Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack has said he is hopeful about Lebanon’s future after meeting officials and discussing the need to disarm Hezbollah, and for the full withdrawal of Israeli military forces.
Lebanese officials also were positive in comments following the latest round of discussions concerning the security situation in Lebanon.
All eyes have been on Hezbollah, waiting for their response, but they too have been positive, although demanding. Their main demand centers on having Israel stop occupying Lebanon. On this point, Hezbollah and many others in Lebanon regardless of party affiliation, will not budge.
Sheikh Naim Qassem, the leader of Hezbollah, has said only after the Israeli full withdrawal from Lebanon “will we be ready for the second stage, which is to discuss the national security and defense strategy” which includes the issue of the group’s disarmament, he added.
The Lebanese people, across all religious and political lines, have demanded that Israel stop the occupation and daily over-flights which have terrorized the Lebanese for many years.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed the expert Khalil Harb, a Beirut based journalist, and former editor-in-chief of Al Safir.
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): The U.S. has put pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah following the Israeli attacks which destroyed much of the leadership and military capabilities of the resistance group.
In your opinion, is the Lebanese government and army capable of disarming Hezbollah, and could the county be plunged into civil war in the process?
Khalil Harb (KH): The Americans themselves, through their envoy Tom Barrack, have stated that it is illogical to expect the Lebanese government to attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah, as this would lead to internal conflict. President Aoun has repeatedly emphasized this point, asserting that the issue of weapons must be resolved through dialogue. Hezbollah has no intention of initiating a battle with the army, as this contradicts its behavior and history. The party wants the state to fulfill its duties—as a government, authority, and armed forces—in protecting Lebanese citizens from external aggression. Over the years, Hezbollah has consistently stated that its fighters are not weapon enthusiasts, but rather took up arms to defend their villages and towns. Therefore, if the state fulfills its responsibilities, and the Americans truly support the Lebanese Armed Forces at a level sufficient to prevent attacks on the homeland, then we will have begun a genuine path toward resolution. Any other talk is nonsense.
2. SS: The Lebanese parliamentary elections are being planned. In your view, what group will take the most seats, and will Hezbollah continue to hold political power after the Israeli aggression which degraded Hezbollah?
KH: It’s too early to predict which group will secure the most seats in the upcoming elections, but I don’t expect the political landscape to differ drastically from the current parliament. Some names may fall while others rise, but the overall picture will remain the same. It’s likely that some MPs who rose under the banner of being “independents” may lose their seats. The Free Patriotic Movement, the Lebanese Forces, Amal Movement, and Hezbollah will likely retain their positions. What remains absent is a unifying bloc capable of claiming representation of the largest Sunni demographic, given the Future Movement’s withdrawal from political life. Contrary to the popular theory that Hezbollah will lose public support, this is a mistaken notion. The party continues to enjoy strong backing because its supporters believe the resistance must not emerge weakened—no matter the sacrifices.
3. SS: Reports are circling, that the U.S. has pressured the Lebanese government to accept normalization with Israel under the Abraham Accords. In your opinion, how can this be carried out, given the fact Hezbollah still has political, social and some military power on the ground in Lebanon?
KH: The Abraham Accords, if applied to Lebanon, would be a recipe for civil war. I say cautiously that more than half of the Lebanese population does not trust Israel or its intentions, especially after it just caused the deaths of thousands of Lebanese civilians. Only those obsessed with hostility toward the resistance believe this idea is sound or feasible. Rational minds, of course, see no chance for such a possibility. At most, what could be proposed to the Lebanese is a revision of the 1949 armistice agreement. Any talk of normalization, diplomatic recognition ceremonies, flag-raising, or opening embassies and consulates is political nonsense and delusional fantasy. The Israeli flag will not be raised in Beirut.
4. SS: Media reports have said there is a chance that Lebanon and Israel will start round two of their military conflict. In your view, is there a chance for a new conflict between Hezbollah and Israel?
KH: As long as Israel exists and continues its aggressive policies—as it has for the past 70 years—and is governed by a mix of political gangs, no one in this region, not just Lebanon, will enjoy peace. The possibility of war is always present. Netanyahu, besieged by his internal legal troubles and awaiting investigations into the failures of October 7, 2023, is constantly seeking pretexts to keep the state embroiled in external conflicts. Isn’t it strange that on the same day, Israel launched attacks on Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran? Is this normal? Is this the behavior of a typical state anywhere in the world? Would an Israeli assault on Lebanon be unexpected in this context? I believe it’s possible. Netanyahu wants to create the most significant political legacy in Israel’s history—as the leader who fought all the wars. Didn’t President Trump recently describe him as a “great hero” who fights like no other for Israel and should not be prosecuted? So what can you expect from someone internationally accused of war crimes, yet treated by the world’s most powerful country as a hero? He will always find something he claims must be fought—just as he did with the children of Gaza.
5. SS: Recent reports say there are thousands of foreign fighters on the Syrian-Lebanese border. In your opinion, what is their role there, and what can the Lebanese government, or the international community, do about this?
KH: Anyone familiar with the methods of American and Western intelligence agencies regarding “jihadists” since the days of the Afghan jihad against the Soviets knows that many of these individuals and their factions have become puppets exploited in regional wars and conflicts, directed by intelligence services according to their interests. Do you remember how they were described as “freedom fighters” when fighting the Soviets? Do you recall their resurgence in western Iraq about 15 years ago, when some Western and Arab media labeled them “revolutionaries”? And when they evolved into ISIS, they were used to strike Iraq and Syria. There were even attempts to use them against Lebanon in the past. These gatherings on Lebanon’s border reflect the new regime in Damascus aligning itself with Western agendas—specifically to pressure Lebanon on two fronts: pushing Beirut’s government toward the Abraham Accords and weakening or disarming the resistance.
It’s bizarre that armed factions are massing on Lebanon’s border, hinting at readiness to attack, while Israeli forces continue expanding, attacking, and occupying more Syrian territory daily. This paradox is unprecedented. Even U.S. envoy Barrack subtly hinted yesterday at the Syrian threat to Lebanon, as if suggesting the possibility of occupation or annexation—then tried to clarify his remarks. But the message was clear. In my view, just as the Lebanese army is expected to deploy south of the Litani River under the ceasefire agreement with Israel, it must also secure the Syrian border. The terrorist factions gathering there will serve neither Syria’s nor Lebanon’s interests. Any escalation will eventually lead to Western intervention under the guise of mediation and peacekeeping, and the deployment of “international forces” similar to UNIFIL in the south—this time along Lebanon’s border with Syria. That seems to be one of the planned roles, and as in many past cases, the “jihadists” are once again tools for exploitation.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.
