 20th–22nd of this month in Tampa, Florida, news emerged that Judge Claude Ghanem, the Government Commissioner at the Military Court, decided to suspend the complaint due to the absence of a criminal offense. This decision was expected to ease the intense U.S. anger, expressed by a State Department spokesperson who called it “embarrassing” for a military court to hear a complaint against the Lebanese ambassador to Washington.

While the judicial repercussions of the suspended complaint were being contained, its political and legal implications appeared to extend further, particularly amid signs that the United States is pushing for the repeal of the 1955 Lebanese law criminalizing communication with Israel (the Boycott of Israel Law), a measure former President Trump had pledged to pursue in April last year.

In this context, it was learned in Beirut that U.S. Ambassador Michael Issa met with a number of MPs representing more than one parliamentary bloc to discuss repealing this law, linking its use as a pretext for the complaint filed against Mouawad. The move was seen as a correction to the direct negotiation file between Lebanon and Israel, which Hezbollah strongly insists on and which is practically led by President Michel Aoun, in coordination with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. The ambassador in Washington is considered to be tasked by them with a portion of this file, alongside the negotiation team headed by former Ambassador Simon Karam.

Meanwhile, as Washington launched a “close-eye” diplomacy regarding the Lebanese state’s behavior concerning the Hezbollah shipment file—viewed as an indicator of the beginning of arms restriction across all Lebanese territories, not just south of the Litani River, given that the truck was intercepted in the Bekaa while traveling from Baalbek to Beirut’s southern suburbs—without any ordinary announcement, Lebanon’s Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh stated via Bloomberg that the central bank had canceled the local license of Bank Saderat, one of Iran’s largest banks, this week. He considered this step, taken amid tightening U.S. sanctions on the Iranian financial system, aimed at “sending a clear signal abroad that we are determined to protect our banking sector from any entity that could pose a risk or expose it to financial contamination risks.”

Deputy Hassan Fadelallah, who affirmed that “the capabilities in the truck are known to be used exclusively against the Israeli occupation,” accused “the authorities of insisting on exploiting the issue to achieve agendas that serve only this enemy and those lurking against the country,” recalling that “the March 2 decision (declaring Hezbollah’s military wing illegal) is contrary to the constitution, the National Pact, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is null and void in the eyes of our people.” He considered that “the dialogue that all loyal patriots strive for, in order to ensure stability, is incompatible with such conduct toward our resistance, and those who hastened to exploit the vehicle’s seizure to revive that fateful decision are determined to obstruct the language of dialogue and reconciliation. Such individuals disregard all the repercussions and risks, none of whom knows where the country will end up at that time.”

He reminded that “the enemy has always spoken of the explosive devices and fears their effects, and they have long been an effective weapon for the resistance since 1982. However, the prime minister’s haste, along with the chorus of those with external stakes and pre-packaged positions, to frame the incident as part of preparations for assassinations, is a divisive campaign that deepens divisions among Lebanese.”

The danger of the situation, with Lebanon standing on the brink, was further exacerbated by Iran’s escalation through its Deputy Foreign Minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, who visited Beirut, challenging the Lebanese state and asserting a “fait accompli” in decisions regarding war and peace and Hezbollah’s arsenal. He sounded the “alarm” against the worst-case scenarios he urged the region to prepare for, based on the premise that chances for understanding between Tehran and Washington have become virtually non-existent, and he lamented the futility of direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

During a dialogue session with political and media figures organized by the Iranian Embassy in Lebanon, the content of which was reported by the “Al-Madan” website, Khatibzadeh stated that direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel would not yield results, and that Israel seeks to use negotiations as a preliminary step to expand its influence and dominance in the region. He emphasized that “as long as the Israeli occupation remains in southern Lebanon, the resistance will continue, and the weapon will remain necessary.”

It emerged today, Thursday, that Khatibzadeh chose to speak in English after meeting with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, declaring, “This type of reciprocal visits between the two countries is the least that can be expected within the framework of bilateral relations, not only to exchange views but also to enhance our coordination.” The gloomy atmospheres expressed by him and Hezbollah alongside him have heightened fears of the entanglement of external and internal risks, given Israel’s threats that any positioning of Lebanon in the same trench as Iran in the event of a war with it would mean the displacement of one million Shia and the expansion of the security zone up to the Litani River.

Internally, suspicions have been further fueled by the possibility of street movements mimicking the student protests in France under economic banners. Political circles fear that any “popular” movement could become a front for undermining the government and the political reality, with the background of the arms file and negotiations, and for preparing the Lebanese stage for various scenarios related to the Iran front, whether it erupts or de-escalates, based on “conditioning” domestic consciousness that “Hezbollah is not over” and thus preserving the tools to balance its military position, whatever remains of it, at the level of local balances.