Lebanon at the Heart of the Regional 'Water and Fire' Race... Iran Declares It a 'Matter of Life and Death' in War and Peace

Regi from Manama: Lebanon will no longer accept that its territory be used as a platform to threaten the security of its Arab brothers.

Beyond the importance of the first judicial deterrent measure against Hezbollah in Lebanon—through the indictment of 13 of its members in the “C4 shipment and its associates” case—this development signaled a clear message from the state that the party’s military role, in all its forms and “objectives,” has become “wanted by justice.” Nevertheless, the “Land of Cedars” appeared to face the risk of being overtaken by events in the region, placing it “between the fangs” of either “the final war” or a major settlement.

With tense nerves, Beirut tracked the frantic race delineated between the drums of the “unlimited” mother of confrontations, sounded at full volume on the Iran front, and the fierce “diplomatic war” conducted through intermediaries to avoid the strongest explosion and reach an agreement proposed by Washington in an “now, not tomorrow” manner. This was because “after the midterm elections, Donald Trump will be another” if Republicans suffer a major defeat, without implying that the end of the US “elephant and donkey” battle in favor of the current administration would lead to less explosive scenarios or that the strategic objectives to be achieved would be “neglected,” since Trump would in any case be freed from the electoral considerations that imposed a “delaying” pace on Tehran.

At the peak of the diplomatic “biting of fingers” process—which entailed either the two sides racing to secure a seat at the highest level of threats, so that each appears to hold the “upper hand” in ending the “political ramming” from a position of strength, or it being “ammunition for weapons” in preparation for an inevitable clash—Lebanon found itself once again facing Iran’s overt repetition of holding the decision of war and peace in its hands, that it would be in the “same trench” with it militarily, and that any “lifeboat” of negotiation would have its sail raised by Iran.

While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that Lebanon is at the heart of “last-minute” negotiations, emphatically stating, “We demand a ceasefire and the end of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon,” this signaled Tehran’s insistence on holding the keys to the “next day” in the Land of Cedars. This was followed by remarks from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei during a meeting announced as being with top commanders of his armed forces, regarding “the unity of the Axis of Resistance as a strategic matter in the battle,” forming something akin to a military “operations order” for all arms of the “Islamic Republic” to engage in any battle, this time in the manner of a “war of existence.”

Khamenei’s remarks narrowed the margin of ambiguity that had prevailed in Beirut regarding Hezbollah’s positioning in the face of any strike on Iran, whether it distances itself from it or engages in it, above all the “no’s” of the Lebanese state and decisions to restrict its weapons and consider its military wing outside the legitimacy, leading to the start of a judicial “hunt” for its weapon shipments. Amid political circles considering that the Supreme Leader’s statement came to confirm the obvious regarding the message “on the same wave” sent by the party’s Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, on Wednesday evening by announcing, “We are interested in an Iran-US agreement because it is the only available source of strength alongside the resilience of the resistance, our people, and its supporters,” this stance was treated as a prelude to “linking up” militarily with Tehran, according to the same narrative as supporting the war on March 2 last past.

The case of the Hezbollah-affiliated truck carrying explosives, which was seized at the Dahr el-Bider checkpoint on October 5, took a significant turn with the indictment by the Government Commissioner at the Military Court, Judge Claude Ghanem, against thirteen individuals belonging to Hezbollah. They were charged with crimes including “assaulting internal state security, committing offenses against state laws, violating government decisions, and possessing weapons and explosives,” as well as “forming illegal associations aimed at undermining the authority and prestige of the state.” The penalties for the charges brought against these individuals carry a maximum sentence of ten years of hard labor.

The indictment included eight individuals known by name, two of whom are in custody: Haitham Amhaz and Ali Al-Kurdi (who were transporting the shipment and were arrested immediately); Ibrahim Habib, known as “Sajid” (who handed over the shipment in Baalbek); Bilal Sabouri, known as “Dhul-Fiqar” (who was supposed to receive it in Beirut’s southern suburbs); Muhammad Ayoub; Muhammad Zaytir (who was in the escort vehicle accompanying Amhaz and Al-Kurdi’s car); Muhammad Huzayma (the car’s owner); and Yelena Krizheva, Amhaz’s wife. Judge Ghanem also indicted five other individuals affiliated with Hezbollah, known only by their nicknames, whose full names have not been disclosed.

While Hezbollah, through MP Hussein Al-Hajj Hassan, stated that the indictment “lacks the most basic principles of the National Pact, the Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, and numerous Lebanese laws, all of which guarantee the legitimate rights of any resistance against occupation,” it appeared that this judicial move and the foundations of the indictment would serve as an additional incentive and “justification” for political forces participating in the government that are pushing to refer the case to the Supreme Judicial Council, particularly the Lebanese Forces, whose four ministers began a sit-in, refusing to attend government sessions until the case is referred.

Speaking during the Eastern Mediterranean session of the “Manama Dialogue,” titled “Eastern Mediterranean: A Crossroads of Continents and a Bridge to the Gulf,” he stated that “Lebanon has, over many years, experienced the devastating consequences of transforming armed groups into instruments of external influence, and of subordinating national decision-making to regional calculations.” He noted that “ties with Gulf countries have proven resilient, even amid tensions created by those who bet Lebanon’s interests on calculations that do not concern us and that we did not desire.”

He emphasized that “decisions to monopolize weapons in the hands of the state and to ban Hezbollah’s military and security activities are not merely political stances or declarations of intent,” affirming that “Lebanon will no longer accept that its territory be used as a platform to threaten the security of its Arab brothers, or that it be transformed into a forward defense line for the interests of other countries.”

He also expressed Lebanon’s aspiration to “renew political and strategic partnership with the Gulf, based on a shared conviction that the establishment of a sovereign, stable, and prosperous Lebanon is not only a Lebanese interest, but a strategic Arab interest,” considering that “the future of our region must not remain hostage to the ambitions of armed militias, the calculations of external powers, or settlements made at the expense of our countries’ sovereignty and our peoples’ interests.”