Away from the minor controversies shaking Parliament and which most often reflect the small personal interests of local political parties, the entire region, including Lebanon, is holding its breath while awaiting developments that could bring significant changes to the balance of power.
On Monday, the unofficial American response to the Lebanese document reacting to the proposals of envoy Thomas Barrack arrived at the presidential palace. Since then, the relevant parties have been studying it and trying to understand whether it contains any hidden messages. What is apparent for now is that the demand for Hezbollah and all non-official armed forces – including Palestinian factions – to hand over their weapons is irrevocable and should be carried out before the end of the year.
Lebanon would have all the necessary latitude to find ways to do this, but it must act. However, there are still nearly five months left until the end of the year. So why, in this case, is there increasing pressure, either through repeated statements about the need to act quickly or through repeated Israeli attacks in a broad geographic area, in the North and in the Bekaa? The acceleration of pressure on Lebanon, at a time when the situation in Syria is not yet stabilized and when there are no truly encouraging developments with Iran, seems, moreover, to contradict the timeframe granted. For some, it’s actually an attempt to protect Lebanon from potential regional turmoil by pushing it toward a rapid, long-term solution. But for others, it’s a move to increase pressure on Lebanon, knowing that Hezbollah remains tied to Iran.
It is difficult, at this stage, to choose between these possibilities. However, according to a diplomatic source in Lebanon, all regional issues are linked, whether openly declared or not. Even if many Lebanese parties, as well as other regional and international actors, insist on separating the Lebanese issue from the Iranian one, these remain closely connected, as do all developments in the region. According to the aforementioned diplomatic source, from Gaza to Lebanon, and even Syria and Iraq, up to Iran, developments revolve around a single point: weakening all forces hostile to normalization, in any form, of relations between countries in the region and Israel.
Even though Hamas carried out the Oct. 7, 2023 attack that sparked the Gaza war, this only accelerated the decision to strike at all of the "axis of resistance." In the same vein, the diplomatic source said that the Islamic Republic remains the big piece and the previous 12-day war did not really eliminate the threat it poses, not only as a military force but also as a driver and supporter for the other components of said axis. This is why, in the eyes of this source, for the Israelis and their American backers, it is not possible to settle the issue of relations between the states of the region and Israel before addressing the Iranian question, whether through a violent strike that would drive the regime to capitulation, or an operation that would bring it down. Therefore, all talk of efforts to reach an agreement in Gaza, or even indirect or direct negotiations between Israelis and Lebanese, cannot truly succeed as long as Iran still holds strength and means.
Does this mean that, by the end of the year, Iran will somehow be neutralized or at least unable to relaunch "the axis of resistance"? Again, according to the diplomatic source, Oct. 18, 2025, will mark 10 years since the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) went into effect. This agreement was reached in Vienna between the representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union. It was signed on July 14, 2015, before being adopted by the Security Council in resolution 2231, voted on July 20, and coming into effect as of Oct. 18, 2015. The agreement limited Iran’s nuclear program for a decade, to start with. This decade expires Oct. 18, 2025, and even though the American administration pulled out of the agreement in May 2018, it still exists and should serve as the basis for any new negotiations, especially with the Europeans. But if negotiations are not resumed before this date, Iran will be completely freed from the agreement’s constraints. According to the diplomatic source cited above, the entire region is holding its breath, awaiting the American-Iranian decision on this subject. Iranian sources suggest, in this respect, that the Islamic Republic does not intend to yield and could be prepared to launch even more violent attacks on Israeli facilities and even begin building a nuclear weapon if it is subjected to new strikes. According to those same sources, the Islamic Republic would feel that the regime itself is being targeted and that it is facing an existential war.
The diplomatic source does not rule out the possibility that these could be media threats intended to prevent the opposing camp from launching an attack. But in such a climate of increasing tension, it is hard to believe in the possibility of reaching serious agreements that can hold up, before knowing the fate of relations with Iran. That is why, according to this source, the coming months should be decisive: either the region heads toward agreements — with the signal being the resumption of American-Iranian negotiations — or it will be the scene of new violence.
Lebanon is facing a choice: either it speeds up the process of bringing all weapons under state monopoly — at the risk that it might not succeed — or it waits to see how things develop in the region, giving a few positive signals to buy time.
Humanitarian convoy reaches Rmeish, Ain Ibl, Dibil despite obstacles
