In a radical shift in the Lebanese political and security landscape, the Lebanese cabinet today (Monday) made a historic decision to ban the activities of Hezbollah, following recent tensions and the rocket fire that took place Sunday night. The government considered these actions a blatant violation of the principle of state sovereignty and the exclusive right of official institutions to decide on matters of war and peace.

This pivotal decision came after lengthy and arduous deliberations within the corridors of power, officially enshrining the government's position of prohibiting any military or security activity outside the framework of legitimate institutions (the army and security forces). For the first time, this measure establishes a clear executive and legal framework for holding the party accountable and compelling it to abide by Lebanese law and the decisions of the executive authority, thus ending years of duplication in security decision-making.

Details of the government decision and Nawaf Salam's position

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced this firm stance immediately following an emergency cabinet meeting held this morning at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, which coincided with intense Israeli air activity and airstrikes. Salam stated: “In accordance with the Constitution, the National Accord Document, and the ministerial statement, we declare that the decision of war and peace is the exclusive right of the Lebanese state, and any faction that deviates from this consensus will be held legally accountable.”.

Historical and constitutional background

This decision is based on the fundamental principles of the Lebanese Constitution and the 1989 Taif Agreement (National Reconciliation Document), which ended the Lebanese Civil War and explicitly stipulated the dissolution of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and the surrender of their weapons to the state. Hezbollah's weapons have long been a major point of contention in Lebanese politics, with successive national dialogue sessions failing to produce a unified defense strategy that would place all weapons under the command of the Lebanese army.

International dimensions and Resolution 1701

Internationally, this government move aligns with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted after the July 2006 war, which calls for the area south of the Litani River to be free of any weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL. This step comes at a time when Lebanon is facing immense international pressure to remain neutral in regional conflicts to avoid a full-blown war that could destroy what remains of the country's economic resources.

The implications and importance of the decision

The significance of this event lies in it being the first time the executive branch has dared to take a decision of this magnitude, reflecting an awareness of the gravity of the situation. The decision primarily aims to protect Lebanon from direct military targeting by removing pretexts for such action and to send a message to the international community that the Lebanese state is serious about asserting its sovereignty. However, the real test lies in the implementation mechanisms and the ability of the security and judicial apparatuses to enforce this ban on the ground, given the delicate political balances governing the country.

Political tensions have escalated across the Atlantic, with former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump expressing "great disappointment" with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This displeasure stems from Starmer's refusal to allow the United States to use the strategic Diego Garcia airbase for potential military strikes against Iran, according to an exclusive interview published today (Monday) in the British newspaper The Telegraph.

In detailing the dispute, Trump strongly criticized current British policy regarding shared strategic assets, describing Diego Garcia as a vital site for both US and British national security. He warned the British government against proceeding with the agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (which includes the base) to Mauritius, arguing that such a move could weaken Western influence in the Indian Ocean region.

Background to the controversial agreement

To understand the context of Trump's anger, one must return to the recent British announcement transferring sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after decades of international legal dispute. Although the agreement includes a clause allowing the UK and the US to continue operating the military base for 99 years, Trump views this as a "precarious lease" that could jeopardize future military operations, especially given Mauritius's growing diplomatic and economic ties with rival international powers.

The strategic importance of Diego Garcia

This island derives its importance from its unique geographical location in the heart of the Indian Ocean, far removed from any other landmass. Its closest neighbors are Madagascar, the Comoros Islands, the Seychelles, and the French island of Réunion. This geographical isolation has made it an ideal platform for covert military operations and logistical support for the US Air Force and Navy in the Middle East and Asia. The base played a pivotal role in the Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan, and it remains a crucial hub for monitoring vital waterways.

Repercussions of the British rejection

Starmer's refusal to allow the use of the base for operations against Iran points to a divergence of views between the British Labour government and the Republican approach under Trump in the United States regarding the Iranian nuclear issue and the escalating tensions in the Middle East. Observers believe this disagreement could cast a shadow on the "special relationship" between Washington and London, especially if Trump returns to the White House, as he insists that the British Prime Minister must not relinquish full control of Diego Garcia for any reason, considering reliance on lease agreements rather than full sovereignty a reckless strategic risk.

In a dangerous escalation marking a turning point in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and on the third day of open warfare, the Israeli army officially announced it had carried out a series of intense airstrikes on the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Monday. International news agencies and local residents reported hearing massive explosions that shook the city, causing residential and commercial buildings in the city center to sway, reflecting the severity of the military escalation.

Details of the attacks and declared targets

Iranian media outlets reported initial details of the losses and targets, indicating joint US-Israeli involvement in the operations. According to these reports, the airstrikes targeted a sensitive Iranian police center—specifically, the department responsible for protecting diplomatic missions in Tehran—carrying significant political and security implications. Simultaneously, images circulating online showed extensive damage to the central intelligence building in Mahabad, suggesting that the strikes extended to command, control, and intelligence centers outside the capital as well.

Iranian response: Targeting the top of the Israeli pyramid

In a swift and direct response, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issued an urgent statement, carried by the Fars News Agency, claiming responsibility for precision missile attacks targeting deep inside Israel. The statement asserted that Iranian forces directly targeted the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the headquarters of the Israeli Air Force, in an attempt to strike at the centers of political and military decision-making in Tel Aviv.

From shadow war to direct confrontation

This escalation brings to an end decades of what was known as the "shadow war" between Tehran and Tel Aviv, where the two sides routinely exchanged blows through cyberattacks, targeting ships, or using regional proxies. The shift to direct shelling of capitals (Tehran and Tel Aviv) places the entire region on the brink of a conflagration, as these operations transcend the traditional rules of engagement that have prevailed for years, raising the specter of a full-blown regional war that could necessitate widespread international intervention.

Potential regional and international repercussions

This violent exchange of fire raises international concerns about potentially disastrous consequences for the stability of the Middle East, particularly regarding the security of energy routes and global oil prices. Furthermore, the alleged US involvement in the strikes on Tehran—as claimed by Iran—could broaden the conflict to include US bases in the region, presenting international diplomacy with a difficult challenge in containing the situation before it's too late.