“Lebanon Debate”
As the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement moves from the signing stage to the implementation stage, the local arena stands on the threshold of a very delicate task, the title of which is how to translate the understandings on the ground, which are igniting in the south with Israeli strikes and bombings, and internally with sharp divisions, amid increasing external pressure.
What threatens this agreement is not limited to the aforementioned obstacles, but rather in the Israeli view of what was achieved in Washington, as well as in the Iranian approach, which is still centered on the unity of the arenas from which the Lebanese arena is inseparable, noting that Israel itself does not separate the Iranian and Lebanese arenas, after its Minister of Defense considered that “linking the Iranian and Lebanese arenas is an American interest, and without it Hezbollah would have collapsed.”
In this context, the arrival of the Commander of the US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, to Beirut, coming from Israel, gained special importance, as he carries with him a vision of the mechanism for implementing the agreement and the American supervision of its implementation, in parallel with the expected role of the Military Technical Committee in monitoring the ceasefire and addressing any potential violations.
This visit intersects with field indicators reported by Israeli sources regarding preparations for an “expected” withdrawal from three southern towns, namely Fron, Al-Ghandouriyah, and Zawtar Al-Gharbiya, at a time when Washington is looking into establishing a monitoring mechanism similar to the one adopted in Gaza, which reflects the shift of international interest from consolidating the agreement to ensuring its implementation.
The most dangerous of all the complications and mines that obstruct the implementation phase lies in what was reported in the Israeli media about a secret “security annex” that preserves the freedom of movement of the Israeli army within the Yellow Line, and information has been reported that Benjamin Netanyahu had deliberately leaked this for internal political purposes.
On the other hand, the political gap is widening at home, as the Shiite duo raised the ceiling of their objection after deciding to transfer it from the street to constitutional institutions, considering the agreement an attempt to impose political and security dictates, while official Lebanon affirms its adherence to the implementation path as it is the only way to restore full sovereignty, complete the Israeli withdrawal, and extend state authority through the deployment of the army and confining weapons to its legitimate institutions.
On the ground, it cannot be overlooked that the facts on the ground contradict the path of calm, with the continuation of Israeli raids and mutual shelling, which raises question marks about the ability of the mechanisms to be established to withstand any new escalation that may occur to create tension in the region.
Also, while awaiting the implementation phase of the framework agreement, represented by the beginning of the withdrawal from the experimental areas, American support for the army has begun, and Cooper’s meeting with Army Commander Rudolph Heikal reflected the seriousness of the American and Lebanese efforts for this stage.
While the agreement is welcomed by America, Europe, and the Gulf, the leadership of the “duo” treats it as “unviable and worse than the May 17 agreement,” which makes its success linked not only to international will, but also to the ability of all internal parties to manage a delicate stage in which security calculations overlap with political entitlements.
