BEIRUT – As tensions rise in Lebanon, the Lebanese Army’s (LF) obstruction of parliament is more than just a procedural obstruction. Rather, it reflects a calculated political maneuver intricately tied to domestic, regional, and international dynamics.
What appears on the surface to be a parliamentary drama is actually a sophisticated chess game, with Lebanon caught between external pressures and internal political arrangements.
In recent weeks, threats from the United States and the Zionist regime Israel against Lebanon have intensified, centering on Hezbollah’s arsenal.
US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack has announced that his next visit to Beirut may be his last, warning that without direct negotiations with Israel to disarm Hezbollah, Lebanon cannot be protected from Israeli attack.
This is no longer symbolic rhetoric. The U.S. government is trying to impose a strategic reality that will neutralize Hezbollah’s military capabilities, or at least keep them under strict surveillance. Israeli intelligence information shared with Washington reportedly indicates Hezbollah’s ongoing reconstruction efforts and possible operations against Israeli targets abroad.
President Joseph Aoun reportedly warned foreign mediators that any attempt to forcibly remove Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal risks sparking a civil war.
This places Lebanon in a complex equation. This means balancing compliance with international demands while protecting domestic stability and preventing escalation.
Amid this pressure from the US and Israel, Egyptian intelligence chief Major General Hassan Rashad is visiting Beirut after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sources said his role was defined as diplomatic and coordinating, acting as a complement to the barracks threat.
Rashad’s visit underscores Egypt’s proactive mediation aimed at calming tensions, supporting Lebanon’s security and laying the foundations for a political solution, building on the momentum from the alleged Gaza and Sharm el-Sheikh agreements to “stabilize” the region.
Calculated movement of LF
Domestically, the LF is seeking a postponement of parliamentary elections to strengthen Christian political power and maintain influence in parliament.
Since the 2022 elections, LF leader Samir Geagea has sought to strengthen his party as the “spearhead of the opposition” to the Hezbollah-Amal Free Patriotic Movement axis.
The decline of the Future Movement under Saad Hariri’s government presents an opportunity, but the 2022 results will reveal vulnerabilities in some constituencies, raising the stakes if the elections go ahead as planned.
Postponing the elections would allow the LF to regroup, align itself with potential foreign voters, and manipulate adjustments to electoral laws to protect its interests.
This strategy is also connected to Geagia’s presidential ambitions. Maintaining a strong parliamentary and political position will be critical to his future candidacy.
Paradoxically, while Geagia openly attacks Nabi Berri and calls parliament a “hostage” of the Hezbollah-Amal duo, there is evidence of quiet collaboration between the LF and Beri-aligned MPs.
The closed-door meetings and behind-the-scenes negotiations reflect a keen awareness of Lebanon’s fragile political balance and a preference to wait for favorable conditions rather than risk destabilization.
Internally, the Lebanese Forces (LF) has strengthened party discipline by boycotting parliament and using organized digital media campaigns to strengthen party cohesion. The broader goals are twofold. One is to protect the influence of Congress, and the other is to shape election law reform to solidify future gains.
Israel’s unconcealed concern over Hezbollah’s ambiguity
Israeli media and military analysts continue to amplify the threat to Lebanon, focusing on Hezbollah’s military resilience and potential for retaliation.
Most notably, Israeli General Tamir Heyman publicly suggested that disarming Hezbollah remains theoretical, given the Lebanese state’s inability to directly confront Hezbollah.
Intermittent Israeli attacks aim to disrupt rather than destroy Hezbollah’s capabilities, while Iran quietly supports Hezbollah’s recovery. This calculated ambiguity allows Hezbollah to maintain deterrence without an outright confrontation with the Lebanese government, maintaining a delicate internal balance.
On-the-ground intelligence indicates that Israel is ready for selective and targeted operations against Hezbollah positions. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is honing its missile and drone capabilities, strengthening its strategic deterrence while avoiding direct escalation. Israel continues to carefully manage tensions in the north, maintaining plausible deniability while demonstrating military readiness in coordination with UNIFIL.
Europe’s role and UNIFIL’s continuity
UN Security Council Resolution 2790 extended UNIFIL’s mandate until the end of 2026, supporting Lebanon’s security balance amid US and Israeli pressure. European powers (France, Italy, Germany, and Spain) seek to maintain influence in Lebanon through logistical support, technical surveillance, and southern patrols, while carefully avoiding provoking Tel Aviv.
In particular, France has used its permanent presence to manage ceasefire issues, while Italy has strengthened its military-technical committee in South Lebanon (MTC4L) to maintain influence without engaging in direct combat. In particular, the reduction in UNIFIL funding by the United States has required creative adjustments to maintain a European presence, indicating that international actors are rebalancing their influence to avoid open conflict.
Strategy equation: internal benefits vs external pressures
The LF’s parliamentary turmoil reflects a dual strategy. Internally, it positions Gear Gear to protect elections and political interests and potentially influence the president. Externally, it is consistent with the broader context of US and Israeli pressure to disarm Hezbollah and control Lebanon’s military posture.
The current balance suggests that any attempt to disarm Hezbollah is fraught with risks. Civil war is a real threat, and direct confrontation could destabilize the Lebanese state.
Meanwhile, the LF’s calculated postponement of parliament signals a cautious approach to hedging electoral risks, rebuilding internal alliances, and preparing for potential changes to electoral laws.
Lebanon’s stability therefore remains hostage to a complex interplay of domestic maneuvering and external coercion. While one wrong move could trigger a broader escalation, a carefully calibrated strategy aims to maintain influence, prevent civil war, and address regional pressures.
The Lebanese army’s tactical confusion is not just political theater. This is a carefully crafted strategy that balances internal ambitions, external pressures, and the unpredictable calculations of regional geopolitics.
GeaGia’s maneuvers reflect both prudence and audacity, using parliamentary rules, media influence, and party cohesion to maximize political influence.
Lebanon stands at a delicate crossroads. Domestic factions vie for influence, while external powers such as the United States, Israel, and Europe exert subtle and overt pressure. In this environment, postponing elections is more than just a political delay. It’s a strategic acrobatic stunt, a bizarre maneuver aimed at rebalancing power and protecting long-term interests in an increasingly volatile landscape.