On the occasion of the 48th anniversary of the disappearance of Imam Moussa al-Sadr, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri took to the podium, delivering a speech marked by the significance of the occasion while also conveying political messages on the domestic and regional fronts. Berri laid out his political position in six points, beginning with the principles of civil peace, national unity and the army as red lines that must not be crossed or compromised. He stressed that confronting Israel requires a national approach, far removed from any sectarian or confessional calculations. Berri presented his position that the south is an inseparable part of Lebanon, and that preserving and defending it is the responsibility of the state and its military and constitutional institutions. At the same time, he stressed that what Israel is seeking is not Hezbollah, its weapons, the Amal Movement or the Shiite community; rather, Lebanon itself is the target, in its unity and civil peace.
Having established these principles, the Parliament Speaker moved on to outlining his red lines and reaffirming established positions. He rejected the creation of a security belt or buffer zone and refused to relinquish Lebanon’s right to pursue legal action against Israel over its crimes. He also reiterated his rejection of the framework agreement, describing his position as an exercise of democratic rights. He recalled his warning against direct negotiations under fire and in the absence of national consensus, summarizing the outcome of the negotiating rounds in one conclusion: an expansion of the occupied territory and an increase in the scale of destruction.
Moving beyond domestic messages, Berri reaffirmed his commitment to the Taif Agreement, warning against gambling with projects of partition and federalism.
Turning to broader regional developments, he expressed his support for the efforts of Arab countries and Pakistan aimed at ending tensions in the region, including between Iran and its neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Berri concluded his annual speech marking the anniversary of Imam Moussa al-Sadr’s disappearance, leaving behind a series of messages whose implications will become clearer in the days ahead.
On the Lebanese-European diplomatic front, today’s stop was Athens, which has positioned itself as a mediator between the anticipated Rome talks and the expected Paris meeting. From Athens, President Joseph Aoun raised the level of Lebanon’s message, saying that Lebanon and its people have grown weary of wars and that diplomacy is the best solution. He stressed that the goal of negotiations is to end the state of hostility.
But Aoun did not call for diplomacy without conditions. He demanded the full implementation of the framework agreement by both sides, without selectivity, and called for assistance in guaranteeing its implementation. Lebanon’s official position, in this regard, is that it wants an agreement that is implemented, not one from which Israel selects only what suits it. Lebanon wants a ceasefire, not a truce under which shelling continues. And it wants international guarantees, not promises left at the mercy of developments on the ground and Benjamin Netanyahu’s election campaigns.
Lebanon is not operating in a vacuum. The region remains suspended between two scenarios: a renewed US-Iran confrontation that could draw Lebanon into the conflict, or the establishment of a settlement that would have direct implications for Lebanon as a key part of the broader file.
Along the Washington-Tehran track, and following the overnight escalation, the confrontation has moved into the realm of artificial intelligence weapons and high-pitched rhetoric. After US President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated video depicting the destruction of Iran’s Kharg oil island, Trump returned to a tone of verbal escalation, threatening to strike Iran with force.
Amid these threats, the Strait of Hormuz stands at the heart of the confrontation. The distance separating the opposing sides is only a few kilometers, but the consequences of any flare-up there could shake the region and global economic markets. The battle over the strait is evolving from a regional conflict into a confrontation over influence, in a strategic passage where every move is calculated and every message carries a threat extending far beyond its borders.