بماذا سيرد لبنان على الورقة الأمريكية؟

Between the verbal escalation of "Hezbollah" and the American position insisting on a clear deadline before moving to more stringent measures, the most sensitive issue in Lebanon, "the fate of the party's weapons," is evolving, amid anticipation for the visit of American envoy Thomas Barak to Beirut in the coming hours to receive the official Lebanese response to his paper.

The remarks made by Hezbollah's Secretary-General Naeem Qassem a few hours ago left no room for doubt that the party refuses to hand over its weapons, considering the mere suggestion of the idea as "political naivety" that ignores the party's position and role. According to intersecting information, Hezbollah has informed those concerned that there is no need for a new agreement; rather, the international community and the countries sponsoring the ceasefire agreement should compel Israel to implement the existing agreement since 2006.

However, what is striking is that despite the clear escalation in the party's tone, there remains the possibility that the "negotiation task" will once again be handed over to the Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri, just as was done in the maritime border demarcation file and then in the ceasefire negotiations, where he left the details and formulations to Berri, while retaining the right to veto or tactical retreat when necessary. This may be repeated today regarding its weapons, albeit in an unannounced manner.

Meanwhile, the process of preparing the official Lebanese response to the American paper is being hastily completed, amid a race between external pressures and complex internal calculations. The response is expected to be delivered to the American envoy upon his arrival in the Lebanese capital on Monday.

As for Barak, he paved the way for his anticipated visit with a political message published through the "X" platform today (Saturday), stating: "The right moment has now come for Lebanon to transcend the sectarianism that has dominated the past... It is time to fulfill the true promise in Lebanon of one nation, one people, and one army." This message did not go unnoticed and was included in the context of indirect American pressures to confine weapons to the state and army, as a fundamental condition for any future international support.

In contrast, Israel did not hide its displeasure with the American paper, as the newspaper "Maariv" revealed today its details, reporting that it includes a security proposal based on the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the five points it entered in Lebanese territory, in exchange for the Lebanese army's commitment to dismantle Hezbollah's positions north of the Litani River.

According to the newspaper, the implementation will be gradual and in parallel phases, with the process concluding within six months, so that no Israeli soldier remains on Lebanese territory, and Hezbollah's military presence is eliminated in the area between the Litani and Beirut.

The paper itself reflects an American vision for a gradual settlement ending in disarmament, even if the term is not explicitly mentioned. However, what raises concern internally is whether the Lebanese response will be clear and decisive, or whether it will carry enough ambiguity to keep each party in its position, thus causing Lebanon to remain trapped in the same cycle that led it to collapse: political paralysis, disruption of reconstruction, and international economic blockade.

The question remains: Does Lebanon have a unified national formula to address Hezbollah's weapons? Or will the anticipated response on Monday be a formula "without taste, color, or smell," potentially opening the door to further confusion and accumulation of losses?

Only the coming days will reveal the extent to which this paper can reach... And whether the moment for the big decision has truly arrived?!