US and Qatari Support Amid Hesitation from Lebanon’s Leadership

Explosives seized from a car that Hezbollah proudly claims as its own, a Lebanese ambassador targeted for “contact with the enemy” even though her government had asked her to open talks with Israel… These were among the reasons that prompted the United States to intervene directly over the weekend to express its dissatisfaction and press Lebanon to act.

After Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah’s remarks on Thursday, in which he not only openly acknowledged responsibility for and ownership of the explosives—seized more than ten days earlier from a car traveling from the Bekaa Valley to Beirut—but also demanded their return to his party, several voices spoke out to highlight the absurdity of the situation.

The transport of explosives belonging to Hezbollah is a blatant violation of the ban on its military activities imposed by Nawaf Salam’s cabinet.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not mince words during a call with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying there was no question of Hezbollah getting its explosives back, according to remarks leaked to the media by a State Department official.

Marco Rubio also called for the repeal of the law on boycotting Israel, a clear reference to US displeasure over the complaint filed with the military prosecutor’s office against Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadeh, by a lawyer aligned with Hezbollah.

The complaint was prompted by an alleged phone call from the ambassador to Israel’s ambassador in Washington.

Joseph Aoun reportedly replied to the US secretary of state that the security forces were doing their duty and that every effort would be made to combat smuggling.

Yet the Lebanese state’s response remains far short of what the seriousness of the incident demands.

The government has still not decided whether to refer the case to the Judicial Council, as Justice Minister Adel Nassar has requested.

Once again, divisions within the cabinet—which includes representatives of the two main Shiite parties—are prevailing.

A message to the Salam government

For his part, US Ambassador Michel Issa addressed the issue on Friday. He told MTV that his country would “see the Hezbollah explosives case through to the end,” adding that “this is what we have asked the Lebanese government to do.”

What do these US statements, whether “leaked” or broadcast on television, mean? They are yet another clear message to the Lebanese government, which is evidently continuing to drag its feet over confronting Hezbollah.

They are a clear sign of impatience at a time when Lebanon’s leaders seem intent on buying time. And they are proof that the US administration is keeping an eye on Lebanon and has no intention of allowing a return to the days of Iranian dominance over the country.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, is adopting the strategy that has always worked for it: counterattacking.

The aggressive tone of its officials’ statements, its demands that defy all logic and, above all, the brutality of its supporters on the ground reveal its nervousness.

One example is the latest assault on journalist and Hezbollah critic Rami Naim in the Sidon area by young party supporters who, he says, ambushed him. Several journalists organized a press conference in support of Naim on Friday.

The Salam government, meanwhile, finds itself increasingly at the center of the storm, facing demands for results not only from the United States and the international community, but also from a large segment of the Lebanese population itself, fearful of a return to political assassinations.

A revitalizing visit from Qatar

Against this tense backdrop, a Qatari visit on Friday helped shift the mood with talk of support for reviving the electricity sector and for reconstruction.

Qatar, which has so often stood by Lebanon in its darkest hours, made a strong impression with statements by its prime minister and foreign minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani.

The Qatari official also addressed politics, pledging support for Lebanon in restoring its unity, sovereignty and stability, and calling for an Israeli withdrawal and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

These statements drew unanimous approval from Lebanese officials, prompting a particularly significant response from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. The supposed Hezbollah ally stressed the importance of supporting the Lebanese army, describing it as the country’s “guarantor and protector.”

This is the same army that the government has tasked with disarming Hezbollah for more than a year.

More than ever, Lebanon remains torn between the logic of war and that of development, between the dominance of a militia and the strengthening of the state, and between the international community’s demands and the Iranian axis’s efforts to retain control.

Meanwhile, southern Lebanon continues to bear the burden of Israeli attacks alone. This prolonged period of uncertainty keeps Lebanon on the threshold of its own history.