- 16:10
Things are moving fast in Lebanon, a country now walking a tightrope. In just forty-eight hours, an open letter from Hezbollah, increasingly intense Israeli raids in the south, new U.S. sanctions, and a shaky government response to Hezbollah’s disarmament have reignited fears of a “renewed” conflict.
It all (re)started on Thursday morning, when Hezbollah’s leadership released a letter addressed to the country’s top officials: President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. In it, the Shiite group rejected any negotiations with Israel and reaffirmed what it calls the “legitimate right of resistance” to bear arms. Behind the carefully crafted rhetoric lies a clear political message: Hezbollah opposes any government attempt to limit or eliminate its arsenal, framing such moves as yielding to “Western blackmail” under the guise of security.
The timing was deliberate. The letter came as the government prepared to review the army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah and gradually restore security control over southern Lebanon. The group’s message was unmistakable: it has no intention of complying with a disarmament process it sees as entirely one-sided.
Cross Pressures: Washington, Tel Aviv, and Beirut Under Strain
Washington acted quickly. The U.S. Treasury Department announced new sanctions against individuals and companies suspected of financing Hezbollah, describing the network as “cross-border and clandestine.” In a post on X on Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut stressed that the measures are designed to prevent the group from “imposing its will on the Lebanese people by force.” The message is clear: Washington intends to tie any economic support for Lebanon to the state’s full control over weapons. In short, the era of tacit compromises appears to be coming to an end.
Tel Aviv, meanwhile, is showing signs of rising tension. Israeli officials have warned that if Beirut fails to curb Hezbollah’s buildup of weapons, Israel will “act as necessary.” On Thursday, airstrikes intensified in the south, targeting suspected weapons storage sites, while leaflets were dropped over several border villages, urging residents to evacuate. After a long pause, the Israeli army’s Arabic-speaking spokesman, Avichay Adraee, also resumed issuing warnings.
In Lebanon, government reactions followed a familiar pattern, with the same speeches, positions, and unfulfilled promises. President Joseph Aoun, as usual, condemned the Israeli airstrikes, calling them an “outrageous political crime” and reaffirming his commitment to defend national sovereignty through diplomatic channels. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam emphasized that “the decision of war or peace rests exclusively with the government.” No one except Hezbollah and its allies disputes this, but it highlights the challenge in a country where civilian authorities must constantly prove they still hold power.
The Lebanese Army, headed by General Rodolphe Haykal, is trying to maintain a steady course. In a report to the Council of Ministers on Thursday, the military command warned that Israeli strikes could disrupt the ongoing deployment in southern Lebanon along the Litani River. “If the attacks continue, they will compromise the operational schedule and the safety of civilians,” the report said. While the warning is justified, it also gives Tel Aviv an easy excuse to continue its strikes and highlight the limits of Lebanon’s security apparatus.
Three Scenarios, One Dead End
A security expert outlines three possible paths. The first, the most optimistic, would see a negotiated de-escalation with direct talks with Israel: gradual implementation of the army’s plan, a reduction in Israeli strikes, and international guarantees to protect Lebanon’s sovereignty. The second, more likely, is a localized confrontation, a cycle of attacks and counterattacks short of open war but with devastating effects on civilians and the economy. The third, and most feared, is an uncontrolled escalation sparked by a miscalculation or a border incident.
In this fragile situation, Lebanon remains at the center of a regional game it cannot control. Hezbollah seeks to show it is untouchable; Israel wants to prove its patience has limits; the United States is using economic pressure to influence Beirut. The Lebanese state struggles to assert the sovereignty it claims but cannot fully enforce. For Lebanon, the question remains: when will it be able to make its own decisions, secure its borders, and act independently rather than as a pawn in others’ calculations?
Comments