Lebanon weighs internal dialogue vs. external pressure: Army weapons plan faces delays

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

All signs pointed to the cabinet holding a session on September 2 to discuss the army’s plan to consolidate weapons, but ongoing internal consultations have pushed the meeting back to September 5.

Among the expected scenarios is that the session will convene, the army commander will present his proposal, and the meeting will then be adjourned for further review.

Consultations are therefore not over, though some signals have emerged. Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri said the U.S. proposal, if not accepted by Israel and Syria, would become meaningless.

Mitri’s remarks caused a stir, prompting the prime minister to stress in remarks to LBCI that the paper is Lebanese and that the government remains committed to the objectives it approved.

The “objectives” paper does not set a timetable but emphasizes, first and foremost, extending state authority over all Lebanese territory, upholding Resolution 1701, and reinforcing the state’s exclusive control over decisions of war and peace. 

The paper also received support from the Higher Islamic Council, which, for the first time, spoke so clearly about the exclusivity of arms.

Attention now turns to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s speech marking Imam Musa al-Sadr’s disappearance. 

Sources say Berri is expected to call for resolving issues through internal dialogue rather than yielding to outside pressures, stressing that national interest must be the basis for negotiations. 

He is also expected to present a vision for talks with the U.S., particularly in light of complications from recent discussions in Beirut, which brought Lebanon no tangible results despite earlier promises.

Berri is set to reaffirm keeping the army out of confrontations and not burdening it with the consequences of political decisions. His speech may also carry a message to Arab states.

The question now is whether the government will freeze its decision to set a timetable, especially given President Joseph Aoun’s earlier statement that the U.S. proposal requires approval from both Syria and Israel, and instead delay implementation based on the military institution’s security and operational considerations.

This question is particularly pressing as Hezbollah continues to insist that Israel fully comply with the ceasefire terms before any progress is made toward consolidating weapons under state authority.