“Lebanon Debate”
In light of the continuing security and political tension in Lebanon and the region, and the unclear path of developments on the ground or the chances of reaching a political settlement, Lebanon is experiencing a delicate stage in which internal, regional and international factors intersect, and while the possibilities of military escalation remain, political negotiations appear to be on hold pending the clarification of the positions of the influential parties and the path of regional developments.
In this context, writer and political analyst Sarkis Abu Zeid, in an interview with Lebanon Debate, saw that the current scene is based on a kind of race between the military solution and the diplomatic solution, considering that each of the two options has its own circumstances and reasons, and that the direction the settlement will take remains linked to international, regional and internal developments.
Abu Zeid pointed out that the world is going through a period of political chaos, especially in light of American policies, especially the administration of President Donald Trump, in parallel with an unresolved regional situation and internal Lebanese division, which puts the country in a stage of “stagnation and uncertainty.”
He considered that Lebanon, in the event of a regional or international confrontation erupting or a settlement being reached, would remain in a weak position, due to the absence of national unity and internal cohesion, and thus not having the ability to impose its conditions or face the repercussions of either scenario.
He believed that all possibilities remain open, and it cannot be certain that the region is inevitably heading toward a wide-scale war starting from Ali Al-Taher or toward an imminent political settlement, indicating that there is intense competition between the military and political tracks.
Regarding the negotiations related to the situation in the south, Abu Zeid pointed out that the date for the negotiations has not been decided yet, while Israel, in his opinion, is still not committed to a number of conditions, including a ceasefire and withdrawal from the areas from which it is supposed to withdraw, which makes relying on an imminent political settlement unclear.
He criticized the bet on European moves and the visit of President Joseph Aoun to Rome, considering that countries like Italy, despite their importance, do not have the ability to exert sufficient pressure on Israel to impose the terms of a ceasefire or withdrawal, while the United States remains the party most capable of exerting this type of pressure.
But he pointed out that these contacts may improve Lebanon’s political conditions, but they will not be sufficient alone to achieve a breakthrough, unless they are accompanied by actual American pressure on Israel.
Regarding the next stage, Abu Zeid ruled out resolving the scene quickly, suggesting that the state of attrition and stagnation will continue, in parallel with waiting for the results of the American and Israeli elections, considering that their results may affect the policy trends in the two countries.
However, he did not rule out the outbreak of a large-scale war before the end of the electoral elections, indicating that any large war may reflect negatively on the parties concerned, and its results and conditions cannot be guaranteed in advance, which makes the decision to go to it fraught with risks.
Abu Zeid concluded by stressing that Lebanon and the region are facing a stage open to several possibilities, in the absence of a clear settlement on the one hand, and the absence of definitive conditions for the outbreak of a comprehensive war on the other hand, which keeps the country in a cycle of waiting, exhaustion, and uncertainty.
