🔴“What Is the Lebanese Delegation Negotiating in Washington?”

✍️By Akram Bazi – Writer

👌Analyses continue to scrutinize the potential agreement between Washington and Tehran, revealing the contours of a geopolitical landscape undergoing profound transformation. Available indicators suggest that the balance is shifting noticeably in Iran’s favor, while America’s regional allies—foremost among them Israel and the Gulf states—find themselves confronting a new reality marked by unprecedented security and economic challenges.

👌A close reading of the reported provisions points to a significant retreat from the traditional dominance of U.S. policy. Washington appears willing to sacrifice aspects of its allies’ regional stability in pursuit of an understanding with Tehran. This has heightened concerns in both Israel and the Gulf, particularly as the United States appears committed to restraining Israeli actions and reducing its military presence in the region—long viewed as a security guarantee for Gulf states. At the same time, this evolving environment opens a rare strategic opportunity for Lebanon to demand an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire.

👌Iran’s gains, according to this assessment, are extensive. Tehran is not only securing promises to end conflicts across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, but is also obtaining recognition of its sovereignty, commitments to lift the maritime blockade, and the withdrawal of forces from surrounding areas. Such measures would effectively redefine the rules of engagement in Iran’s favor.

👌Economically, Iran is expected to receive guarantees for reconstruction funding amounting to no less than $300 billion, comprehensive sanctions relief, exemptions for oil and petrochemical exports, and the release of frozen assets held abroad. The arrangement would also reportedly include assurances against new sanctions, limitations on additional U.S. military deployments in the region, and the conversion of the agreement into a binding United Nations Security Council resolution to prevent any future unilateral U.S. withdrawal similar to what occurred in the past.

🤲Against this backdrop, Lebanon faces what may be a historic and exceptional opportunity that should be seized immediately. The first provision of the agreement—requiring the United States to pressure its allies to end hostilities on all fronts, including the Lebanese front—would provide unprecedented international and regional cover for imposing a lasting ceasefire.

🤲Within this context, and after Iran reportedly succeeded in placing Lebanon as a central issue in the Bürgenstock negotiations, any bilateral negotiations between Lebanon and Israel become, in the author’s view, futile exercises—“negotiations for the sake of negotiations.” The Lebanese delegation, therefore, would no longer be obliged to continue such talks. It possesses few leverage points in those tracks and risks making concessions, while the resistance’s military operations have, according to the author, established new realities on the ground. Citing descriptions from Hebrew-language media, the author argues that these developments have left the Israeli army exposed and vulnerable. Consequently, Lebanon should withdraw its delegation and focus instead on the international commitments emerging from broader agreements sponsored by major powers.

🤲The American concessions described in the agreement are not merely technical details; they represent a strategic reordering of priorities at the expense of Israeli and Gulf security. Rather than serving as a deterrent force, the U.S. presence would become a mechanism for constraining and containing Israeli actions. Meanwhile, Gulf states would be left to deal with the consequences of renewed commercial activity that benefits Iran without additional tariffs or costs.

🤲What is unfolding, the author contends, is a structural shift that overturns long-standing expectations, making Iran the principal beneficiary while forcing regional actors to reassess their strategies amid the decline of America’s traditional guarantor role.

✌This new reality strengthens Lebanon’s ability to assert its sovereignty and distance itself from conflicts increasingly governed by binding international commitments to de-escalation. It also places Lebanon in a stronger negotiating position to demand its rights and reinforce its national security, particularly through coordination with the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, whom the author credits with balancing the successful Islamabad track and the Washington track, which he argues has become more symbolic than substantive.

✌For Lebanon to capitalize on this political moment, intensive diplomatic efforts will be required to connect international commitments made by Tehran and Washington with the imperative of shielding Lebanon from the devastation of continued conflict. The presumed international consensus surrounding the agreement provides Beirut with an opportunity to transform a ceasefire into an unavoidable political obligation.

✌The next phase, the author argues, requires Lebanese decision-makers to formulate a unified national vision that takes advantage of this regional opening—not only to halt military operations but also to launch a political process capable of securing long-term stability and protecting the country from regional rivalries. Historic opportunities are rare, and ignoring these developments could mean losing a valuable chance to pull Lebanon out of its current predicament and restore balance to its sovereignty within the regional order.

✌Ultimately, these developments demand that all Lebanese parties move beyond traditional divisions and focus on a higher objective: reclaiming political initiative. With the international community increasingly invested in sustaining the agreement, Lebanon’s voice may now carry greater influence. What is needed, according to the author, is a clear strategy rooted in international resolutions and the commitments contained in the agreement, aimed at securing a comprehensive ceasefire, ending the suffering of the Lebanese people, and opening the door to reconstruction and economic recovery.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴From the Assassination to the Ten Conditions: The Behind-the-Scenes of the Pre-Ceasefire Negotiations


🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Part 1)


🔹 Mehdi Khanalizadeh, a media member of the Iranian negotiating team, frankly reviewed the behind-the-scenes opposition of the Leadership to the course of the negotiations, and how the agreement was passed by the Supreme National Security Council. According to his account, the Leader was fundamentally opposed to the principle of the negotiation process, addressing the negotiating team by saying: "

There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter."

⚠️ The Usual American Trick: Assassination, Then a Request for a Ceasefire
From the very first moments following the assassination of the martyred commander, the United States came forward with a request for a ceasefire. The American trick lay in striking first, then pretending to want a ceasefire to force Iran into submission and achieve its own interests—a proposal that remained suspended until the election of the new leader.

🔄 Back-and-Forth Between the National Security Council and the Leadership
The Supreme National Security Council initially prepared a 5-point draft for dialogue, but the Leadership rejected it. This back-and-forth persisted for about 3 or 4 times until, ultimately and based on the Leader's own vision, a 10-point plan was drafted (which is the exact same statement announced on the night of the ceasefire).

⛔️ The Main Red Line: A Ban on Nuclear Negotiations
On the sidelines of the ten points, the Leader penned 8 additional conditions and emphasized that they must be implemented; the most prominent of which was a ban on entering into any nuclear negotiations in any shape or form. The American side, which was in dire need of a ceasefire, accepted the ten conditions, to the point that Trump tweeted stating that the basis of the process was the Iranian conditions. However, in Islamabad, things turned completely upside down...

🤔 To be continued...

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Crossing Red Lines in Islamabad and the Leadership's Stern Response

🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Part 2)


🔹 After the initial American approval of Iran's ten conditions, the negotiating team headed to Islamabad. However, during the rounds of dialogue, the course of the negotiations abruptly veered off track.


🤔 The American Assessment of the Iranian Team's Weaknesses
In Islamabad, the American side backtracked on its promises and announced its refusal to negotiate based on the ten conditions. At that exact moment, and contrary to the explicit written orders issued by the Leadership, the nuclear issue was brought to the discussion table! The Americans' assessment of the Iranian team was that they did not want the war to continue and desired to reach an agreement at any cost. As a result, the other party hardened its stance to blackmail Iran and extract greater concessions.

🔻 A Fierce Reaction from the Leader: "These Negotiations Are Illegitimate"
Following the conclusion of this round, reports were sent back to Tehran (one of which was penned by a prominent member of the negotiating team). The Leader showed a highly negative reaction accompanied by strong objection, stating explicitly: "You have committed a religious/legal violation (mukhalafa\ shar'iyya)," and declared that this path lacked legitimacy due to the nuclear file being raised and the failure to enforce the ten conditions.


✉️ The Justificatory Letter from the Supreme National Security Council
In response to this objection, a number of National Security Council members addressed a letter to the Leadership, expressing their concern over the state of the infrastructure and the continuation of the war, claiming that negotiations could not proceed without addressing the nuclear file. However, the subsequent reply to this letter put all doubts to rest...

To be continued...

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Story of Imposing the Agreement and the President’s Written Pledges


🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Final Part)

🔹 Following the justificatory letter from the Supreme National Security Council, Sayyid Mojtaba conveyed a reply that read: "

There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter. If the other side sees that conditions are favorable, they will strike Iran's infrastructure, and these negotiations will not stop them."

🔄 Bypassing the Leadership's Conditions and the Birth of the 14-Point Plan
Despite this, the Supreme National Security Council took a different path. The ten conditions were completely scrapped, and on the initiative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a new 14-point plan was drafted, which ultimately produced the

"Agreement to End the War."

The formula was based on the following logic: first, declare an end to the war, then enter into nuclear negotiations and make concessions to guarantee peace!

🕓 Two Weeks of Silence and the "Silence Implies Consent" Assumption
The National Security Council approved this agreement and sent it to the Leadership, but the text remained without a reply for about two weeks. At this point, the council members held a meeting and decided to treat this silence as consent and move forward with the plan! However, right in the middle of that meeting, a letter arrived from the Leader containing fundamental and decisive questions.


✍️ The President's Written Pledge and the Issuance of Permission
Under the pressure of time, the council members responded to the questions in writing and provided a pledge clarifying the interpretation of the agreement's clauses. For instance, they pledged in writing that the "non-interference" clause included the shutdown of certain hostile media outlets. This is the exact same pledge the Leader later referred to in his speech when he said:

"The President has given us a pledge."

Based on this written pledge, permission was issued to announce the agreement.


📌 Conclusion: "Conceptually, I Had a Different Opinion"
This is the full trajectory that led to the Leadership's stance. The Leader was conceptually opposed to this entire path that followed the Islamabad round and did not believe in it. However, the agreement was ultimately pushed through under pressure and insistence from the Supreme National Security Council, leading to the outcome we are witnessing today.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴An existential conflict or a procedural file? A sharp contrast between Trump and Tehran!


🔹While Iranian officials issue statements attempting to "dwarf" the crisis with Washington, turning it into an administrative file or a divergence of views that can be resolved via a hotline or commercial deals, Trump publishes a video rooting the historical hostility with Iran, concluding it with a single word regarding its nuclear ambitions: "Never."


🤔The video illustrates the massive gap in reading the scene; Trump views the battle as strategic and a long-term conflict of influence, while Tehran looks for quick, technical settlements.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴A Reading of Alexander Dugin’s Commentary on the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding

✍️ Prepared by Dr. Badra Gaaloul

I continue to reflect on the news, trying to understand and interpret what is happening in the Middle East, the Zionist-American aggression against Iran, and the implications of the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding. The devil, as always, lies in the details. Every word, whisper, and movement carries layers of consequences, interpretations, and readings. I have never trusted what the West says, nor what the cunning Trump and his entourage proclaim. Everyone appears to have reached an understanding—except Arab leaders, who have rarely achieved either consensus or genuine awareness.

The world today stands at a crossroads, living through one of the dirtiest and most difficult periods of moral and ethical decay. No standards or laws seem capable of governing it. We are witnessing an era of distortions, sharp turns, and continuous decline.

Russian philosopher and political thinker Alexander Dugin considers the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and the ceasefire agreement to be a reflection of the collapse of international law and the triumph of American brute force. In his view, the agreement also serves as a rescue mechanism for the United States at a moment when it faces a significant strategic predicament.

Dugin’s principal positions regarding the agreement can be summarized as follows:

⚪️Rejection of Negotiations

Dugin had previously warned the Iranian leadership against any form of settlement, arguing that merely sitting at the negotiating table with the United States constitutes a concession. In his view, maintaining pressure on Washington was the only path toward achieving a genuine victory against American power.

⚪️A Shift in the Balance of Power

He believes that the joint American-Israeli attack, followed by the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, has fundamentally altered the rules of international politics.

⚪️The Collapse of International Legitimacy

Dugin sharply criticized the contents of the agreement. He argues that the United States’ decision to strike Iran—a sovereign state that later accepted negotiations—demonstrates that the world has entered an era governed by the law of the jungle rather than international law.

⚪️A Threat to Russia

He warns that if the United States succeeds in subduing Iran, Western powers will be encouraged to undertake similar interventions against other sovereign states, foremost among them Russia.

Dugin’s analysis is rooted in his broader Eurasianist theory, which advocates the strategic unity of Russia, Iran, and Asian nations in a common front against American hegemony.

Since the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, Dugin has argued that the American-Israeli attack on Iran signaled the collapse of international law and the beginning of a new era in which global politics would be governed by brute force. Today, following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran, he reiterates the same assessment, viewing the agreement as fragile and ultimately serving Zionist-American interests more than Iranian interests.

Dugin also warns that Iran could fall into what he describes as a Zionist-American trap, a development that would encourage Western powers to target and violate the sovereignty of other states, particularly Russia.

In the same context, Dugin argues that the first day of the American-Israeli war against Iran fundamentally transformed global power relations and the rules of international politics, stripping away what he sees as the illusion of international legitimacy.

He recalls a statement attributed to Trump: “International law does not exist. What I consider moral is what I consider moral.

” According to Dugin, after attempts to impose external control over Venezuela and the subsequent attack on Iran—a sovereign and independent state—along with the targeted destruction of the country’s military, political, and religious leadership, as well as historical landmarks, universities, and schools, it is no longer possible to speak of rules, laws, or meaningful standards governing international relations.

Those who betray agreements once, he argues, will do so again. Therefore, the current talks in Switzerland should not necessarily be viewed as the end of aggression or hostilities. In his view, those responsible for such actions are skilled in betrayal and are capable of returning to the negotiating table afterward without hesitation.

According to Alexander Dugin, the only principle now operating in this unbalanced world is the right of the strongest, the fastest, and the most ruthless. It is not merely the law of the jungle, but rather the law of a savage humanity unconstrained by ethical, legal, or legitimate standards.

We seem to be living in a world where whoever strikes first and acts fastest is automatically considered “right,” even though concepts such as justice, legitimacy, strength, and, above all, human morality have become increasingly blurred. Everything else becomes little more than an additional justification.

In this framework, Dugin suggests that the priority becomes delivering a decisive blow to the enemy, breaking its resistance, destroying its leadership, and targeting its military, strategic, and energy infrastructure. Afterward, one can justify the action in any manner desired, rationalize it however one wishes, and sign agreements whenever convenient. No one, he argues, will hold the perpetrators accountable.

Perhaps only centuries from now will historians pass judgment. Future professors of history and students of politics may ask:

How did these societies live? By what standards did they govern themselves?

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴MOU or Capitulation? How IAEA Dictates Insult Iranian Sovereignty


The recent statements by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the upcoming inspections in Iran do not reflect a diplomatic compromise; they represent a flagrant violation of national sovereignty and a blow to the principles of a multipolar world order.

For a nation anchoring the Axis of Resistance, accepting these concessions via the latest Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States is a dangerous step backward.


Here is how these dictates directly insult Iran’s sovereignty:


The Re-Establishment of Unilateral Oversight:

The IAEA’s aggressive demand to track down highly enriched uranium stockpiles
"as soon as possible"
treats Iran not as a sovereign state with legitimate defense and scientific rights, but as a rogue entity under international trusteeship.


The Trap of Western Tech-Bureaucracy:

By reducing a profound geopolitical struggle to technical "procedural files," Tehran risks falling into a Western-designed trap. Allowing foreign inspectors unfettered access to strategic facilities compromises military security and intelligence under the guise of "verification."


Inviting the Hegemon:

The agency's suggestion that Tehran can
"invite Washington or other observers"
to the inspections is a psychological insult. It attempts to normalize the presence of the very Western hegemony that the Axis of Resistance has spent decades fighting to expel from the region.


The Critique from a Multipolar Perspective:


True multipolarity requires sovereign centers of power that refuse to bow to biased international institutions functioning as arms of Western foreign policy. By conceding to these aggressive inspection timelines and metrics under US pressure, Tehran undermines its own leverage and compromises the collective security posture of the regional resistance network.

Technical settlements with a hostile hegemon never guarantee security; they only expose a nation's strategic depth to its adversaries.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Strategic Analysis | The Bürgenstock Negotiations: Tactical Concessions and Institutional Divergence in Iranian Foreign Policy


Recent statements by the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs and US officials regarding the US-Iran diplomatic channel in Switzerland reveal an escalating divergence between Tehran’s ideological rhetoric and its strategic execution. The disclosed framework—encompassing the nuclear file, frozen assets, the Lebanon de-escalation cell, and maritime protocols in the Strait of Hormuz—signals a significant shift in Iran's negotiating posture.


1. Rhetorical Defiance vs. Institutional Pragmatism


The inclusion of the nuclear portfolio directly contradicts the strict ideological parameters set forth within the conservative establishment, most notably outlined in recent communications attributed to Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei. While the hardline faction consistently demanded that the nuclear file remain isolated from broader regional containment talks, the active participation of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi in Switzerland proves that Iranian state institutions are operating on a highly pragmatic parallel track. Faced with systemic economic strain, the executive and legislative branches have prioritized state preservation over ideological red lines.


2. The Strait of Hormuz: Capitulation on Maritime Leverage


The most stark policy reversal lies in the maritime domain. Tehran had previously spent months propagating a new regulatory framework for the Strait of Hormuz, floating proposals for transit tolls, security permits, and environmental fees under the pretext of joint management with Muscat. This was intended to institutionalize Iranian sovereignty over a vital global chokepoint.
The Pakistani Foreign Minister’s confirmation that Iran will enforce

"no transit tolls, fees, or permit mandates"

marks a definitive retreat. This concession was directly triggered by a US executive ultimatum threatening the immediate termination of talks if maritime commerce was disrupted. While Iranian state media attempts domestic damage control by differentiating between illegal international "tolls" and legitimate "maritime service fees," the geopolitical reality is clear: Tehran has surrendered its primary maritime leverage to secure an economic exit ramp, explicitly aimed at unfreezing assets earmarked for agricultural and food imports.


3. Conclusion: Independent Rules of Engagement


The political factions driving Iran’s state apparatus (the Pezeshkian administration and Qalibaf’s legislative team) have effectively established independent rules of engagement based on material survival rather than ideological continuity. While ballistic capabilities are maintained as a nominal red line to satisfy the domestic core, the nuclear and maritime files have been leveraged as transactional assets to defuse imminent economic collapse and military escalation.


☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 U.S. Senate Limits Trump’s Military Powers on Iran

The U.S. Senate has voted in favor of a resolution that bars President Donald Trump from launching any military action or war against Iran without prior and explicit approval from Congress.

The resolution aims to prevent the White House from making unilateral and abrupt wartime decisions in the Middle East, while restoring the authority to declare war to Congress.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Ten Points Regarding Today’s Congressional Resolution

✍🏼By Dr. Foad Izadi

1. The text of the resolution "directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran... unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iran." This means any subsequent attack on Iran without congressional approval would be illegal.

2. Trump's anger in his tweet stems precisely from this reason; where he wrote:

"So, I have Iran on the "ropes," ready to go down for the fall, willing to give us practically anything, and for the first time in decades, respecting the hell out of the United States and its President, ME, and the U.S. Senate decides to have a poorly timed and meaningless War Powers Act Vote, telling the Number One Sponser of Terror in the World that the United States doesn't like what I am doing to them, and I must stop, and by so doing has provided aid and comfort the Enemy. Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats..."

3. Since the text is framed as a "Concurrent Resolution" between the Senate and the House of Representatives and carries the phrasing "directs the President," it will not be sent to Trump for endorsement or signature. This means Trump does not have the option to use his veto power against this congressional directive.

4. Over the past months, Trump has made many negative remarks about this law, yet he has complied with its implementation simultaneously. At the beginning of the hostilities, he officially notified Congress in accordance with the law, and at the end of the 60-day deadline, he sent another official letter to Congress stating that due to the ceasefire, there was no need to trigger the War Powers Act.

5. This resolution makes any future attack on Iran much more difficult; without congressional approval, it would be illegal. American officials completely disregard international laws, yet they strictly comply with their domestic laws (unlike us!).

6. A military assault requires a financial budget, and ultimately, it is the members of Congress who must approve the budget for any future strike against Iran. This vote signals that securing approval for the budget of the next war against Iran is far from guaranteed, and for this reason, the resolution is not merely symbolic.

📌Conclusion:
7. Please do not give away free concessions to the other side under the pretext of "averting the specter of war."

8. Experience has shown that concessions and negotiations do not keep the specter of war at bay; because as the martyred Imam said, "America wants to swallow Iran." This means no concession, no matter how large, will ever be enough for them. Over the past three months, we have seen zero evidence to contradict this analysis by the martyred Imam.

9. As a matter of principle, the country’s top priority must be to break this vicious cycle: (attack, ceasefire, negotiation, and attack again); and not accepting American or non-American wheat in exchange for Iran's frozen assets.

10. The correct way to keep the specter of war away from the country is "military deterrence." Please publish a list of the desalination plants and oil facilities targeted by Iran in the region; in the event that Iran is attacked again, these facilities must be destroyed in such a manner that rebuilding them would take at least two years.
Limited destruction does not create the necessary deterrence; Trump views limited destruction of these facilities merely as reconstruction projects for American corporations. Mass destruction, however, will keep global oil and gas prices high for at least two years, creating the required deterrence. Alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz must be at the very top of Iran's target list.
If the Americans know that Iran will actually respond in this manner, they will not attack us—especially after the passage of this congressional resolution.


☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

Field Developments in South Lebanon - June 24, 2026

🛡 Field Developments:
• Airstrikes: Hostile drones launched a strike targeting a car near the Al-Dabsheh ridge in Nabatieh al-Fawqa. Additionally, a hostile quadcopter repeatedly dropped sound bombs toward a pickup truck on the outskirts of the town of Baraachit.

• Artillery Shelling: The towns of Yater and Haddatha came under synchronized artillery shelling, which coincided with heavy machine-gun sweeping operations directed toward Haddatha.

• Ground Movements & Clashes: Occupation soldiers cut off the Ain Arab - Wazzani road and took up positions around a house overlooking the area, while two resistance fighters were martyred following an Israeli occupation army assault in the vicinity of the "Ali Al-Taher" hill.

📌 Casualties and Admissions:
* An Israeli soldier was wounded in an explosion that occurred in South Lebanon last night; investigations are currently underway to determine the circumstances of the incident.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴After His Authority to Wage War Against Iran Was Restricted, Trump Criticizes Congress:

“Bad Timing”

U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Congress after it adopted a symbolic resolution calling for an end to the war against Iran, describing the move as:

“Bad timing and meaningless.”

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump claimed that:

“Iran is now backed into a corner and ready to collapse,”

while criticizing the Senate’s vote on the War Powers Resolution at this particular moment.

He added that the vote:

“Made my job more difficult,”

but stressed that he would continue pursuing his objectives, saying:

“I’ll get it done one way or another, because I always get things done,”

according to his own assertions.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–48 in favor of a resolution based on the War Powers Act, calling for an end to any military action against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress.

Meanwhile, progressive Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna argued earlier that the war:

“Was a costly lesson for the United States,”

adding that:

“President Donald Trump failed, as expected, to achieve regime change in Iran.”

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Institutional Dynamics of the Michel Rouhana Contretemps


The decision by the Maronite Antonine Order on June 24, 2026, to penalize Father Michel Rouhana and ban him from future media appearances underscores the deep-seated polarization within Lebanon regarding Hezbollah’s military arsenal. The incident highlights several critical political and institutional dynamics:


Enforcement of Church Orthodoxy:


The Maronite Church, led by the Maronite Patriarchate (Bkerke), maintains a highly consistent official stance advocating for state sovereignty, the monopoly of arms under the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and international resolutions (such as UN Resolution 1559 and 1701). Father Rouhana’s public defense of non-state weaponry directly violated this political orthodoxy, forcing institutional disciplinary action to preserve a unified ecclesiastical front.


The Conflict Over State Legitimacy:

Rouhana’s argument—"As long as there is no state, how can we hand over weapons to the state?"—articulates the primary narrative used by Hezbollah and its allies to justify the maintenance of its paramilitary apparatus amid structural state weakness. By penalizing him, the Antonine Order rejected this rationale, signaling that the degradation of state institutions does not justify the permanent bypass of sovereign legitimacy.


A Fractured Christian Landscape:

While major Christian political blocs (such as the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party) aggressively oppose Hezbollah's armed status, Rouhana's comments demonstrate that alternative perspectives—whether driven by pragmatic calculations, geographical proximity to conflict zones, or alternative political alignments—persist within Christian clerical and social circles, despite institutional suppression.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5