BEIRUT—As Lebanon awaits the repercussions of the threat by US envoy Thomas Barrack, information has leaked suggesting the end of his mission in Lebanon amid the talk of the possible return of Morgan Ortagus.

Reportedly, the U.S. administration accuses Riyadh, specifically Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan, of controlling him.

However, other sources attribute Barrack’s removal to pressure from the Lebanese lobby in the United States, which claims that his recent threat to annex Lebanon to the Levant harms the anti-Resistance team, who raise slogans about sovereignty and American guarantees to protect Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Lebanon is on the countdown to the alarming Tuesday government session to discuss the exclusive control of arms by the state so that “the world will not take pity on us,” as President Joseph Aoun put it, in a move that constitutes a response to US pressure.

Hence, observers seriously warn of the consequences of the dangerous political clash in a country where political conflict is raging and the country is mired in successive crises that loots citizens’ pockets and threaten their civil peace.

In parallel, Israel continues to escalate the situation if the government fails to make a decisive decision to disarm the Hezbollah resistance movement within a specific timetable, or if it adopts compromise formulas, which it believes serve Hezbollah.

As of the time of writing, sources within the Hezbollah and Amal Movement confirmed their determination not to disrupt the session’s quorum, believing in the necessity of consultation to build upon the necessary outcomes. 

The Shia alliance emphasize the impossibility of disarmament before Israel withdraws from the five hills, halts its attacks, releases prisoners, and reconstruction begins.

Reportedly, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, known for his consensual approach, may meet with President Aoun in the coming hours to study a proposal to have the government establish the principle of arms monopoly, not disarmament, and then task the Supreme

Defense Council to make coordination with the resistance to continue implementing measures in this regard.

In this context, MP Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, met with President Aoun.

Raad emphasized, “It is not possible to respond to what the Americans are demanding in light of Israeli intransigence... Everyone is concerned with confronting these pressures by adopting a unified stance and not giving pretext to those who want to lead the country to ruin.” 

The failure of both Washington and Tel Aviv is driving them to hastily pursue final and exclusive settlements—particularly in Lebanon, where opportunities are more plentiful—under the pretext of achieving “arms exclusivity.”

For its part, the French embassy in Lebanon, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Lebanese Army, expressed its readiness to assist it in “completely restricting its control of weapons,” while Britain expressed its support for “the Lebanese Army, the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.”

These intense efforts carry complex messages: on the one hand, there is necessary pressure to resolve the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, and on the other, there is an explicit recognition that time is not on Israel’s side!