The various political forces are dealing with the confirmation of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem, that he is repositioning himself under the umbrella of the “Taif Agreement,” as he wanted to preempt the American promises to reach a ceasefire, by defining the main titles of the roadmap in his approach to the stage after the return of calm to southern Lebanon, with Israel withdrawing from the areas it has penetrated in preparation for the implementation of international resolution “1701,” and promising that it comes in the context of the party’s readiness to cross from the region - i.e. the field - into the Lebanese interior via the Taif gate.

The terms that Qassem has set in his approach to the post-ceasefire phase indicate, as political sources told Asharq Al-Awsat, his desire to Lebaneseize the party’s orientations to the point of engaging in political activity, in exchange for reducing his level of interest in what is happening in the region in light of his assessment of the reactions resulting from his unilateral decision to support Gaza, which has caused division among the Lebanese.

The sources believe that the party cannot ignore the facts imposed by its decision to support Gaza, most notably its lack of support from its allies in the “Axis of Resistance,” and that it was almost alone in the confrontation. They confirm that its authorization of the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, to negotiate with the American mediator, Amos Hochstein, and their reaching an agreement on a draft to restore calm to the south, inevitably means that there is no place in the draft to link the Gaza and southern fronts and support Hamas.

Party withdrawal

The same sources point out that the party’s failure to object to the draft means its implicit approval of evacuating the deployment area south of the Litani and withdrawing from it, in addition to the fact that the rules of engagement in effect since the issuance of Resolution 1701 in August 2006 have become effectively cancelled, similar to the termination of the effect of the balance of terror that had kept the exchange of fire between them under control.

The same sources say that the party has no choice but to withdraw inward, and that what has been achieved so far has remained limited to reaching a ceasefire, the validity of which is pending American promises, while the Lebanese-Syrian borders are no longer open to deliver weapons to the party, after it was decided to control them similar to the model that the army applied to Rafik Hariri International Airport, and to prevent all forms of smuggling to and from Lebanon. In addition, the unity of the arenas was almost completely absent from the confrontation, and there was no effective presence of the “axis of resistance” with the Syrian regime withdrawing from it, in its desire to correct its relations with the international community, leading to the lifting of the siege imposed on it by the United States under the Caesar Act.

Larijani

In this context, the sources pause at what the senior advisor to the Iranian leader, Ali Larijani, said to a delegation from the “Axis of Resistance” who met him during his visit to Beirut: “Iran wants to deliver aid to Lebanon, but the blockade imposed on us by land, sea and air prevents us from sending it, and we have no choice but to confirm that we are partners in the reconstruction.”

And you ask whether the party's joining the "Taif Agreement", which is a safe haven for everyone to cross Lebanon to safety, comes in the context of conducting a critical review under the title of correcting the Lebanese-Arab relations that have cracked due to its bias towards the "axis of resistance", and making Lebanon a platform for sending messages instead of neutralizing it from the conflicts raging in the region? And has it become convinced that it has no choice but to reach a ceasefire, despite Israel delaying its approval of it while it continues its destruction of large areas, which opens the door to the question of the fate of the American promises, and whether Tel Aviv is entrusted with choosing the appropriate time to announce the end of the war?

Positioned under the roof of "Taif"

She did not rule out the role of Berri in advising the party on the necessity of turning inward and positioning itself under the umbrella of the “Taif Agreement,” especially since the international community, with all its components, advises the opposition to extend a hand to cooperate with it to get Lebanon out of its accumulated crises.

She says that the party is wary of the developments that accompanied its support for Gaza, and asks whether it has decided to reconsider its calculations in light of the fact that its bet on Iran’s intervention was misplaced, because what matters to it is preserving the regime and providing it with protection, taking into consideration the possibility of its position in the region weakening?

Therefore, the party’s decision to restore the Taif Agreement means that it is showing its readiness to engage in political activity in search of solutions to save Lebanon after it became certain, according to the sources, that the surplus power it enjoys will not be spent in the political equation, and that there is a need to search for channels leading to communication with its partners in the country, first and foremost the opposition, with the country preparing to enter a new political phase immediately after reaching a ceasefire that would give priority to electing a president, so that he can take it upon himself to implement what was agreed upon to implement “1701.”

Accordingly, it is necessary to be patient to allow room for reactions, whether from the opposition or the centrists, to the roadmap drawn by Qassem in preparation for moving the party to a new political phase. This requires him not to bully his opponents and to be open and flexible and realistic in order to get the election of the president out of the stagnation and complete the implementation of “Taif”, in return for treating him in kind and not acting in a way that suggests that they want to weaken him in restoring the country’s institutions, under the pretext that his strength today is no longer what it was in the past, before his monopoly in supporting Gaza, and the resulting decline in Iranian influence, in conjunction with the ineffectiveness of the unity of the arenas that make up the striking force of the “axis of resistance”, which did not play a role, even to modest extents, in providing support to the party as it is its strongest arm in the region. Therefore, there is a need to embrace it to restore it to the state project.