Because of Lebanon ... an American attack on Barak and a report reveals the reasons

The National newspaper published in which it said that “the Israeli operation and the armed Hezbollah cannot continue in Lebanon,” while an American center launched a scathing attack against the American envoy Thomas Barak because of the policy he adopted at the level of the Lebanese file.

“The Lebanese government is facing increasing challenges, as it is trying to balance the demands of the United States to disarm Hizbullah and the demands of Iran, the main sponsor of Hezbollah, not to do this.” He added: “For a government recently took power after years of political vacuum, as well as the country as a whole, this is a decisive test of sovereignty.”
He continued: “After a widespread controversy, the Council of Ministers voted to re -monopolize the entire state of the weapon, but the implementation of this decision is not the same, and the matter is complicated by the continued positioning of the Israeli soldiers as invaders on Lebanese territory, despite international calls for their departure.”
He continued: “In Beirut on Monday, the American envoy Tom Barak said he believed that the Lebanese government played its role, as it took the first step, and what we need now is for Israel to abide by this equal handshake.”
The report continues: “But despite the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, since November, Israel continues to attack parts of Lebanon almost daily. Last week, the Israeli army chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, boasted during his visit to the Israeli forces in southern Lebanon to violate the truce 600 times.”
He continued: “At the same time, there are large numbers of Lebanese today who do not trust Hezbollah for good reasons, not the least of which is his decision to launch a war against Israel in 2023, but the longer the period of the survival of the Israeli forces, the greater the chances of Hizbullah to restore some popular support between the societies affected by the Israeli Edition.”
He continued: “There is, most likely, a limited opportunity to disarm, and to build a stronger future for the Lebanese state. It seems that this last point is not concerned by Ali Larijani, the supreme security official in Iran, who was in Beirut directly before the visit of Mr. Barak, and threatened that the manipulation of Hizbullah is not an outstanding option.”
Barak raises “chaos”
On the other hand, the Foundation for the Defense of the American Democrats (FDD) says that Barak is chaos in the Middle East, and what appears to be that he is unaware of its consequences. With a plan it has never been reviewed. Barak believes that this is diplomacy, but it is not. ”
“Barack visited Beirut on Monday, shortly after the Iranian National Security Adviser, Ali Larijani, visited Lebanon to abandon his policy of disarming Hizbullah. Lebanese officials refused to invite Larijani, and urged Tehran to respect international norms and remain immune to Lebanese affairs.”
She continued: “Hezbollah and its media, affected by the catastrophic result of the Larijani visit, launched a wave of attacks on the United States to push Lebanon to disarm the party. However, suddenly, the media of Hezbollah celebrated the visit of Barak, especially his statement that Lebanon has played its role, and that Israel now must stop monitoring Hizbullah. The American -Lebanese disarmament of House. Hezbollah criticized Israel for its targeted strikes that continue to eliminate the elements of Hizbullah in their attempt to rebuild the capabilities of their organization.
She added: “While receiving Barak, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam demanded that Israel respond to Lebanon’s step regarding the Hizbullah weapon. Therefore, Barak held Israel responsible for its lack of commitment to a plan that he did not see and did not agree with.”
The report considered that “Barak’s diplomacy creates problems instead of solving them.” He added: “With his absolute authority, this American official risks the escalation of tensions whenever he enters into matters outside his powers. Barak, in the end, is the American ambassador to Turkey and its envoy to Syria – and his title does not include Lebanon or the Lebanese -Israeli relations. However, it moves between Ankara and Beirut, in an attempt to resolve a conflict. Between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
He continued: “Barak’s approach to the defective diplomacy of former President Barack Obama, who often praised his policies with opponents such as Iran and Hezbollah, while criticized allies like Israel. Obama’s diplomacy has failed miserably, as it committed unintended mistakes, and left problems that could be avoided due to the lack of regional experience.”
And he added: “American diplomacy in the Middle East depends on Israel’s success in weakening Iran and dismantling Hizbullah and Hamas. After America has separated from the complexities of the region for a long time, it is negotiating with the Middle East factions supported by the power of Israel, not its ingenuity. American diplomats must realize that the real authority – not the Apostles – are those who make decisions.
He continued: “The exclusion of Israel from discussions about Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, as Barak did, is not a characteristic of American diplomacy. His praise for Hizbullah, Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, sparked during his visit on Monday, the surprise of observers in Washington. Brak has emerged on the Middle East scene a few months ago, and it may remain for three years at most. In his diplomacy a recipe for problems.
The Foundation added in its report: “If the United States does not correct its course quickly in Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, it will regret these mistakes for years to come. As it often happens, America may throw its weight, holding the complexity of the Middle East responsible for its failure.”
“The United States has competent envoys who realize the complexities of the region. It is sufficient for Washington to publish experienced people, and exclude those who are more suitable for visiting historical sites in the region, rather than facing its diplomatic challenges.
She concluded: “The situation related to Lebanon, Israel and Hezbollah is clear. The latter has launched an unjustified war on Israel, while removing his weapon will resolve the conflict. With this, the expectation of Israel’s concessions while Lebanon did not make the cabinet’s vote, it is ridiculous. For more experienced diplomats to take over. ”