According to the English section of webangah News agency, citing Mehr News Agency, following Lebanon’s government decision-seen as unpatriotic and compliant with U.S. dictates-to disarm Hezbollah, which drew a strong reaction from the group, Al-Akhbar newspaper published an article by prominent Lebanese writer and analyst Ali Haidar. The article stated that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s decision to disarm Hezbollah represents a highly sensitive political moment in the history of Arab-Israeli conflicts.
U.S. and Israeli Bet on Lebanese Government’s Inaction
the content of this government decision, along with its timing, marks the culmination of a prolonged process that began after last autumn’s recent war between Israel and Lebanon ended. Although issued by an official Lebanese figure,its repercussions will extend well into the future-especially given Israel’s ongoing violations of ceasefire agreements.
Meanwhile, notable developments in Syria and their impact on resistance forces emboldened Israel to escalate tensions against Lebanon. despite successfully inflicting severe blows on Hezbollah’s capabilities-including targeting senior leaders such as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine-the subsequent phase named “Ouli al-Bas” revealed Israeli air superiority tactics failed to achieve their core objective: dismantling Hezbollah’s military structure or ending its role as a defensive force capable of dealing considerable damage in any future conflict.
Consequently, Israeli strategy backed by Washington shifted toward more flexible, cost-effective methods focused on besieging and weakening Hezbollah from within Lebanon itself. This approach included attempts to dismantle key national pillars supporting resistance while pressuring Beirut into decisions threatening both Hezbollah’s existence and armament-a campaign directly led by the U.S. throughout recent months post-ceasefire.
How Hezbollah’s Smart Stance Disrupted Israeli Calculations
From Israel’s perspective, Beirut’s move to disarm resistance was a critical step in implementing Tel Aviv-Washington plans aimed at dragging lebanon into internal strife-positioning Hezbollah not as a unifying force but instead portraying it as rebelling against state authority through this disarming order.
However, Israeli expectations quickly unraveled when Hezbollah issued statements categorizing Beirut’s decision as illegitimate and unlawful. The group remained committed to principles of national sovereignty while firmly opposing any internal conflict resulting from efforts to strip them of arms.Importantly,hezbollah clearly outlined its next steps: absolute rejection of disarmament orders without resorting either to splitting from government institutions or engaging in domestic clashes.
This approach demonstrates high-level political discipline; rather than jeopardizing its strengths or falling into divisive civil confrontations, Hezbollah relies firmly on constitutional legitimacy alongside ministerial declarations that have cemented popular support for decades-preserving its role within formal state structures.
Hezbollah effectively chose among three paths: comply with U.S.-Israeli demands; engage directly in confrontation with the government; or pursue political maneuvering without fighting. It opted for the third route as both cost-effective and impactful-maintaining sufficient leverage within governmental institutions while successfully blocking attempts aimed at dragging it into internal disputes so far-all while framing discussions about weapons under national sovereignty debates.
Israel recognizes this smart posture unsettles Washington-Tel Aviv calculations by diminishing Beirut’s capacity to implement disarmament measures without provoking domestic upheaval. Yet one crucial question remains: will Israel exploit Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s approval of these decisions further legitimizing attacks against resistance during this new phase?
From Tel Aviv interests’ standpoint-the answer is yes-as it provides justification for interference under pretense supporting Lebanese sovereign decisions regarding their affairs.
However-from Lebanon’s point-the continuation or intensification of Israeli attacks will undoubtedly expose direct links between efforts aiming at armed groups’ neutralization inside Lebanon with broader strategies perpetuating aggression for control over Lebanese territory.
The Outlook Following Lebanon’s Decision Against Resistance Arms
An assessment indicates upcoming developments depend delicately upon balance among three actors: government’s ability amid sharply divided social-political environments; Hizbollah’s resilience facing pressures yet avoiding escalation toward civil strife; lastly-and critically-is Israel managing indirect involvement carefully enough not be accused formally but still leveraging deployment against Hizbollah exploiting legal voids created through Beirut decree regarding arms removal.”
<р>The choice imposed by former foreign powers now confronts indigenous claims tracing back sovereignty restoration rooted deeply inside central governance frameworks around public legitimacy questioning who truly defends real authority standing firm against external threats confronting modern-day Lebanon.
Thus emerges new fault lines no longer merely geographical across southern frontiers but threading through core governance pillars ranging constitutional texts balancing power distributions permeability social legitimacies confronting existential questions over authentic defenders shielding nationhood facing rising foreign encroachments concurrency majority conscience challenging persistence amidst transnational hostilities perpetuated presently.<р>
