Larijani, Qassem, and al-Houthi Unite to Counter Washington’s Threats to Lebanon

Beirut is currently witnessing a significant transformation as it becomes a hub for international diplomatic flights, highlighting the growing tensions in the region and on the global stage. This shift was notably marked by a recent visit from Iranian Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Larijani from August 13 to 14, followed closely by the arrival of U.S. envoys Thomas Barrack and Morgan Ortagus on August 17. The anticipated visit of Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan to Beirut further underscores this diplomatic activity.

The core of Barrack’s mission was to inform Lebanese officials about Ortagus taking over the Lebanon portfolio. An informed source revealed to the Tehran Times that the statements made by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, Larijani, and Yemeni Ansar Allah leader Sayyed Abdulmalik al-Houthi have disrupted Washington’s strategic calculations.

This situation was addressed during meetings between Barrack and key Lebanese figures, including President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. Notably, Lebanese Army Commander Rodolphe Heikal was questioned about potential military actions regarding Hezbollah, also known as the Resistance.

General Heikal provided a clear and decisive response, asserting that the Lebanese Army would not undertake actions that jeopardize peace in Lebanon. This statement was seen as a significant rebuttal to American pressure urging the military to comply with U.S. directives.

According to sources from the Tehran Times, Lebanese officials are now demanding that any actions taken by Nawaf Salam’s government should coincide with measures from the Israeli side, particularly following a cabinet decision to disarm Hezbollah by early next year.

During his discussions, Barrack attempted to convince Lebanese leaders that the issue of the Resistance’s weapons was a local matter, even suggesting that disarming the Resistance would benefit the Shiite community. However, this perspective has raised serious concerns among Aoun and Salam regarding the political and popular backlash that could arise from such a decision.

Initially, both leaders believed that the Shiite community would accept the disarmament, but they were surprised by the community’s readiness to defend their arms, even at the risk of a violent confrontation reminiscent of a “Karbala-like battle.” This apprehension is fueled by fears that, should the government falter, Israel might take unilateral action.

Moreover, the Nawaf Salam government has stressed the importance of supporting the Lebanese Army, which currently lacks the resources to undertake such a significant mission independently. This includes a call for the renewal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate in the southern region.

The recent aggressive actions from Israel have added to the pressures faced by the Salam government. Over the past two weeks, the Israeli forces have intensified their operations, which coincides with a tour by Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir to southern Lebanon, further complicating the political landscape.

In light of the decision regarding Hezbollah’s armament, Israeli forces have reportedly fortified positions on the outskirts of Adaisseh and expanded a guard post at Kfar Kila. These developments have further raised concerns among Lebanese officials about the implications of disarming Hezbollah.

Despite the diplomatic engagements, the two American envoys found themselves in a position where they had to assert that Israel must comply with certain expectations. However, the source indicated that American assurances often lack credibility.

Reflecting on past events, last year’s “calm” was abruptly followed by the assassination of Hezbollah senior military commander Fouad Shukr. Similarly, American assurances during the initial phase of U.S.-led Israeli aggression were followed by the assassination of Sayyed Nasrallah. This history necessitates a cautious approach, suggesting that trust in American promises may be misplaced.

• Beirut’s Status: The city is becoming a key airstrip for international diplomatic flights amid rising tensions.
• Key Visits: The visits from Iranian and U.S. officials reflect the complex geopolitical landscape.
• Hezbollah’s Position: The Lebanese Army’s non-intervention stance is a significant pushback against U.S. pressures.
• Local Reactions: The potential disarmament of Hezbollah has sparked fears among the Shiite community.
• Israeli Aggression: Increased Israeli military activity adds to the already tense situation.

As the situation continues to evolve, the implications of these diplomatic efforts and regional dynamics remain critical for Lebanon’s future. The interplay between local and international actors will be pivotal in determining the path forward amidst ongoing tensions.