Lebanon: Geagea Call with Aoun Quells Reports of Rift

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun receives Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the presidential palace in June 2025. (File photo: Lebanese Presidency)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun receives Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the presidential palace in June 2025. (File photo: Lebanese Presidency)
TT

Lebanon: Geagea Call with Aoun Quells Reports of Rift

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun receives Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the presidential palace in June 2025. (File photo: Lebanese Presidency)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun receives Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea at the presidential palace in June 2025. (File photo: Lebanese Presidency)

A phone call on Friday between Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and President Joseph Aoun helped quell speculation of serious rifts between the two, after weeks of reports suggesting relations had deteriorated into what some described as a “shaky relationship.”

Geagea statement

The LF said on Friday that Geagea had spoken by phone with Aoun to congratulate him on the first anniversary of his election, saying the year had marked “a real launch for the process of restoring the state and putting it back on the right track, toward a real and capable state.”

Geagea praised positions voiced by Aoun on the anniversary of his election, saying they were “a clear extension of the oath speech,” particularly his emphasis on the exclusive right of the Lebanese state to bear arms and on war and peace decisions being the sole prerogative of the state, restoring respect for the constitution and the concept of national sovereignty.

According to the Lebanese Forces statement, the call also addressed regional developments, with emphasis on the need to shield Lebanon from regional conflicts to safeguard its stability, security, and the interests of its people.

The two sides also discussed a number of domestic issues, foremost parliamentary elections and the need to hold them on time, and to enable non-resident Lebanese to vote from their places of residence for all members of parliament.

No rupture, no disputes

Media remarks by LF officials in recent weeks had reflected differences between the two sides and pointed to an unstable relationship that began to surface publicly during Pope Leo XIV’s visit to Beirut in early December, when party leaders were not invited to the reception ceremony at the presidential palace in Baabda.

Lawmaker Strida Geagea described that at the time as “surprising,” while Samir Geagea did not attend the mass held on Beirut’s waterfront for security reasons.

Subsequent statements by Lebanese Forces officials highlighted political differences, fueling assessments of tensions and a rupture.

However, LF sources insisted there had been no rupture and no fundamental disputes, only differences that are “a right in politics,” reiterating that there were “no disagreements.”

The sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that “on the strategic track, we agree with President Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, but there are files on which we oppose them,” citing most recently differences with the PM over a draft law on the financial gap.

They stressed that these differences “do not turn into a personal issue.”

Ongoing contacts

The sources said ties between Geagea and Aoun were maintained at four levels.

The first was direct personal contact between the two, which was not made public, except for this call to congratulate Aoun on his election anniversary and to follow up on his recent positions.

The second channel was through envoys sent by Geagea to the presidency. The third was through the two sides’ teams, who remain in constant coordination. The fourth level of communication was through Lebanese Forces ministers in the government.

They said the LF fully agree with Aoun’s strategic vision on exclusive state control of arms and state-building, adding, “We share with him the major national goals and the state project.

We never questioned his positions, and he has maintained the same stance since his election.”

The sources said the differences lay in the pace and method of implementing the strategic vision, acknowledging that this is the president’s prerogative, while the Lebanese Forces believe that implementation of the cabinet decisions taken on Aug. 5 and 7 on exclusive state control of arms should be accelerated.

They said some files need to be settled, such as enforcing exclusive state control of arms, so the process does not drag on, noting that the issue remains a key obstacle to state-building, even though both sides share the same objective of reaching an effective state.

Other differences were described by the sources as “situational” and part of daily politics, such as the LF’ call for the government to exert additional pressure on Speaker Nabih Berri to place its draft amendment to the electoral law on the agenda, among other day-to-day issues.



Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
TT

Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)

What was meant to be a routine visit by Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal to Washington to discuss military support and aid coordination turned into a political flashpoint, after a brief meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham ignited a dispute over whether the army chief would describe Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.”

The controversy was sparked by a brief meeting with hardline Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who publicly said he cut the meeting short after Haykal declined to use the designation in what he called the “context of Lebanon.”

What happened in the Graham meeting

In a post on X, Graham said: “I just had a very brief meeting with the Lebanese Chief of Defense General Rodolphe Haykal. I asked him point blank if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. He said, “No, not in the context of Lebanon.” With that, I ended the meeting.”

“They are clearly a terrorist organization. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Just ask the US Marines,” he added.

“They have been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by both Republican and Democrat administrations since 1997 – for good reason.”

“As long as this attitude exists from the Lebanese Armed Forces, I don’t think we have a reliable partner in them.”

“I am tired of the double speak in the Middle East. Too much is at stake,” Graham concluded.

The reaction went beyond expressions of displeasure. Some US coverage suggested Graham effectively raised questions about the “usefulness” of continuing support for the Lebanese army if such a gap persists between the US position and Lebanon’s official language.

Haykal’s answer raises its cost in Washington

Inside Lebanon, the issue is not limited to the stance on Hezbollah. Still, it extends to the army’s role as a unifying institution in a country whose political balance rests on sectarian arrangements and deep sensitivities.

Adopting an external designation, even a US one, in official language by the head of the military could be interpreted domestically as a move that risks triggering political and sectarian division or drawing the army into confrontation with a component that has organized political and popular representation.

That explains why Lebanese voices, including some critics of Hezbollah, defended the logic that “the state does not adopt this classification.” Therefore, the army commander cannot formally do so.

In other words, Haykal sought to avoid two conflicting languages: Washington’s legal and political framing of Hezbollah, and the Lebanese state’s language, which walks a fine line between the demand for exclusive state control over arms and the avoidance of reproducing internal fractures.

US State Department position

Amid the controversy surrounding the Graham meeting, an official US position emerged on Tuesday through the US Embassy in Beirut, welcoming the visit and focusing on the core US message.

The statement said that “the Lebanese Armed Forces’ ongoing work to disarm non-state actors and reinforce national sovereignty as Lebanon’s security guarantor is more important than ever.”

The wording was notable because it separated two levels: continued US reliance on the army as a state institution, and, in practice, linking that reliance to the issue of disarming non-state actors.

The phrase avoids direct naming but, in the Lebanese context, is widely understood to refer primarily to Hezbollah.

The visit’s broader track

Despite the political awkwardness, Haykal’s visit was not reduced to a single meeting. He held senior-level military talks, including meetings with US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine.

According to a statement from a Joint Chiefs spokesperson, the meeting “reaffirmed the importance of enduring US defense relationships in the Middle East.”

The visit coincided with broader discussions in Washington on support for the Lebanese army and plans to extend state authority, as international reports spoke of Lebanon entering new phases of a plan to dismantle illegal weapons structures in the south and north.

The army commander’s visit had initially been delayed for reasons that add another layer to understanding Washington’s sensitivity to the military’s language.

In November 2025, sources quoted the US State Department as saying Washington canceled scheduled meetings with the Lebanese army commander after objecting to an army statement on border tensions with Israel, prompting the visit to be postponed to avoid a pre-emptive political failure.


Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)

Egypt is intensifying efforts to back the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, hoping it can begin operating inside the enclave to implement commitments under the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which started about two weeks ago but has yet to take shape on the ground.

Experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that those Egyptian efforts, through phone calls and meetings with international partners, are focused on two main objectives: pushing for the deployment of police forces and an international stabilization force on the one hand, and securing a gradual Israeli withdrawal on the other, increasing pressure on Israel to move the agreement forward.

A member of the administration committee said in a brief phone statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, speaking on condition of anonymity, that there is still no specific date for entering the enclave.

In the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty stressed Cairo’s full support for the work of the committee headed by Dr. Ali Shaath.

He made the remarks during a dialogue session of the Arab-Islamic committee on Gaza with Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon.

The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain attended the meeting. Abdelatty stressed the importance of the committee’s role in managing the daily affairs of Gaza’s residents and meeting their basic needs during the transitional phase.

He underscored the need to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian and relief aid into the enclave, as well as the formation and deployment of an international stabilization force to monitor the ceasefire.

Abdelatty reiterated his stance during a phone call on Friday with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

The Gaza committee, established under the ceasefire agreement, operates under the supervision of the Board of Peace, chaired by US President Donald Trump. The committee has been holding meetings in Cairo since it was announced last month and has yet to enter Gaza.

Ahmed Fouad Anwar, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and an academic specializing in Israeli affairs, said Egypt is making significant efforts to facilitate the committee’s mission as quickly as possible and enable it to operate.

He said this would limit Israeli obstacles, increase pressure on Israel, and place it under the obligations set out in the plan, particularly withdrawal from Gaza. This would counter intense pressure from Tel Aviv to accelerate the disarmament of Hamas without implementing its Gaza agreement commitments.

Palestinian political analyst Abdel Mahdi Motawea said Israel objected not only to the committee’s work but even to its emblem.

He noted, however, that Israel is not the only party hindering the committee. Hamas and other factions want to impose conditions on the committee’s work.

He warned of serious concerns that the committee could be marginalized, stressing that Egypt’s extensive efforts to support it are crucial at this critical stage of the Gaza agreement.

Hamas announced days ago that it was ready to hand over management of the enclave to the committee, while Israel continues to obstruct it.

Anwar expects the committee to begin operating in the enclave soon if Egypt’s efforts and those of international partners succeed and Washington responds positively.

He warned that the committee's failure would threaten the ceasefire agreement.


Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
TT

Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)

Israel’s demand for the disarmament of Hamas has become the top priority since the second phase of the Gaza agreement began 10 days ago.

It exposed deep uncertainty over how such a step could be enforced amid firm resistance from the movement, which says it will not relinquish its weapons unless progress is made toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Analysts speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat said the issue has left mediators with minimal options, ranging from complete disarmament to freezing weapons, either by persuading Hamas or applying pressure.

The demand has become a political pressure tool that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others in Israel are likely to use increasingly in the run-up to elections, they added.

Israeli opposition figure Benny Gantz, who is preparing for elections, called on Thursday in a post on X for the “disarmament of Hamas.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that Israel will dismantle Hamas if it does not agree to lay down its arms.

Netanyahu, following a meeting on Tuesday with US envoy Steve Witkoff, said he was insisting on the non-negotiable demand to disarm Hamas before any step toward rebuilding Gaza.

Military and strategic analyst Brig. Gen. Samir Ragheb said mediators have few options other than reaching understandings or exerting pressure, noting that the demand to disarm Hamas has been echoed by Israel, Washington, the EU, and donors, and has become an obstacle to ending the war and launching reconstruction.

He said Netanyahu and others would use the issue electorally and as a pretext to collapse the agreement at any time, adding that the second phase is filled with “landmines,” particularly those related to the Israeli withdrawal, which Netanyahu does not want to address.

Strategic and military expert Maj. Gen. Samir Farag said available options are now limited, suggesting that freezing weapons may be more likely than complete disarmament, mainly since Hamas’ arsenal does not consist of missiles or drones and could be handed over.

He said there is US and Israeli insistence on implementing the weapons clause, but that it must coincide with an Israeli withdrawal and guarantees to prevent a new war.

By contrast, sources in Hamas told Reuters on Wednesday that the group had agreed to discuss disarmament with other Palestinian factions, but that neither Washington nor regional mediators had presented it with any detailed or concrete proposal on disarmament.

Israel’s Channel 13 reported in late January that the US was preparing a document granting Hamas several weeks to hand over its weapons to multinational forces within a set timeframe. Failure to comply would give Israel the green light to “act as it sees fit,” the channel said.

Farag stressed that Hamas’ room for maneuver is extremely limited and that it must quickly reach understandings with mediators, particularly Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, to resolve what he described as the most significant obstacle currently being created by Israel.

Ragheb said Hamas has no option but to implement US President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan and the disarmament clause, warning against delaying or circumventing it, as “every day lost poses a threat to the ceasefire agreement.”

He added that police forces in the enclave would be deployed within days or weeks, along with a possible stabilization force, leaving little space for further maneuvering.