Every path toward restoring a capable and just state, one that protects its citizens and exerts absolute, unshared sovereignty, runs directly through the state's monopoly on arms and violence. The foundation for this remains the disarmament of Hezbollah and all illegal weapons, alongside the dismantling of both military and militia infrastructures and, with equal urgency, the infrastructure of the parallel black economy.
The collapse of the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding has thrust the region into a highly dangerous phase. Deploying calculated, surgical operations, Washington has begun retaliating against Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz with crushing strikes designed to undermine the capabilities of the Revolutionary Guard. These actions aim to isolate western Iran overlooking the Arabian Gulf by destroying the bridges connecting it to the interior. The expanding scope of these American maneuvers, which are turning Iran's regional leverage to ash, stretches from Lebanon to Iran and back, severely narrowing the room for maneuver available to the regime's proxies.
A significant indicator was embodied by the visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to the US. Tehran condemned the visit, particularly its timing, as well as the accompanying military talks and economic agreements, especially in the energy sector. This underscores an approach aimed at liberating Baghdad's decision-making, position, and regional role, despite the depth of Iranian influence. Compounding this indicator is a major decision setting the end of this coming September as the deadline to rid Iraq of illegal weapons.
While the visit of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who meets today, Tuesday, with US President Donald Trump at the White House, cements Lebanon’s exit from the “axis of ruin” and carries the implications of permanently severing Lebanon from the Iranian orbit, it inaugurates a new phase between the two countries. The most prominent feature of this phase is the execution of commitments arising from the trilateral framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, in partnership with the US.
This is the agreement that has begun putting its included understandings into practice, chief among them the gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Lebanese territories. While the text underscored "redeployment," it confirmed that the trajectory is "outside Lebanese territories," thereby dismantling the "security belt" and its dangers - all of which announces a diplomatic achievement by forcing Israel to pull back from the South as a prelude to establishing sustainable stability.
The most prominent Lebanese commitment remains the continued implementation of the “land for arms” equation, meaning only Lebanon’s legitimate forces can carry weapons. The recovery of land means ending the Israeli occupation, and the disarmament of illegitimate weapons strips the “fig leaf” of disguised Iranian influence, thus completing the liberation.
It goes without saying that the government provided political cover for this approach, both through the ministerial statement and through historic decisions to restrict arms, ban Hezbollah's military and security operations, and deport Revolutionary Guard members, after they were proven responsible for devastating wars that again led to occupation following the catastrophic “support” war for Gaza.
Ultimately, the success of this trajectory hinges entirely on implementation. Proper execution will fulfill key US requirements for trusting Lebanese authorities, thereby bolstering the state's legitimacy in sovereign decisions. This sovereignty must extend across the board, from enforcing territorial control to reclaiming economic and financial governance through strict accountability within a framework of financial and economic reforms.
Crucially, the framework agreement includes a concrete US commitment to convene an international financial conference aimed at rescuing the country. This means the era of political maneuvering, where the "heist of the century" was softly euphemized as a mere financial "gap", is rapidly coming to an end. The earth did not simply swallow $200 billion. Rather, this heist is the direct translation of astronomical corruption that thrived during years of coexistence with foreign occupations and illicit weapons, ultimately culminating in a calculated financial collapse engineered by ruling mafia and militia forces.
Moving forward, everything remains under a microscope, not just by the United States, but also by Arab brothers and international allies. Lebanon relies on these partners to fund the massive reconstruction efforts required after the devastating Israeli-Iranian war, and to finally pull the country out of the abyss and onto the track of true recovery
Despite the overlapping commitments and duties, the current phase leaves no room for stalling or any lapse in implementation. The framework agreement has proven its durability, mapping out the path toward restoring a state that is capable, for the first time, of dismantling the sectarian southern canton and reclaiming the South for Lebanon.
The challenges are immense, and overcoming the obstacles will be costly. This necessitates vigilance and firmness regarding potential actions by an Iranian regime that lacks unified leadership. Tehran continues to deny the defeat it brought upon Iran, and it remains incapable of returning to a ceasefire based on its pledged commitments, such as reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, it dreams of prolonging the status quo in Lebanon, indifferent to the resulting deepening of the Lebanese people's tragedies.
Tehran’s priority, having never turned the page on "exporting the revolution", is to salvage its investment in Hezbollah, not to protect the Lebanese people or Lebanon. The regime appears obsessed with securing "borrowed time" to allow its Lebanese proxy to restore some of its capabilities, hoping this will enable it to keep Lebanon an open arena for regional conflicts and derail the project of restoring the state.
Once again: what is being said about conditioning the withdrawal of Israeli forces on the disarmament of illegal weapons must be placed in its proper context. Let us cast aside the nonsense of the "steadfastness" of illegal weapons. It has betrayed Lebanon, particularly its south, plunged the country into a terrifying defeat, and brought the most dangerous catastrophe upon its own community. The antidote to this "steadfastness" was raised by the voices of the victims, who carried the twin calls of Tyre and Nabatieh demanding legitimate state authority as an alternative to that venture and its "party," out of desperation to preserve what remains of towns, homes, livelihoods, and memory.
