The decision by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to enter into direct negotiations with Israel under Washington’s auspices marks a significant step toward separating the state from the statelet.

The direct communication between U.S. President Donald Trump and President Aoun has intensified matters for “Hezbollah,” as this mediation—which led to a ceasefire agreement—comes at a time when the United States is waging a fierce war in alliance with Israel against Iran. “Hezbollah” opened the Lebanese front in retaliation for America’s assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and in support of the Iranian regime in a fateful war.

An important step

President Joseph Aoun’s clear effort to detach Lebanon’s file from Iran, with the support of Washington and other partners such as Saudi Arabia, is seen as an important step toward removing this card from Tehran’s hand, and thereby separating the “Hezbollah” statelet from the entity that created and enabled its growth and endurance over more than four decades.

President Aoun’s actions could become significant steps toward improving relations with Israel, driven by considerable pressure and expectations from President Trump. This would further widen the rift between the Lebanese state and the “Hezbollah” statelet, as the state is the party’s lifeline, providing it with political cover, legitimate channels to the world, and access to economic and civil infrastructure, enabling its media machinery and supporting its social, financial, and even military institutions.

The party considers its weapons the foundation of its existence, as they enable it to play the role it has monopolized since the 1990s, namely “resistance.” The support wars conducted by “Hezbollah” in support of Gaza and Iran have removed the mask of “resistance” and revealed its true face to political forces and the Lebanese people, as a force organically linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and loyal solely to the Iranian regime, even at the expense of Lebanon’s interests and sovereignty.

An existential war

The positions of “Hezbollah’s” leaders suggest that they view themselves today as being in an existential conflict with the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister, with some calling for the government to be overthrown. They consider President Aoun, the government, and its head to be complicit and aligned with the United States, helping to undermine Iran’s capabilities in the region. Accordingly, the party’s media apparatus is mobilizing its supporters from the Shia community, inciting them against the Lebanese state.

The majority of Hezbollah's supporters rely on party-affiliated media as their primary source of information, adding a religious dimension to its actions, as it carries out the orders of the Supreme Leader—the highest religious authority—who holds the title of the Mahdi’s deputy.Therefore, what the party says and orders cannot be questioned. The party’s leaders are preparing for major street mobilizations aimed at overthrowing the government at the earliest opportunity.

Hezbollah’s media blames the government for Israeli attacks that have led to displacement and the destruction of villages. They claim that without this weapon, Israel would have occupied all of Lebanon, and that it is what ensures their survival. Hezbollah will use all tools at its disposal to protect itself, including the forces and cells it has within civil and military state institutions.

The Lebanese state must take the party’s threats and actions very seriously and should not rule out any course of action, even if it risks civil peace. This serves Iran’s interests, as Tehran’s priority is to ensure that Lebanon does not develop a strong central government capable of protecting state sovereignty or ending illegal weapons and the “statelet.” Furthermore, Iran seeks to keep Hezbollah and its weapons as an advanced front on Israel’s borders as part of its defensive strategy. Therefore, it will never agree to Lebanon signing a peace agreement with Israel.

The party has called on its supporters to return from the south to Beirut, a move that suggests it does not place much weight on the ceasefire agreement reached by the President of the Republic, and that the decision of war and peace remains in its hands. It seeks to ensure that credit is given to the regime for any truce agreement that yields gains for Iran. Should negotiations between Tehran and Washington collapse, there is a significant possibility that the party would reopen the southern front in support of Iran.

This would place President Aoun in a highly embarrassing position with President Trump, who might once again allow Israel to move against “Hezbollah.” This could lead to Israel occupying additional territories, destroying more towns, and expanding the security belt. The security belt could turn into a long-term occupation in the absence of a strong negotiation channel, such as the one President Trump may be offering today.

The statelet today poses an existential threat to the state, and it must be freed from.

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