The showcase of Lebanon’s political developments, with the two strategies of “unity of the fronts in the shadow of resistance and advancing normalization and excessive trust in the United States, has placed the country’s political decision-makers before a great test.
The most important strategic achievement of the Resistance in the current war is the achievement of the Unity of the Fronts, whose vast geographical consequences are evident throughout the region—from the sensitive and strategic areas of the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb to the Mediterranean Sea—bringing new characteristics to the region that manifest in its geopolitical shifts.
These shifts possess a strategic approach linked to the balance of power, enabling the Resistance forces to become an influential axis in regional developments and blocking the path to the implementation of the “Greater Israel” project. This event also entails a political consequence reflected in the reduction of foreign hegemony and the diminishing power of petrodollars to control governments and their inclinations.
Under these circumstances, the national interests of every sovereign country dictate that it seize this historic opportunity and choose paths that serve its national liberation and sovereignty project. Regarding Lebanon’s situation, and due to the country’s complex characteristics and conditions, two paths emerge: one is the path of Resistance, which has chosen the unity of the fronts as a strategic project, and the other is the path of Normalization, which the government has embraced, opting for the approach of “negotiation without leverage” and “banking on American promises.”
An examination of the track records of these two approaches and their degree of fruitfulness reveals that the enemy’s counter-project to the Resistance project—launched under the name of “separating the fronts”—aims to remove Lebanon from regional equations, eliminate its leverage, and subjugate it by occupying the south of it, establishing the Litani River as its border, reinforcing Biblical claims in Southern Lebanon, and implementing its economic projects and settlement construction there.
In this regard, the Zionist regime’s war minister stated that the agreement on separating the fronts is a significant achievement led by Netanyahu, allowing the Israeli military to act forcefully in its plans. He revealed that these plans include expanding control over the South, destroying villages and leveling them to the ground, and penetrating up to the Litani borders.
Thus, the strategies of Resistance and Normalization, currently pursued simultaneously by two political spectrums in Lebanon, each carry distinct approaches, outcomes, and consequences, which can be briefly outlined as follows:
First: The Path of Resistance:
The roots of the Resistance path and joining the strategy of Unity of the Fronts have been forming since the occupation of this country. From a historical perspective, this approach has succeeded in liberation, deterrence, and achieving major victories. It has now reached the apex of its strategic pyramid with the inclusion of the Lebanese front in a comprehensive international negotiation dossier and a grand historic agreement, creating strategic opportunities and advantages for the country, the most important of which we observe:
-
The multiplicity of fronts and joining a strong Resistance coalition that imposes international guarantees for any agreement upon the enemy, guarantees that are dangerous and difficult for the enemy to violate. This agreement has tremendous impacts on the global economy, any alteration to which would strain the international community.
-
The Unity of the Fronts imposes deterrence equations of conflict upon the Zionist and American enemy, such that any aggression or violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty constitutes a major international risk. Overall, this strategy empowers Lebanon and provides it with a broad security and strategic umbrella.
-
Iran harbors no ambitions toward Lebanon, and there is no concern regarding Iranian occupation in the country. Experience has proven that decision-making within the Resistance, despite its emotional and ideological affinity with Iran, is entirely independent.
Second: The Path of Normalization:
This approach is nothing new for the Arabs, and its failure has been proven over many years. The inability of the normalization path to protect Arab territories under aggression is no secret to anyone; this path has never been able to stand against the aggressions and threats of the Zionist regime. Nor is this path new for Lebanon. Although the country has not previously participated in the normalization process, reliance on the imaginary option of compromise over the past 15 months has demonstrated that this approach yields no gains for Lebanon and cannot prevent the implementation of the enemy’s threats and aggressions against it.
The consequences of the normalization approach can be enumerated as follows:
-
Negotiation under fire. The United States supports these negotiations while aggression continues and without guaranteeing a ceasefire, marking a failed start for this path, which does not observe the rudiments of negotiation and lacks even minimal leverage.
-
Absence of popular support. Lebanon’s public opinion leans toward the option of Resistance, and even many non-Resistance factions reject normalization. This undermines the legitimacy of any agreement under the umbrella of this approach, turning it into an agreement for sedition, strife, and national division that will lead to dangerous consequences for Lebanon.
-
Repeated experience of failure in this arena. Over the past 15 months, the Lebanese government has experienced negotiation by sidelining the Resistance Axis and relying on American promises, proving its inability to effect even the slightest change in this process. During this period, a large number of army personnel have been martyred, numerous aggressions have targeted Lebanese villages, many homes have been destroyed, and scores of civilians have been martyred. Under these circumstances, the Lebanese government has demonstrated no particular deterrence and has shown no initiative to prevent these attacks.
Consequently, the government must reconsider pursuing this option, as it aligns with the Zionist strategy of “Separating the Fronts” and allows the enemy to continue its aggression, destruction, and infiltration in Lebanon. Under these conditions, this approach can in no way serve as a sovereign option for the government to base its negotiations with the enemy upon, for it is well aware that all strategic leverage rests with the opposing side.
The great crime and horrific massacre in Lebanon were carried out by the Zionist regime at America’s behest to dismantle the Unity of the Fronts. They sought to evade the clause explicitly agreed upon in the Pakistan negotiations—namely, a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon—because this clause belongs to the achievement of the Unity of the Fronts. Therefore, the Lebanese government should harbor no optimism whatsoever regarding American support for negotiations between itself and the Zionist regime.
MNA/6798703
