Dahr el-Baidar Explosives: Toward the End of Complacency?

The Lebanese do not need another explosion to remind them of the dangers of transporting explosives between different parts of their country. The seizure of a shipment at the Dahr el-Baidar checkpoint is enough to bring back images of burned-out cars, destroyed building fronts, victims, and questions that have remained unanswered.

In a country that has witnessed assassinations and assassination attempts with political dimensions, the transport of hundreds of kilograms of explosive materials cannot be treated as an ordinary offense. It poses a direct threat to national security and tests the state’s ability to protect people before a crime is committed, rather than merely documenting its consequences afterward.

According to information reported by Agence France-Presse, citing a judicial source, two individuals suspected of belonging to Hezbollah were arrested while transporting approximately half a ton of explosives, reportedly including TNT and C-4. However, the information made public does not conclusively establish the nature of their organizational ties to Hezbollah, the content of their statements to investigators, the shipment’s destination, or the purpose of its transport. It is therefore essential that the facts established by the judiciary be disclosed without delay, to prevent the case from becoming a matter of leaks, competing denials, and political cover-ups.

But the fact that the investigation remains incomplete does not justify burying the fundamental questions. Where did the materials come from? Who owns them? Who ordered their transport? Who facilitated their passage? Who was supposed to receive them? Was their destination inside Lebanon? Were they connected to other operations that had already been planned or carried out?

No definitive conclusions should be drawn before all the evidence has been gathered. But neither should the possibility that the shipment was part of operations targeting locations or individuals inside Lebanon be ignored. Remaining silent in the face of indications of this magnitude does not protect stability. On the contrary, it may leave the country exposed to further operations.

The arrest of those transporting the explosives marks the beginning of the investigation, not its conclusion. If the evidence reveals the existence of a network or the involvement of other parties, the authorities must identify them and prosecute everyone implicated, while respecting due process and the presumption of innocence. Merely arresting the potential operatives while leaving those who made the decisions in the shadows would not constitute a complete investigation. It would reproduce the very logic of impunity.

A Memory Grounded in Judicial Findings

Recalling the assassination of Rafik Hariri does not mean leveling a new accusation in the Dahr el-Baidar case, nor does it amount to prejudging the individuals under arrest. It does, however, bring to mind a judicial case that resulted in convictions against individuals and reaffirm that political crimes must neither be buried in oblivion nor become matters that justice is forbidden to address.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon convicted Salim Jamil Ayyash in 2020 for his role in the February 14, 2005, attack. Its Appeals Chamber subsequently convicted Hassan Habib Merhi and Hussein Hassan Oneissi in 2022, and all three received life sentences. The judicial ruling, however, did not establish the responsibility of Hezbollah’s leadership or of the organization as a whole for Hariri’s assassination. The conviction of individuals does not automatically amount to the conviction of the organization with which they are associated. Likewise, Hezbollah’s refusal to cooperate with the Tribunal neither changes the substance of its judgments nor justifies conclusions that go beyond them.

There was also an indictment against Ayyash in connection with the attacks targeting Marwan Hamadeh, George Hawi, and Elias Murr. However, those proceedings did not result in final judgments because they were discontinued due to a lack of funding. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between indictment and conviction, without disregarding these cases as part of the Tribunal’s judicial record.

Accordingly, any possible connection between the Dahr el-Baidar shipment and previous cases must remain a matter of inquiry and analysis, not categorical conclusions. This does not diminish the seriousness of the case. Rather, it makes the investigation even more urgent, particularly if there is a possibility that Lebanese public figures, areas, or institutions were being targeted.

Similar Explosive Materials… What Does That Prove?

The judgment in the Hariri case concluded that RDX-based explosives had been used. RDX is the principal explosive component of C-4, which, according to reports, was among the materials seized at Dahr el-Baidar.

What this similarity establishes is that the case warrants the highest level of scrutiny. Investigators must determine the shipment’s destination, the parties expected to receive it, any potential targets, and any surveillance or preparatory operations that preceded its seizure. People have the right to know, within the limits permitted by law and the need to safeguard the investigation, the nature of the seized materials, their origin, and their destination. But that right does not override the presumption of innocence, just as that presumption must not be used as a pretext to withhold information or protect influential figures.

No Immunity in the Name of Political Equilibrium

The state must enforce the law against everyone whose responsibility is established, without discrimination based on political affiliation or position within an organization. The objective is not to arrest people merely because of their affiliations, but to take lawful action against anyone for whom there is credible evidence of involvement, while respecting the rights of the defense and the presumption of innocence.

But respect for the law does not mean hesitation, and respect for political equilibrium does not mean obstructing justice. Party affiliation must not become a shield, leadership positions must not confer immunity, and fear of reactions must not serve as a justification for allowing a shipment of explosives to remain without identifying who ordered its transport.

Nor must the Dahr el-Baidar case turn into a confrontation with Lebanon’s Shiite citizens. Protecting citizens from the dangers of weapons and explosives is a collective responsibility, and subjecting any party to the law must be based on actions and evidence, not sectarian affiliation or collective identity. Communities are not protected by shielding those implicated, but by protecting their members from becoming hostages to illegal weapons or victims of conflicts over which they have no say.

If Hezbollah denies any connection to the shipment, that denial must be tested through judicial investigation and evidence, not media statements alone. Cooperating with the competent authorities, when duly requested in accordance with legal procedures, is not a political concession. It is a responsibility in a case that threatens the security of all Lebanese citizens.

This Time, Before the Explosion

The successful seizure of the shipment at the checkpoint must be followed by a thorough and determined investigation, conducted professionally, to establish the nature of the materials, their origin, their destination, and the parties connected to them. If the evidence leads to higher-ranking officials or decision-makers, the judiciary must pursue them, regardless of their positions or the forces protecting them.

Lebanon has paid a heavy price for delayed accountability or its complete absence. Every crime left unpunished has sent a message to the killers that the state can be bent to their will, and to the public that their lives are worth less than the interests of powerful groups. Addressing this legacy does not mean passing judgment in advance. It means strengthening judicial independence, protecting investigations, enforcing final judgments, and respecting the rights of all parties.

The Dahr el-Baidar shipment presents the state with an opportunity to act before a catastrophe occurs. What is required is an independent and transparent investigation that establishes the origin of the explosives, their intended destination, and the parties responsible for transporting them; seriously examines the possibility that they were connected to operations aimed at targets inside Lebanon; and then holds everyone whose responsibility is established accountable, without exception or compromise, and without extending accusations beyond what the evidence permits.

This time, seizing the shipment is not enough. Its owner must be identified, those who transported it must be held accountable, its intended destination must be established, and any recurrence must be prevented. For acquiescence before an explosion is not neutrality. It is complicity in waiting for disaster to strike.