BEIRUT — The recent talk of a “negotiation option” announced by President Joseph Aoun has reignited one of Lebanon’s most dangerous debates, that of normalization disguised as pragmatism. 

His remarks came precisely as the Israeli enemy escalated its rhetoric to the highest level since 2006, while U.S. envoy Tom Barrack openly warned that any refusal to negotiate could “lead to civil conflict or a devastating Israeli offensive.”

In this tense context, Aoun’s call to “end the farce by picking up the phone and negotiating with the Israeli enemy” sounded less like statesmanship and more like submission under duress.

What the president and his entourage present as “realism” is, in fact, the abandonment of the deterrence equation that has protected Lebanon for nearly two decades. 

By placing the resistance and the Israeli enemy on equal footing — both supposedly “exhausted” and “ready for compromise” — Aoun dangerously undermines the very balance that has prevented open war. 

His rhetoric echoes Western narratives portraying resistance as a burden rather than a shield.

Reports confirm that Washington was quick to reprimand Aoun after his call for the army to “confront Israeli aggression.” 

The Americans made their position explicit: the Lebanese army must not engage the Israeli enemy. Its mission, in their eyes, is to contain Hezbollah. 

This exposes the real hierarchy of U.S. priorities — disarm the resistance, pacify the border, and secure Israel’s northern front, all under the illusion of “international obligations.”

Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts led by American and Egyptian envoys, including Barrack and General Hassan Rashad, are intensifying in Beirut. 

Their proposal for “direct negotiations under international auspices” excludes one essential condition — a ceasefire. Negotiations under fire are not diplomacy; they are coercion.

The aim is to push Lebanon into a dialogue of surrender, not of sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the Israeli press has been instrumental in shaping the pretext for escalation. Outlets like Maariv and Kan emphasize Hezbollah’s “recovery” and the “rebuilding of the Radwan Force,” suggesting that Israel is being provoked into preventive action. 

This rhetoric, calibrated with Washington’s political messaging, serves as psychological warfare to justify limited strikes, sustain public fear, and pressure Beirut into compliance.

Washington’s script and Lebanon’s crisis of leadership

Behind this orchestrated drama lies a broader U.S.-Israeli maneuver: to redraw the post-Gaza regional map by neutralizing Lebanon’s resistance. 
Exhausted militarily, Israel seeks a symbolic political victory in Lebanon — a victory that Washington intends to translate into regional “stability” by integrating Lebanon into a security framework that benefits Tel Aviv. 

When Barrack insists that “disarming Hezbollah is a prerequisite for peace,” he merely repeats the Israeli regime’s narrative in American diction.

President Aoun, meanwhile, appears motivated by personal and political calculations. By floating the notion of negotiation, he seeks to secure a legacy of “statesmanship” at the end of his term, even if it means undermining Lebanon’s last tool of deterrence. 

This opportunism, however, has isolated Aoun from his allies in the Free Patriotic Movement and deepened mistrust with resistance factions that view his rhetoric as a betrayal of national principles.

Speaker Nabih Berri has tried to moderate the discourse, calling for “cessation of attacks before any talks.” Yet even his cautionary tone reveals the corner into which Lebanon has been pushed: between the hammer of U.S. sanctions and the anvil of Israeli threats.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, for his part, projects the posture of a “balanced mediator,” but his government lacks both the political authority and the economic stability to withstand the intense foreign pressure tied to “conditional reforms” and financial aid.

The deeper tragedy is that Lebanon’s leadership seems trapped in a psychological dependency on Western legitimacy. 

Instead of reinforcing internal unity, it seeks validation from the very powers enabling Israel’s aggression. The so-called “negotiation track” is not a sovereign initiative. Rather, it is a managed path toward forced normalization.

Israel has never been swayed by diplomatic overtures or UN resolutions. It only understands the language of resistance and deterrence through strength and steadfastness. As Israeli jets continue to violate Lebanese airspace daily, it becomes clearer that peace cannot be negotiated from a position of submission.
For Lebanon, the true illusion is not in the promise of diplomacy, but in believing that the same forces undermining its sovereignty can guarantee its peace. Negotiation without power is not peace, it is surrender scripted in foreign capitals.