Eurasia Press & News
On July 9, 2025, the Janoubia.com website, which opposes Hizbullah, reported that the Iran-backed militia had put its forces in the southern suburb of Beirut and in the Beqaa Valley on extensive alert, after it rejected the American initiative proposed by the U.S. Special Envoy to Syria and Lebanon Thomas Barrack. The proposal tables by the U.S. envoy included a dismantling of the military infrastructure of the organization in Lebanon, in exchange for security guarantees and the gradual lifting of current sanctions imposed on Lebanon.[1]
Although Hizbullah has not issued an official statement in this regard, the remarks by Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem on July 8, 2025, dispelled all doubt, clearly declaring the party’s rejection of the American proposal, describing it as a “disguised Zionist project.” Qassem emphasized that “the resistance’s weapons are not subject to negotiation” and that “the party is prepared for all scenarios, including a comprehensive war.”[2]
A Cautious And Ambiguous Official Lebanese Response
According to the article, the official response from the Lebanese government to the American paper remains confidential, amid reports of domestic disagreements in Lebanon. Media reports speculated that the response was neither a direct rejection, nor an approval of the American initiative, and that the need to achieve national consensus remains the defining factor to any solution, rather than “external dictates.”
Al-Janoubia argued that the official response proposed a formula of gradual dialogue that takes into account the uniqueness of the Lebanese situation and “preserves sovereign principles.” Such an approach was seen as ambiguous by some, and as a cover for Hizbullah’s non-negotiable rejection of any clause in a potential agreement that pertains to its weapons.
The article further highlighted the tense diplomatic situation involving the Lebanese government, Hizbullah, and the United States, with Western diplomats interpreting Lebanon’s cautious stance as an attempt to avoid direct confrontation with either Hizbullah or the U.S.
Further, the article described the “stalemate” as a strategy to buy time, which, it argued, would make the U.S. consider imposing sanctions against individuals or entities, including Hizbullah and allies, and possibly government officials perceived as obstructing diplomatic progress by aligning with the resistance and delaying full engagement with any proposed initiative.
Alert In The Southern Suburbs
Hizbullah’s rejection of the initiative, as proposed, was accompanied by a series of notable field movements in the southern suburbs and the Bekaa Valey: the increased level of readiness of mobilization units and logistical support groups, and a partial call-up of elite members of the pro-Iran, pro-Palestinian “True Promise” campaign in the south.
Some roads leading to Hizbullah’s command centers have been closed to civilian traffic, which indicates the group’s readiness for any developments, whether on the domestic level or Israeli front. Additionally, the Lebanese Army was officially informed to reduce military movements in the southern regions “to avoid friction,” which reflects the existence of real tension that could escalate at any moment.
Revoking HTS Terror Designation: A “Security And Political Declaration Of War” Against Iran And Hizbullah
Linking the developments in Lebanon to elsewhere in the region, namely Syria, the article contends that the recent U.S. revocation of the designation of Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) as a foreign terrorist entity, was perceived by Iran and Hizbullah as a “security and political declaration of war.”
The article stated: “Hizbullah’s escalation also falls within the context of Iranian concerns about major regional developments, including the potential reshaping of the military and political map in Syria and Iraq.”
Discussing the repercussions of regional tensions, particularly fears that the successive developments would bring Iranian-Israeli tensions to the forefront, possibly leading to a direct confrontation, the article warned that Lebanon remains at the center of the storm, given its geographical location as well as Hizbullah’s vital role in Iran’s “equation of deterrence.”
Test Of Intentions: Hizbullah Considers Confrontation, While The Government Is Caught Between The Resistance And Foreign Interests
After the U.S. envoy’s visit to Lebanon ended and his proposal was made public, the door opened to “countless possibilities,” the piece suggested, from an incomplete understanding to an open confrontation, through a course of sanctions that could overthrow what remains of the Lebanese state institutions.
The stalemate carries the possibility that the Lebanese political forces may be forced to “make tough choices,” including a restructuring of the government or an “Iraqi-style” settlement.
It also stressed that Washington, threatening but not escalating, had made its message clear to all Lebanese parties: “There is no going back.”
As for Hizbullah’s position, the group appears prepared to go all the way in rejecting the initiative, “even if that requires a limited or comprehensive military confrontation.” Meanwhile, the Lebanese state is in the position of a “bystander” or “hostage” between the logic of resistance and foreign interests, and the party’s weapons and the fate of the people, the piece concluded.
