Beirut – The change to the runway of Beirut’s international diplomatic flights reflects the escalation of regional and international tensions.
Iran’s top national security council chief Ali Larijani visited Beirut from August 13th to 14th. Just a few days later, on August 17th, US envoys Thomas Barrack and Morgan Ortagus arrived in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia’s Yazid bin Fahan is expected to visit Beirut in the near future.
It is worth noting that the Barracks visit was primarily intended to inform Lebanese officials that Morgan Ortags would take over responsibility for the Lebanese portfolio.
Sources confirmed with the Tehran Times that Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, Larijani and Saya Abdulmalik Al-Houthi, leader of the Yemeni Ansal Allah movement, had undermined Washington’s calculations.
These voice duties were discussed at a meeting with Barracks President Joseph Own, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Speaker of the Congress, Nabi Beli.
This was asked about Lebanese military commander Rodolph Heikal, as well as his assessment that military facilities might take to disarm Shiite Hezbollah, commonly known as resistance.
General Haikal’s response was that the army would not take any action that could harm the peace in Lebanon.
This was seen as a decisive response to the American forces by the Lebanese army, and forced the army to carry out everything ordered by the government.
Sources from the Tehran Times believe this has prompted Lebanese officials to demand that Washington ensure that a step by the Nawaf Salam government involves a corresponding step by Israeli occupation entities, especially after the Cabinet voted to disarm Hezbollah within the deadline rather than early next year.
Barracks did not miss an opportunity to deceive the Lebanese. In addition to his claim that the problem with the Resistance weapons is a local event, the step of disarming resistance is “in the interests of Shiites.”
Sources further believe that Aoun and Salam’s position reflect a serious fear of the political and general consequences of the decision to disarm resistance.
Aoun and Salam were clearly assuming that Shia communities would acquiesce, but were surprised that they were ready to defend their weapons, even if they meant to engage in a “battle like Karbala.”
The Nawaf Salam government reportedly underscored the need to support Lebanese forces who lack the necessary capabilities or carry out missions only, and the need to renew UNIFIL’s mandate in the South.
Sources say that the continued aggressive actions of Israeli enemies over the past two weeks, combined with Israeli Chief Eyal Zamir’s political position in refusing to withdraw from his withdrawal from the post in southern Lebanon, has greatly embarrassed the Salam government.
It is worth noting that, especially after the decision on Hezbollah’s weapons, Israeli occupation forces strengthened one of their positions on the outskirts of Adaise and expanded security guard posts to the outskirts of Kfar Kila.
Sources from the Tehran Times point out that the two American envoys were ultimately forced to insist that Israel needed to follow. However, the American deception remains obvious.
This “serene” atmosphere was followed last year by the assassination of Fouad Shukr, a senior commander of Hezbollah. And America’s relief in the first week of the US-led Israeli attack was followed by the assassination of Saeed Nasrara.
Therefore, sources say that caution is required and America is not reliable.