The fury in the Shiite camp in Lebanon – ahead of the meeting at the Pentagon

Ahead of the opening of the talks today (Friday) at the Pentagon between military delegations from Israel and Lebanon, the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Navia Berri is sending a double message: resolute opposition to direct negotiations with Israel – along with a deep fear that Lebanon is entering the room without bargaining chips. Berri, who is considered one of the key players in the Shia camp, clarifies that for him the only goal now is a real ceasefire and halting the deterioration in the south of the country.

• Today, a direct security talks route will be opened in the Pentagon between an Israeli military delegation and a Lebanese military delegation, with American mediation and supervision.
• The group is expected to include three Lebanese representatives, three Israeli officers in the rank of brigadier general and three senior officers from the American army.
• The purpose of the talks is to examine an alternative to the cease-fire mechanism from November 2024, which Washington and Jerusalem consider to have failed in implementation.
• As far as Israel is concerned, the main goal is to tie any further Israeli withdrawal and any reduction in military activity to actual steps by the Lebanese army against Hezbollah’s infrastructure in the south of the country.
• Israel is expected to present a “carrot and stick” approach: continued attacks and military pressure on the one hand, along with a willingness to reduce activity – if Lebanon operates on the ground.
• From the point of view of the US, the talks are aimed at strengthening the control of the Lebanese army in the south of the country and creating a more effective control mechanism on the border, in the face of disappointment with the previous control mechanisms, which they claim led to only partial Lebanese enforcement.
• One of the main challenges is the question of the ability and willingness of the Lebanese government to deal with Hezbollah and to impose the rule of the state in the areas where the organization operates.
• In the background of the talks is also increasing American pressure on Beirut, including sanctions against Lebanese officials and warnings that aid to the Lebanese army will not continue, without real progress.

“I don’t know what will happen there, and I don’t want to know,” said Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabia Berri, emphasizing that his priority at this stage is securing a ceasefire and dealing with the refugee crisis, in light of the ongoing Israeli escalation and the growing displacement in southern Lebanon.

He stated that he is aware of the composition of the meeting, which includes three Lebanese officers, three IDF officers in the rank of brigadier general and three senior officers in the American army, but confirmed that he does not know what the Lebanese delegation will bring to the meeting and does not want to know. “I’m just asking for a break. We don’t have anything else.”

Berry claimed that previous ceasefire agreements were not respected, and claimed: “We reached a ceasefire agreement four times, and none of them were respected. We are now in a 45-day ceasefire without a real ceasefire, while the war continues and the destruction expands in the cities of southern Lebanon, without any real guarantee.”

The Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament came out against the very holding of direct negotiations and claimed that Lebanon is coming to him from a position of weakness, without levers of pressure. “I am against direct negotiations. I have always been this way and will remain this way, because we go to him with nothing to negotiate. Whoever sits at the negotiating table – must have cards to play in order to make a profit and sit with an enemy on a minimal level of equality and balance. What are we going there with? Nothing, not a single card to play.”

He stated that “every mediator has a personal interest in the success of his mission and in extracting concessions from both sides”, which he says is lacking in the current direct negotiations.

At the same time, Berry expressed a clear objection to the words of Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Kassem, regarding the threat to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam through street protests. “I do not agree with him, and it is unnecessary to say such things. I was uncomfortable about it, and we resolved the issue quickly,” he said, revealing that the leaders of the Amal movement and Hezbollah held two meetings in the following days to “correct” this position.

As for the regional efforts, Berry emphasized the importance of Iran’s role in pushing for a ceasefire in southern Lebanon, and emphasized that Tehran informed Lebanon that it will not reach any agreement with the United States that does not include Lebanon as a central component, even if it has to abandon the entire agreement.

According to American sources quoted in the Nida’ al-Watan newspaper, “the very opening of the military talks today indicates that both sides still see value in trying to test a new framework, even if expectations remain low.”

As far as Israel is concerned, the talks provide a possible route to reduce its military exposure along the northern border, without giving up its basic security requirements. As far as Lebanon is concerned, they provide an opportunity to gradually restore the state’s authority, while trying to gain breathing space from the ongoing Israeli military activity.

But according to the same sources, the window of opportunity may be limited. According to them, the military route is not only concerned with the deployment of forces, surveillance mechanisms or Hezbollah’s weapons depots, but constitutes a much broader test: whether the Lebanese state is able to translate its official sovereignty into effective control on the ground, and whether Israel will be willing to adjust the scope of the use of force according to the progress made by Beirut.

The American sources emphasized that the crisis of trust between the parties remains deep. Israel doubts Lebanon’s willingness and ability to act against Hezbollah significantly, while Lebanon doubts Israel’s willingness to stop the attacks even if understandings are reached.