LONDON - Lebanon's government is under severe pressure. It is in a phase of accommodating imposed American demands, within the limits of what it is capable of achieving. Accommodating the American demands is one of the rare skills that Lebanon happens to master. The Lebanese state does not aim to benefit from the latent capabilities the resistance presents.

If utilized, these capabilities would greatly improve the conditions of negotiation. It would shorten the time needed to convince the Western camp of the useless nature of what it is doing. It would convey that the latent damage the resistance can inflict on the entity establishes a new deterrence equation, albeit at a lower level than during the Gaza support war. It would allow the resistance to act as a pressure tool to improve negotiation terms.

On the contrary, the official Lebanese state operates on the principle of doing what is unnecessary, tying its diplomatic movement to the broader regional movement followed by Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. The resistance reminds it that if negotiation is unavoidable, then negotiate and resist.

This is whilst the Israeli occupation entity is negotiating whilst striking, violating and occupying. 

The resistance’s goal is a liberation goal that aligns with the state and enhances the possibility of the state becoming sovereign. Why does the Lebanese state not exploit and activate it? The resistance’s only goal is sovereignty and freedom for Lebanon and the region. 

The goal is neither to sit at the head of the state nor to seek power. Rather, the goal is a transformative process in the region towards sovereignty for its nations. They rule themselves by themselves, and this serves all existing governments.

The resistance, as a liberation movement allied with all liberation movements in the region, works to serve and assist regional authorities to free themselves and preserve their states’ sovereignty. This is what all forces in the Axis of Resistance have done.

They are liberation forces within states, not forces seeking to compete with anyone for governance. The aim is to provide support and assistance in establishing genuine states with true sovereignty.

America does not object to outsourcing the country to any regional power that serves its general policies. The Lebanese state is excluded from this because its status is that of a subordinate, not an original actor.

Those intended to be entrusted with the situation in Lebanon lie between the Israeli occupation entity and Syria. This threat cannot be protected against by the state and the army, because the limits of their capabilities are defined by the American administration.

This project, explicitly expressed by Tom Barrack, involves annexing Lebanon to Syria and granting the entity absolute upper hand to do whatever it wants. That is the same as in Syria, treating them on the basis of sects, ethnicities, and tribes. This project poses an existential threat to Lebanon, dispersing anti‑Western currents into a broader environment and diminishing their influence.

Here the resistance is not speaking from a purely national or regional dimension; it does not object to being part of the movement of the Ummah. On the contrary, this is a foundational principle for it.

It even seeks to lead the unified Ummah’s movement against the Western assault, through the occupation entity that dominates the decisions of the entire Ummah.

However, the resistance does not oppose these annexation proposals for principled reasons alone, but for existential reasons.

Because they pose a threat to its existence, by enabling the mobilization of everyone against the resistance. This weakens resistance orientation by dissolving it and by lining up elements to eliminate it.

This is not in the interest of any Lebanese party or component, which if it opposes the annexation of Lebanon, does so for existential reasons. All parties in Lebanon would be transformed into minorities within a sea of majority, instead of a collection of minorities within small Lebanon as exists today.