This means that Lebanon’s negotiating position can only be strengthened if the authority decides to deal with itself and with Lebanon’s various components as if it truly holds control, and that anyone who may stand in its way is dealt with firmly and decisively.

The statement issued by the army command against the movements that supporters of Hezbollah had begun around the Grand Serail can also be understood in this context.

But the fundamental question that Israel will raise in response to Lebanon’s demand for a ceasefire across the country, and which the Lebanese authority is expected to answer convincingly, is this: assuming a ceasefire is put in place, and the ceasefire agreement with Iran collapses for any reason, do you have guarantees that Hezbollah will remain militarily neutral? And if it becomes involved in the war again, what field measures would you take against it, its positions, and its weapons?

In this case, the Lebanese authority cannot rely on traditional justifications that it often uses, perhaps at times rightly, such as saying that this could lead to internal strife and that wisdom is required.

Lebanon is heading into direct negotiations with Israel amid Hezbollah’s rejection, and naturally that of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well. Therefore, the Lebanese authority does not have a mandate from the true decision maker regarding war.

This reality is not the only weakness of the Lebanese state. It does not possess a balance of power with Israel, nor the ability to respond to any aggression that may target it, while its land remains under occupation. It also lacks any real international backing to restore its sovereignty if it is not capable of monopolizing arms and holding the decision of war and peace, and if it continues to be unable to implement its own decisions, exactly as has happened with every decision it has taken since 5 August last year, starting with the disarmament of Hezbollah before the end of 2025, and extending to its inability to implement the decision to expel the Iranian ambassador from Lebanon.

Without American pressure aimed at removing Lebanon as a bargaining chip from the hands of the Iranian negotiator, Israel would not have agreed to open direct negotiations with Lebanon, because whoever does not hold the decision cannot negotiate it.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.