Positions by Larijani, Qassem, and al-Houthi abort Washington’s threats to Lebanon

BEIRUT— Beirut’s transformation into an airstrip for international diplomatic flights reflects an escalation in the regional and international tensions.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Larijani visited Beirut from August 13 to 14. Just days later, on August 17, U.S. envoys Thomas Barrack and Morgan Ortagus arrived in Lebanon. Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan is also expected to visit Beirut in the near future.
It is noteworthy that Barrack’s visit was primarily intended to inform Lebanese officials that Morgan Ortagus would be taking over responsibility for the Lebanon portfolio.
An informed source confirmed to the Tehran Times that the positions expressed by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, Larijani, and Yemeni Ansar Allah movement leader Sayyed Abdulmalik al-Houthi have undermined Washington’s calculations.
These vocal positions were discussed during Barrack’s meetings with President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.
This is in addition to Lebanese Army Commander Rodolphe Heikal, who was asked about his assessment of the measures the military establishment might take to disarm the Shiite Hezbollah, commonly known as the Resistance.
General Heikal’s response was that the army would not take any action that might harm peace in Lebanon.
This was considered a decisive response by the Lebanese Army to American pressure to compel the army to implement everything ordered by the government.
Tehran Times’ source believes this prompted Lebanese officials to demand that Washington ensure that any step by Nawaf Salam’s government would be accompanied by a corresponding step by the Israeli occupation entity, especially after the cabinet voted to disarm Hezbollah within a deadline no later than the beginning of next year.
Barrack did not miss any opportunity to deceive the Lebanese, claiming that the issue of the Resistance’s weapons was a local affair, in addition to his allegation that the step to disarm the Resistance “is in the interest of the Shiites.”
The source further believes that Aoun and Salam’s positions reflect a serious fear of political and popular repercussions of the decision to disarm the Resistance.
Aoun and Salam had evidently assumed that the Shiite community would acquiesce, but were taken aback by their readiness to defend their weapons—even if it meant engaging in a “Karbala-like battle”—amid concerns that, should the government fail, the Israeli adversary might take matters into its own hands.
Reportedly, the Nawaf Salam government emphasized the need to support the Lebanese Army, which lacks the necessary capabilities or to carry out the mission alone, as well as the need to renew UNIFIL’s mandate in the south.
According to the source, the continued aggressive behaviour of the Israeli enemy over the past two weeks, coupled with the political positions rejecting withdrawal from occupied positions during a tour of Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir to posts in southern Lebanon, have greatly embarrassed the Salam government.
It is worth noting that, specifically after the decision about Hezbollah’s weapons, the Israeli occupation forces fortified one of their positions on the outskirts of Adaisseh and expanded a guard post on the outskirts of Kfar Kila.
The Tehran Times’ source eventually points out that the two American envoys were forced to claim that Israel was required to comply. However, American deception remains palpable.
This “calm” atmosphere last year was followed by the assassination of Hezbollah senior military commander Fouad Shukr. Also, American reassurances in the first week of the US–led Israeli aggression were followed by the assassination of Sayyed Nasrallah.
Accordingly, caution is required, and America cannot be trusted, according to the source.
Leave a Comment