It appears from the clear discrepancy in the positions of Tehran and Washington, in addition to the large naval and air military reinforcements off the coasts extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf, that the final decision is not made in Geneva, but in Washington. This reality raises concerns and questions about whether Lebanon will remain on the sidelines or engage in any potential confrontation, especially with the possibility of the United States launching a military strike against Iran if the Geneva negotiations fail.
Regarding these concerns, a former ambassador to Washington stated that Lebanon is not outside the strategic calculations of any potential conflict. However, he confirms that Lebanon’s involvement in the war is not a settled matter, based on the statements of Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem in recent weeks, which indicate that the party is dealing with the current situation with great pragmatism, and takes into account the difficulty of enduring another large-scale war.
The former ambassador believes that the most likely scenario, in the event of a limited strike on Iran, is for the party to refrain from opening a comprehensive front from the south, and to be content with an escalatory political stance, and perhaps to take limited field measures that do not require a broad Israeli response. He explains that the party will not risk what remains of its military capabilities in the face of uncertain results, unless the strike crosses major red lines that affect the head of the regime in Tehran or threaten its existence.
In response to a question, the former ambassador does not rule out the option of a “thoughtful response,” in one case, which is if Tehran wants to send “a practical message of solidarity through the arenas of its axis.”
In this case, the former ambassador expects the south to witness limited operations aimed at re-establishing the rules of engagement without sliding into open war, knowing that this possibility remains fraught with risks, because Israel may exploit the situation as an opportunity to expand the scope of its goals and complete targeting the party’s military structure.
