“This will be my last visit to Lebanon. I will inform the three presidents that they have one final chance: either they learn the lesson and agree to enter direct negotiations with Israel under U.S. sponsorship—to set a timeline and mechanism for the disarmament of Hezbollah—or Lebanon will be left to its fate. It will remain that way for a long time, with no one in America or the region caring about its future, and no one capable of pressuring Israel to stop whatever military action it deems necessary to disarm Hezbollah by force.”
This was not speculation.
It was the clear message received by well-informed political circles in Beirut, summarising the core of the ongoing communications with U.S. envoy Tom Barak, who is preparing to visit Lebanon within days to meet with the three top officials and the army commander.
According to those briefed, this visit may be his last, should Lebanon refuse to accept an American-brokered framework for direct talks with Israel.
An American Ultimatum
U.S. officials, according to reliable sources, have been explicit about what they expect: a negotiation format mirroring the indirect Syrian–Israeli model, where Washington mediates but expects a clear outcome — the gradual disarmament of Hezbollah.
The Americans reportedly no longer accept Lebanese justifications regarding the “difficulty” of implementing disarmament decisions.
Sources add that Washington claims to have Israeli intelligence suggesting that Hezbollah has been rebuilding its military capacity inside Lebanon and may be planning operations abroad targeting Israeli interests.
These claims are being used to escalate pressure on Beirut, particularly on the Lebanese Army, to act as an internal counterweight to Hezbollah — a demand Lebanese officials have repeatedly deemed impossible.
Lebanese Army’s Position: “Disarmament Means Civil War”
Official sources confirmed that new Western warnings had reached senior Lebanese leaders.
In his response, Army Commander General Joseph Aoun stated that such a move was “not possible,” explaining that the army lacks the capability to carry out disarmament and that any attempt to do so would trigger civil war.
Aoun told foreign intermediaries that Hezbollah’s declared readiness to defend its weapons is not political rhetoric or a tactical maneuver, but a serious commitment.
“All Lebanese officials know the party means it,” he reportedly said, “and no authority can take a decision that would lead to internal bloodshed.”
Escalation Talk and Israeli Military Leaks
Meanwhile, Israeli media have continued publishing leaks hinting at possible military escalation against Lebanon.
Reports speak of major operational preparations and the Israeli army’s readiness for “days of intense fighting.”
This has created an atmosphere of growing concern, translating into heightened diplomatic movement toward Beirut — a sign of international fear of a broader confrontation.
The week opened with the arrival of U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus in Beirut from the occupied territories. Her visit, which runs through tomorrow, includes participation in a “Mechanism Committee” meeting in Ras al-Naqoura.
She was followed by Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit, and is soon to be joined by Egyptian Intelligence Minister Major General Hassan Rashad, and Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan.
Meanwhile, Tom Barak’s visit is expected within 48 hours — preceding the arrival of the new U.S. ambassador, Michael Issa, who will assume office before November 10.
Should Barak fail to secure an agreement to launch meaningful negotiations, the Lebanese file will be handed over to the new ambassador, signaling a downgrade in U.S. interest and a possible shift toward an Israeli-driven approach.
“Either Disarmament or Force”
Diplomatic sources told Sunna Files that all these visits share one purpose: to push Lebanon toward implementing the disarmament plan, extending state control southward, and eventually engaging in direct talks with Israel.
The Americans, sources said, rejected President Aoun’s warnings that such steps would lead to civil conflict, insisting instead that if Lebanon cannot act, Israel will handle it militarily.
Washington reportedly conveyed that “Israel will carry out a major strike if necessary.”
Until yesterday, it was still unclear what new instructions Morgan Ortagus brought.
When questioned by Lebanese contacts close to her, she denied reports that her mission carried a specific deadline, saying she was in Beirut “to review the border situation” while attending the Mechanism Committee meeting chaired by General Joseph Clarefield.
Egypt’s Sudden Engagement
In a new diplomatic development, Cairo has entered the Lebanese scene more directly than before, after previously limiting its involvement to the Arab “Quintet Committee.”
Following his meeting with President Aoun, Egyptian Ambassador Alaa Moussa stated that his country hopes to use its relations with all sides to help Lebanon exit its current crisis, warning that the situation “requires caution and urgent containment.”
He added that the Gaza ceasefire has given the region a moment to breathe, and that “stability in Gaza should positively reflect on the region — particularly on Lebanon.”
Moussa emphasised that lessons from Gaza must extend to prevent another war front in Lebanon, highlighting that regional calm depends on fairness, not coercion.
A Broader Context
The American warning to Lebanon underscores Washington’s shifting regional approach: pressuring allies to neutralise resistance movements while avoiding direct confrontation.
However, this policy overlooks the deep realities of Lebanese society, where Hezbollah’s resistance is intertwined with national defence, and where forced disarmament could ignite internal collapse rather than stability.
For Israel and its Western backers, disarmament is about securing borders and deterrence.
For many in Lebanon and across the Muslim world, it is about sovereignty, dignity, and the right to resist occupation — principles that cannot be negotiated away.
As diplomatic envoys circulate and threats escalate, Lebanon stands again at a crossroads:
submit to foreign dictates, or hold fast to its right of self-determination, however costly.
And as the world witnessed in Gaza, those who surrender their defences are left defenceless before aggression.
