Lebanese PM Nawaf Salam acts purely based on US orders to disarm Hezbollah
Amid the turmoil surrounding what the Lebanese government concealed on Tuesday after more than five hours of “extraordinary” consultations, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam succeeded in sabotaging President Joseph Aoun’s agreement with Hezbollah.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam came out to announce the decision to task the army with developing an implementation plan to limit weapons, bypassing promises to rely on dialogue as a means to reach a consensus on Hezbollah arms.
Salam, who appeared pleased, announced the decision, saying, “The Council has decided to continue discussing the American paper in a government session on August 7 (Thursday), and to task the army with developing a plan to contain weapons by the end of this year and presenting it to the Council of Ministers before the 31st of this month.”
Following the decision, Hezbollah issued a statement saying, “We will deal with this decision as if it doesn’t exist.”
Analysts say the decision will put the Lebanese army on a potential course to clash with Hezbollah, which could lead to a civil war.
Hezbollah said the decision is dictated by the US and only serves Israel’s interests.
“This decision topples the sovereignty of Lebanon and releases the hand of Israel to ravage its security, geography, politics and future existence,” the group said.
Hezbollah added that it would be willing to discuss a defence strategy to end “Israeli aggression” in Lebanon, liberate its land, free the country’s captives in Israel and build a Lebanese state, but not while under Israel’s attacks.
It said Israel must first adhere to the ceasefire agreement reached in November of last year.
Observers believe such way of disarming Hezbollah is part of a broader plan for the entire region and it will not be limited to Lebanon or Hezbollah.
“This decision topples the sovereignty of Lebanon and releases the hand of Israel to ravage its security, geography, politics and future existence,” Hezbollah says.
he current situation in Syria shows that even complete surrender does not stop Israeli aggression. They continue until the total destruction of a country’s military and defense capabilities.
The U.S. has been seeking to pit governments and segments of the population against resistance movements in various countries, aiming to achieve its goals through internal strife (for example, Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq) — goals that are, of course, American-Israeli in nature.
However, analysts argue, resistance groups in the region didn’t ask for U.S. permission to take up arms, so they won’t lay down their weapons under U.S. pressure either.
Hezbollah and Amal ministers refuse to endorse cabinet decision
President Aoun had met with Hezbollah officials, during which he emphasized that the session would not be provocative to any sectarian component, and that the priority was to reach a consensual decision, without setting a timeframe, even if it required holding several sessions.
These positive signals prompted Hezbollah and the Amal Movement to attend the session, but Nawaf Salam informed Aoun that he was subject to external pressure, insisting on approving American envoy Thomas Barrack’s proposal within a specific timetable.
This prompted Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to suggest that ministers from the Shiite Hezbollah and Amal Movement abstain from voting on any such resolution.
However, Hezbollah preferred to withdraw from the session, threatening to withdraw completely from the government. Thus, the withdrawal option was agreed upon.
Before the session, reports indicated the possibility of reaching a compromise. But political tension was evident, especially upon insistence by ministers from the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb Party adamant on escalating tension.
The ministers in the “neutral” camp were wary of being dragged into a vote to avoid exposing Lebanon to political and sectarian upheavals, as happened in 2005.However, Aoun succumbed to the pressure, even though he could have adjourned the session and postponed discussion of the item until Thursday’s session, but he did not.
Sources close to President Aoun justified his failure to adjourn the session by claiming he did not want to engage in a clash with the prime minister.
The reality is that Aoun does not attach great importance to Salam’s opinion, but is unwilling to oppose Washington and Riyadh.
During the session, Hezbollah Minister Rakan Nasser al-Din questioned the reason for the haste in taking the decision, saying, “What are we discussing now? Is it a draft agreement, or is there Israeli approval of this paper? Is there an American decision to guarantee its implementation on the Israeli side?” Who will bear the brunt of the Israeli attacks, Lebanon’s exposure to the Israeli enemy, and its occupation of the Lebanese territory?”
The government decided to set a deadline for arms confiscation without setting a deadline for ending the occupation of southern territories, halting Israeli attacks, releasing prisoners, and beginning the reconstruction process.
While the ministers of the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Movement touted a major victory in the government, consultations began between the Shiite duo to decide on Thursday’s session and how to respond to this decision.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in a speech delivered simultaneously with the government session, emphasized his refusal to commit to any timetable as long as the Israeli aggression continues, and without discussing a national defense strategy.
“We cannot agree to any timetable proposed for implementation under the shadow of Israeli aggression, because a timetable means committing to something while the aggression continues,” Qassem stated.
The Hezbollah Secretary-General emphasized that handing over weapons without discussing a defense strategy is “wrong because we cannot accept that Lebanon commits to gradually relinquishing its power while all its cards of power remain in the hands of the Israeli enemy.”
What happened before, during, and after the cabinet session was not an ordinary event.
The danger does not lie in the characterization of the action itself, but in what it reveals about the path Lebanon is heading toward from now on. Those who agreed to proceed with the decision to disarm Hezbollah will not heed the sentiments of the vast majority of the people who are allied to the resistance movement when they decided to squander Lebanon’s strength, bringing the security and military institutions under direct subordination to American tutelage, which operates exclusively in the service of the Israeli enemy.
