Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Mitri confirmed that the Lebanese government is continuing with its decision to establish the concept of the state and will not back down from it, stressing at the same time that implementing its decisions by force is not an option, in order not to endanger national unity, in a situation that comes amid a delicate stage in which the issues of the South, the exclusivity of the security and military decision, the relationship with Iran, the future of UNIFIL, and judicial cooperation with Syria are intertwined.
Mitri said, in an interview with Sky News Arabia, that “our government’s decision is to confirm the concept of the state and we will not back down from it,” adding: “We do not want to implement our government’s decisions by force so as not to endanger our national unity.”
In a clear message regarding foreign interference, Mitri stressed that Lebanon considers “any Iranian interference in our affairs an attack on Lebanon’s sovereignty,” stressing that Beirut wants to negotiate on its own until its full sovereignty is restored and civil peace is established.
He believed that any general settlement in the region that would lead to an end to the wars would be in Lebanon’s interest, in light of the Lebanese situation being linked to broader regional developments, especially the confrontation with Israel, the American-Iranian tension, and the ongoing settlement paths in the region.
Regarding the south, Mitri stressed that “the people of the south are Lebanese citizens and have rights before the Lebanese state,” considering that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s visit to the south constitutes a clear message of support for the Lebanese army and security forces, and an affirmation of the state’s presence and responsibility towards its citizens in the affected areas.
He stressed that the Lebanese army “fully knows its national responsibilities,” expressing his hope that the chances of the military institution obtaining additional international support will improve in the next stage.
Mitri revealed that the Lebanese army is ready to take over Ali Al-Taher Heights, one of the most prominent strategic sites in the vicinity of Nabatieh, which in recent months has turned into a very sensitive point in the field confrontation in the south.
Ali Al-Taher Heights has great military and geographical importance because of its supervision over the city of Nabatieh and large areas of the Al-Tuffah region, the Litani Valley, and several axes in the south, which makes it a very important field observation and control point.
The reference to the army’s readiness to take over the height comes in light of the continued discussion of implementing the “framework agreement” reached by Lebanon and Israel on June 26, 2026, which is based in one of its aspects on adopting what were called “experimental areas,” whereby Israeli forces withdraw from specific areas and the Lebanese army assumes full responsibility there.
The implementation of this path has faced repeated obstacles, as the seventh round of negotiations in Rome in early August did not lead to an agreement to expand the areas included in the withdrawal, after Lebanon insisted on moving to new areas, in exchange for the Israeli side’s insistence on completing verification procedures in the first areas before moving to another stage.
In this context, Mitri accused Israel of being “unwilling to show good faith regarding the negotiations and the framework agreement,” in a position that reflects the Lebanese objection to the continuation of Israeli operations, bombings, and military movements in the south in parallel with the negotiations.
He also revealed that a group of countries expressed their willingness to assist the Lebanese army when it entered the experimental areas, but he pointed out that Israel objects to a large number of countries wishing to provide assistance to the Lebanese military establishment in the south.
Supporting the army is a pivotal element in implementing any new field arrangements, as the military institution’s ability to deploy and establish its presence in the areas vacated by Israel is linked to obtaining equipment, financing, and logistical and technical capabilities, at a time when several international bodies confirm that supporting the army remains the basis for any sustainable solution in the south.
Regarding the UNIFIL file, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there is “clear Israeli intransigence” towards the United Nations forces operating in southern Lebanon, stressing that Beirut does not want the south to remain without an international body responsible for monitoring developments.
This point gains special importance in light of the role that UNIFIL has been playing for decades in southern Lebanon, whether in terms of monitoring the field situation, coordinating with the Lebanese army, or submitting reports on violations, which makes the future of its presence directly linked to any new security formula being negotiated for the region.
Recent developments have brought the issue of the future of international forces back to the forefront, in light of Lebanese and international contacts regarding post-Israeli withdrawal arrangements and the monitoring mechanisms that can be adopted to ensure that the areas being handed over do not turn into new arenas of confrontation.
In parallel with the southern file, Mitri discussed the relationship with Syria and the pending judicial files between Beirut and Damascus, stressing that the decision to hand over some Syrian officers to the Syrian authorities is “a judicial and non-political decision.”
His words came after Lebanese judicial steps related to the extradition of former officials from the era of Bashar al-Assad to Damascus, as the Lebanese authorities recently agreed to extradite former Syrian Major General Adel Issa after his arrest and investigation, based on the existing judicial agreement between the two countries.
Mitri also explained that the judicial agreement with Damascus will lead to the release of a large number of detainees, as part of a process that actually began months ago to address the file of Syrians in Lebanese prisons.
On February 6, 2026, Lebanon and Syria signed an agreement to transfer Syrian convicts from Lebanon to Syria to complete the implementation of their sentences there, after months of legal and judicial negotiations between the two countries, while work continues to address the conditions of other categories of detainees.
Parts of the agreement were later implemented, including Lebanon handing over 137 Syrian prisoners to the Syrian authorities, while other files remained under investigation due to the different nature of the provisions and the legal status of each detainee.
Mitri touched on one of the most prominent legal issues in extradition operations, considering that Lebanon has the right to hesitate to extradite any detainee who may face a death sentence in his country, after Lebanon abolished the penalty.
On August 11, 2026, the Lebanese Parliament approved a law abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with life imprisonment, thus ending an effective moratorium on execution that had continued since 2004 and moving Lebanon to the legal abolition of the penalty.
This issue raises a direct problem in extradition files to countries that still apply the death penalty, as Lebanon can request judicial guarantees that this punishment will not be carried out against the people it extradites, in line with the new legal system it has adopted.
Thus, Mitri’s statements combine more than one sovereign, security, and judicial file in one moment: consolidating state authority without sliding into an internal confrontation, expanding the army’s deployment in the south, pressing for Israel’s withdrawal and implementing the framework agreement, maintaining an international role through UNIFIL, rejecting Iranian interference, and reorganizing the judicial relationship with Syria.
These files reflect the scale of the challenge facing the government, which is trying to move from political decisions to implementing them on the ground, amid the continued Israeli presence and operations in the south, the sensitivity of the internal file, and the need for international support for the army, in parallel with rebuilding the Lebanese state’s relations with its regional surroundings on the basis of its sovereignty and institutions.
