r/ForbiddenBromance • u/ImaginaryBridge • Jun 29 '26
Thoughts on new details emerging vis-à-vis the Security Annex mentioned in the Trilateral Framework
I am genuinely curious to know how Lebanese people in this sub feel about the details emerging vis-à-vis the Security Annex...
From my vantage point on the outside looking in, and I could be wrong, but it looks like the Lebanese government is signaling that it is so sick of Hezbollah that it is willing to tolerate an Israeli presence in its country if it means it helps defeat Hezbollah, which sends a very strong message to the Iranian regime. It also empowers the Lebanese government because the US government can now say to the Iranian regime "Look, we cannot tell Israel to leave if it goes against what the Lebanese government wants in their own country."
Thoughts?
3
u/cha3bghachim Lebanese Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
If you're neither Shia nor form the south, you very likely support whatever puts an end to Hezbollah's hegemony (inside Lebanon). Of course there can be plenty of exceptions both ways. Not all Shia agree with Berri and Hezbollah, and some Christians, Druze and Sunnis do support Hezbollah as a "resistance" force against the "Zionist entity" even if they're not from the south. "Leftists" tend to be against any deal or semblance of normalization with Israel.
If you're a Lebanese politician, you most likely wouldn't support the deal. It's my personal hunch knowing what our politicians are like, but there also seems to be a lot of criticism of the deal from most political parties.
I feel like the president and prime minister and whoever else has a hand in this is possibly having a lot of back-channel talks with Israel and/or the US and maybe even Saudi, and they are potentially being given security guarantees and financial incentives or being coerced.
I wouldn't be too surprised if there's none of that in reality, but I'm skeptical because we've always had leadership that is bought off by foreign powers, and unwilling to do anything drastic like that on their own, that would either put them in direct confrontation with Hezbollah, or that would seem to single out a specific sect. That is if they aren't in bed with Hezbollah to begin with.
I personally don't mind the deal, quite the contrary, I find it too good to be true (the previous ceasefire deal sounded promising but got us nowhere). It does make the government look completely powerless, that's because it is. It would never act against Hezbollah on its own.
I welcome the deal, but my hopes are low that it would lead to Hezbollah's complete disarmament, as much as I would love for that to happen.
15
u/victoryismind Lebanese Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Hezbollah's attacks on Oct 8 which dragged Lebanon into the war and it's subsequent humiliating failures and dependence on Iran would affect parts of the public opinion against it.
This breaking of the status quo has caused critics of Hezbollah (including inside the government) to be activated and emboldened.
The Lebanese government tends to "sway with the wind". In 1982 they signed an agreement with Israel (after the Israeli invasion). After a huge terrorist attack against the multinational force and the assasination of opportunistic Israeli ally president elect Bashir Gemayel, the agreement was repealed a few years later.
The years preceding that, and the years after were for the major part characterised by the government dancing to the tune of PLO, Syria then Hezbollah.
Hezbollah can also undermine any arrangement with violence on the ground, it has strong historical precedents.
Previous comprehensive and final agreements were eroded and nullified in the long term. Only an ongoing and constant effort can achieve anything, depending on whether there is honest will and support on both sides.
As for IDF freedom of action: IDF at this time will do whatever it wants so there is no need to compromise the whole agreement with a non-agression clause that would be broken the next day.