Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and parliament Speaker Nabih Berri held a meeting at the Baabda presidential palace on Monday to pave the way for dialogue with Hezbollah leaders on the Iran-backed party’s possession of arms and need for the state to have monopoly over arms in the country.
Official sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that dialogue with Hezbollah aims to test the waters and the extent to which it is prepared to reach an agreement on its arsenal. Berri, Hezbollah’s sole remaining ally in Lebanon, supports intervening on behalf of the party – if necessary – to bridge any divides in the dialogue.
Any agreement will be followed with the drafting of a national security strategy for Lebanon, including a defense strategy, added the sources.
The sources said direct dialogue between Aoun and Hezbollah over the state monopoly over arms remains the better option than referring the issue to a dialogue table with other political parties seeing as agreements reached during past rounds of talks over the years were never implemented.
Deputy US special envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus, who was in Lebanon last week, expressed to Aoun her understanding of his desire to hold direct dialogue with Hezbollah.
However, she stressed that time is not in Lebanon’s favor as it needs to resolve the issue which would pave the way for other solutions to its numerous crises.
Ortagus met during her visit with Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Berri.
Talks with the Lebanese leaders helped “soften the American stance” over Lebanon’s approach towards Hezbollah’s weapons possession because “resorting to force to disarm the party will jeopardize civil peace in the country,” said the sources.
Ortagus stated she was willing to travel to Beirut for a third time this year, possibly at the end of April or early May, to follow up on financial reforms and efforts to limit the possession of weapons to the state.
She has stressed the need for Lebanon to meet its obligations “as soon as possible” to avoid the dialogue becoming a waste of time and to prevent Lebanon from heading towards a collision course with the international community which has set as a priority the state achieving monopoly over arms.
Fulfilling that demand will restore confidence in Lebanon and speed up international efforts to help it resolve its crises.
The sources said Hezbollah is aware that limiting the possession of weapons won’t happen “at the press of a button.” However, stalling over the issue will not provide it with excuses to renege on its commitment to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1701 and declaration that it will stand by the state in reaching diplomatic solutions that would make Israel respect the ceasefire and withdraw from the South.
Hezbollah has effectively become isolated with no allies but Berri. The party cannot escape local, Arab and international pressure to disarm, especially after the weakening of the “Resistance Axis”, which it is a part of, and Iran’s waning influence in the region, political sources told Asharq Al-Awsat.
Iran’s sole concern now is protecting its regime, they stressed.
So, Hezbollah has no choice but to join efforts to build a state and commit to conditions that have been imposed by the changes in the region and Lebanon, they went to say.
Hezbollah’s launch of its “support front” with Gaza and dragging Lebanon into a reckless confrontation with Israel has cost it dearly and it can no longer rise from under the rubble – in the political sense – without outside financial and economic support to help it rebuild what Israel destroyed, said the sources.
The question remains: will dialogue lead Hezbollah to disarm and agree to the state to have monopoly over weapons? Or will it use the dialogue to gain time as Iran seeks to improve its conditions as it prepares to hold negotiations with the US?
European parties had advised the party to reassess its calculations and reconsider its stances so that it places Lebanon first in its political choices so that it can reconcile with its political parties after years of tensions sparked by its monopoly of the decision of war and peace.
