BEIRUT— As tensions continue to rise across West Asia, Lebanon’s political scene is increasingly shaped not by its internal files, but by the shadow of a wider regional confrontation.
At the heart of this moment lies the prospect of a large-scale American escalation against Iran—an escalation widely discussed in Western political circles as nearing inevitability.
This perception has pushed many Lebanese actors into a posture of strategic waiting, suspending decisive choices until the regional picture becomes clearer and its consequences for Lebanon, particularly regarding the resistance’s weapons, can be fully assessed.
The expectation of a U.S.–Iran war has become a convenient lens through which Lebanese leaders interpret domestic challenges.
The logic is simple: if a regional war erupts, it will inevitably reshape Lebanon’s balance of power. As a result, calls for disarmament, state authority, or structural reform are deferred in favor of caution.
This has produced a temporary easing of tensions between the presidency and Hezbollah, reflecting a shared understanding that the coming months may redefine the rules altogether.
In this context, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s anticipated visit to southern Lebanon—focused on reconstruction and reinforcing state presence—signals an attempt to stabilize the internal front without provoking confrontation.
Similarly, President Joseph Aoun has moved to repair strained relations with Hezbollah following controversial remarks made during a televised interview and a diplomatic address that unsettled the party.
These efforts culminated in a high-profile meeting between President Aoun and MP Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance bloc.
The presence of a written statement read by Raad after the meeting was telling: Hezbollah chose to articulate a deliberate and public position regarding its engagement with the presidency and other state institutions.
Raad emphasized national unity in the face of ongoing Israeli occupation and aggression, reiterating Hezbollah’s long-standing view that sovereignty cannot be defended through rhetoric alone.
According to informed sources, the talks also touched on a sensitive question circulating in political and diplomatic circles: how Hezbollah would respond if Washington were to attack Iran. The party’s answer added nothing new to its declared stance—Hezbollah does not consider itself neutral.
What stands out, however, is the imbalance in the questions posed to Hezbollah. Lebanese politicians and diplomats relentlessly inquire about what the party might do against Israel, yet show little interest in asking Tel Aviv or the U.S. what steps they are willing to take to halt aggression against Lebanon.
This silence persists despite explicit Israeli and American threats that place Hezbollah squarely on the target list of any future regional war.
As Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem has previously stated, the debate among hostile powers is no longer about whether to strike the party, but about timing.
This reality, according to party sources, necessitates a different strategic approach—one that accounts for multiple confrontation scenarios rather than wishful neutrality.
Raad’s remarks from the presidential palace captured the gravity of the moment: when national sovereignty is in intensive care, responsibility becomes a collective duty. He stressed cooperation, realism, and constructive dialogue, rejecting both foreign tutelage and internal fragmentation.
Hezbollah reaffirmed its readiness to work with the state on ending occupation, freeing detainees, rebuilding devastated areas, and safeguarding stability—while insisting that sovereignty cannot be outsourced.
Meanwhile, Israeli actions on the southern border have taken an alarming turn. The spraying of highly concentrated glyphosate herbicides over agricultural and forested lands constitutes not only a security violation, but what environmental activists describe as “ecological warfare.”
Government responses—limited to delayed condemnations and fragmented assessments—have exposed the weakness of Lebanon’s environmental governance.
Experts warn that treating such attacks as isolated incidents ignores the cumulative damage inflicted on an already exhausted ecosystem, previously exposed to white phosphorus and heavy metals. This piecemeal approach, critics argue, inadvertently serves a long-term Israeli strategy aimed at rendering the border uninhabitable.
Beyond the environmental and military dimensions lies a deeper crisis of sovereignty. From foreign military presence at Lebanese airports to compliance with external diktats—even to the point of barring Iranian civilian flights under Israeli threats—the state’s authority appears increasingly compromised. Those who brand themselves as “guardians of sovereignty” remain conspicuously silent.
As the U.S. escalates its confrontation with Iran, Lebanon inches closer to a dangerous crossroads. Internal polarization, external pressure, and the illusion of safety through submission combine to create a volatile mix. The question is no longer whether Lebanon can afford to wait, but whether waiting itself has become the most perilous choice of all!
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
