– Muhammad Alloush
The US Central Command’s prior announcement of the schedule of “mechanism” meetings until May indicates that we are experiencing a very delicate political and military moment at the internal and regional levels. This step in itself confirms that Washington has not yet decided on breaking the current framework for border control, following up on attacks, and implementing the “supposed” agreement, and that it is still looking at this path as a channel for managing the crisis, until the picture becomes clear.
Follow-up political sources clarify that setting a date for a regular monthly meeting does not necessarily mean maintaining the current formula, but rather it means keeping the room open for subsequent amendments to the form and content. The sources confirm that Lebanon has not yet been officially informed whether the upcoming meetings of the mechanism will be held with all its military and civilian members as usual, or whether they will be limited to the military framework only. The sources believe that this ambiguity reflects a clear American reluctance to decide on the final path.
According to the sources, Washington agreed in principle to maintain the “mechanisms” committee and not cancel it, but at the same time it is seriously considering separating the two tracks: maintaining military coordination within the committee, and transferring any negotiations of a political or civil nature to another framework, which the Americans assume will be a tripartite, including Lebanon, Israel, and the United States.
Sources indicate that this idea is not new today, but has resurfaced strongly in recent weeks, as it is a formula that satisfies the Americans and serves the Israeli vision.
On the other hand, the Lebanese position, according to the same sources, was decisive in terms of refusing to cancel the mechanism. For Beirut, this committee represents one of the last frameworks that establish practical recognition of the ceasefire agreement and International Resolution 1701, the implementation of which Lebanon is striving to demonstrate. Therefore, the state considers that bypassing the mechanism towards direct tripartite negotiations constitutes, in the eyes of the Lebanese, a concession that paves the way for the establishment of new facts on the ground.
It seems that the American delay in deciding its options in Lebanon is linked to more than one factor. One of these factors, as the sources suggest, is waiting for the outcome of the open confrontation with Iran, or at least the direction of the regional winds in the coming weeks. Washington does not want to completely blow up the Lebanese-Israeli track, and seeks to preserve the status quo, even if temporarily.
Another no less important factor relates to the upcoming visit of the Lebanese Army Commander to Washington, and the discussions it will bring about the role of the military establishment in the next stage, especially with regard to the northern Litani and the arms control plan.
In this context, it becomes understandable why the idea of tripartite negotiation has not been cancelled, but has not yet been implemented. According to the sources, Lebanon has not officially received any final decision in this regard, and therefore officials consider that the idea is postponed and stored away, waiting for a political moment that the Americans consider more mature and appropriate to impose it, whether through security pressure, or by linking it to other tracks related to aid or general stability.
Likewise, the sources understand setting the mechanism meetings once every month until May as a message that the Americans are not about to activate the committee’s work or intensify its meetings, which reinforces the hypothesis of “postponing” or “waiting” that America has taken. Therefore, what is happening today, according to the sources, is just time management.
Therefore, the continuation of mechanism meetings cannot be considered an indication of reassurance, nor an indication of long-term stability. Rather, it is an expression of a transitional phase in which Lebanon will remain open to all possibilities, in a region witnessing major political tremors that may at one moment turn into a widespread earthquake.
