The American paper passed without actual discussion and the army in the eye of the storm!

The visit of the American delegate Tom Brak to Beirut did not pass like any ordinary diplomatic visit. In his statements, the man deliberately used the phrase “step policy with a step” in a sign that he wanted to suggest calm and realism, while Morgan Ortigos accompanied him in the presence of his informed sources that he was provoking with distinction, and it is intended to deliver a political message to the Lebanese interior. Thus, the visit combined a soft language in shape and solid messages in the content, which made it carry more than one meaning in a very sensitive timing.
Barak confirmed that he would display the paper approved by the Lebanese government on the Israeli side, revealing at the same time that nothing has been shown on “Tel Aviv” until the moment. This paradox seemed sufficient to refute the Lebanese official account that talked about a binding paper for the entire parties, as it was found that it was a pure American project, which was passed in the cabinet as it is without actual discussion. Hence, the sources say that what was promoted to him at home around the paper does not go beyond being an attempt to hide a fact once: Lebanon adopted a text that he did not participate in formulating or discussing it completely. Since the beginning, the American paper collided with a clear rejection from the Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri for the mechanism that Washington wanted to impose. This position is accompanied by the conviction of the Americans that the “Shiite duo” ministers will inevitably turn to boycotting the session, which prompted them, according to the sources, to amend their approach from the consensus formula to ratify the decision according to the constitutional mechanisms followed. Thus, the procedural obstacle was removed, and the way for the approval of the paper in the cabinet was removed without a serious discussion of its contents and paying attention to the subjugated items in it. However, the calmness of the Barak tone does not eliminate the seriousness of what the visit carried, it is clear that the man did not come to preach a settlement as much as he came to follow the course of implementation. As the military establishment is required for a plan related to the Hizbullah weapon, a file that cannot be dealt with as a technical issue. This is because its imposition by force means dragging the country into an open confrontation, at a time when the army’s leadership is close to the army’s leadership that enthusiasm is almost non -existent with an adventure that everyone realizes that it will lead to a comprehensive collapse. The most dangerous is that the American paper approved in the Council of Ministers has explicitly linking international support to the army to the task of implementing the exclusive weapon, which means that the equipment of the army itself has become conditional on the extent of its willingness to impose the decision on the ground. On the other hand, the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, tried to promote the term “Benna” of the American paper, but the final document, according to the sources, reveals that what was practically proven is “the goals mentioned in the front of the side presented by the side of the side presented by the side. The American ”, while the amendments were limited to formulation and some formal phrases. Here, the sources believe that what happened is nothing but “laughter of Raqoun”, considering that the image that was presented to public opinion ignored the reality of the American and Gulf pressure that imposed its rhythm. The sources indicate that the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, had retracted his position calling for dialogue in order to preserve the civil peace, after he promised in sessions with those involved to leave the discussion open and not to urge any decision. The sources add that the American and Saudi pressures are the main motivation behind this decline, despite the president’s knowledge that the transition from dialogue to decisiveness may have major repercussions on internal stability, which opens the door to scenarios that threaten his covenant and endure him and the unimaginable button. From it, what was described by the sources as the indicator, which “was sufficient at the time to determine the path in which the official Lebanon is heading in the next stage.” And from here, the most important question becomes: How can decisions be imposed of this size without a comprehensive national consensus? As, according to the sources, any attempt to implement by force will mean opening the door of internal clash, especially with the intertwining of files between the Palestinian camps and the Hizbullah weapon. The sources warned that the continuation of this approach will lead the country to an inevitable explosion, unless he insists on freezing the decision and returning to the dialogue, or the military establishment, its inability to bear its consequences. In the end, Barak’s visit was not a calm message, but rather an explicit warning that the implementation is on the table. What was called “Benna” of the American paper is only a fragile cover for an American project that is intended to be imposed by force. Lebanon today is in front of a decisive junction: either to retract decisions that threaten its unity, or pushed into an internal confrontation with an international cover, as the “step policy in a step” turns into an accelerated steps towards the abyss.