By Ihab Shawki
As part of the ongoing campaign of incitement, threats, and war-mongering, US envoy Morgan Ortagus returned to Beirut to renew her warnings and reiterate a series of deadlines—continuing a pattern that began only months after the signing of the ceasefire agreement, which “Israel” has yet to abide by.
Over the past ten months, these threats and pressures have persisted with blatant interference that openly violates Lebanese sovereignty. A climate of intimidation and psychological warfare has been cultivated to instill the notion that war is inevitable unless Hezbollah yields and agrees to disarm.
A coordinated division of roles was deployed to manufacture this atmosphere—between US envoys visiting Lebanon, statements from “Israeli” and American politicians, and auxiliary efforts led by a media war that circulated a flood of anonymously sourced reports predicting that war was imminent. These reports were packaged with dramatic, attention-grabbing headlines such as “Time Is Running Out” and “The Clock Is Ticking,” all designed to generate psychological pressure on the public.
Several visits to Lebanon were also instrumentalized to reinforce this climate of fear, including the visit of the Egyptian intelligence chief, the Pope’s visit, and Barack’s trip to Iraq. Added to this was the publication of Netanyahu’s letter to the Zionist president requesting a pardon, in which he spoke of “extraordinary events” the region was about to witness—further feeding into the narrative of an inevitable escalation.
What stands out amid all this is the emotional composure of the resistance and its steadfast adherence to its principled stance, despite the torrent of threats and the relentless psychological warfare directed at it.
At this point, a brief review of the past ten months is warranted—months marked by continuous warnings of war alongside daily violations on the ground. These threats, amplified by “Israeli” media reports—and, regrettably, some Arab outlets as well—combined to construct a climate that ultimately serves “Israeli” interests and fuels internal discord in Lebanon, rather than fostering the unity needed to withstand the pressure. Such unity is precisely what could neutralize these threats and secure Lebanon’s safety, sovereignty, and dignity.
We can outline this sequence of events—and its most notable episodes—in chronological order as follows:
First: The Role of US Envoys, Their Threats and Imposed Deadlines
1. In February, the US envoy adopted an openly brazen posture despite the ongoing ceasefire agreement. Ortagus declared that Hezbollah had been “militarily defeated and that its era of intimidation in Lebanon and around the world is over”—a statement that was neither appropriate in timing nor context, and one that does not reflect the facts or the situation on the ground.
Ortagus did not stop there; she went further, intervening bluntly in Lebanon’s internal political process by stating that Washington was working to ensure that Hezbollah would not participate in the next Lebanese government.
2. On April 6, Morgan Ortagus escalated her rhetoric by invoking “Israeli” threats and hinting at an imposed deadline. In a televised interview, she stated:
“It is clear that Hezbollah must be disarmed, and it is clear that ‘Israel’ will not accept terrorists firing at it from within its territory—and that is a position we understand.”
When asked whether the United States had set a timeline for disarmament, Ortagus replied:
“As soon as possible.”
3. In June, during the Iran–“Israel” war, US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barak issued a warning from Beirut, stating that any Hezbollah involvement in the Iranian-Israeli conflict would be “a very, very bad decision.”
Barak told reporters:
“I can speak on behalf of President Trump, who has been very clear—along with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff—that this would be a very, very, very bad decision.”
During this period, reports emerged regarding Thomas Barak’s delivery of Washington’s demands during his visit to Beirut on June 19. Sources told Reuters that Barak had presented Lebanese officials with a written roadmap and informed them that he expected a response by July 1 regarding any proposed amendments. The six-page document, according to the sources, focused on the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups, urged Lebanon to improve relations with neighboring Syria, and called for the implementation of financial reforms.
This period also marked the introduction of explicit deadlines. According to the sources, Barak stated that full disarmament should be completed by November—or by the end of the year at the latest.
A direct threat was also reported, with Barak urging Lebanese officials to seize the “opportunity” presented in the roadmap, warning that it “may not be offered again.”
4. In July, the threats reached a new peak of brazenness and severity, as Barak hinted at the possible dissolution of the Lebanese state in its current form. In an interview with the Emirati newspaper The National, Barak warned that “Lebanon risks falling into the grip of regional powers unless Beirut addresses the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons stockpiles,” cautioning that the country “could face an existential threat.”
He went further, stating: “If Lebanon does not act, it will return to being part of Greater Syria once again.”
5. In August, as Hezbollah continued to hold its ground, the strategy shifted to a “carrot-and-stick” approach. During a conference at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, Thomas Barak noted that the Lebanese government had identified 11 key points and had pledged to adhere to them—the first of which was a plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament. He added that the United States would support Lebanon by involving Gulf states and establishing a new economic zone.
6. In October, Barak published an extensive statement on X, describing the situation in Lebanon and Syria as “the next step toward peace in the Arab East.” He reiterated calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament, warning that any further delays could prompt “Israel” to resume military action against Lebanon. He wrote: “If Beirut continues to hesitate, ‘Israel’ may act unilaterally, and the consequences will be severe.”
7. In November, the threats and intimidation reached a peak, escalating rapidly. At the beginning of the month, “Israel’s” Channel 13 reported that US envoy Thomas Barak had given the Lebanese army a deadline ending in late November to effect changes regarding Hezbollah’s weapons.
According to the report, Barak indicated that if no progress occurred, “Israel” would be able to carry out attacks, and the United States would understand.
Details began to emerge in the media: “Israel’s” Channel 13 stated that “the ‘Israeli’ army is preparing for a combat round that could last several days against Hezbollah, while ‘Israel’ is escalating threats to resume bombardment, hoping that pressure on the Lebanese government will lead to Hezbollah’s disarmament.”
Second: Exploiting Diplomatic Visits for Intimidation
1. In late October, the head of Egyptian intelligence visited Beirut. The visit was framed in the media with a sensational headline, described as a “surprise visit.” Media reports, serving the climate of fear, suggested that the visit was part of broader security and political coordination with Lebanon. The Egyptian ambassador to Lebanon was quoted as saying: “The developments in the scale and pace of ‘Israeli’ attacks call on us to be vigilant about what is happening.”
2. In mid-November, media reports covered another visit by the head of Egyptian intelligence. The reports indicated that the visit took place amid “extensive consultations” related to escalating tensions in southern Lebanon and trilateral communications between Egypt, the United States, and France.
3. On November 26, the Egyptian Foreign Minister visited Beirut, issuing a striking statement: “The entire region is on the brink of full-scale escalation.” He also emphasized Egypt’s support for the Lebanese government’s decision to maintain exclusive control over weapons within the country.
4. Media outlets widely circulated leaks regarding a meeting between U.S. envoy Thomas Barak and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani in Baghdad. Headlines suggested that Barak had stated that “‘Israel’ is preparing to launch a large-scale attack on Lebanon within days or weeks,” adding that any action by Iran-aligned Iraqi factions would provoke an ‘Israeli’ response capable of shaking Iraq, Syria and Jordan.
According to “Israel’s” i24News, Barak reportedly told Al-Sudani that “the upcoming ‘Israeli’ operation will be larger than previous ones.”
5. At the time when Lebanon—officially and publicly—was preparing to welcome Pope Leo XIV for his three-day visit, news outlets were flooded with leaks claiming that “Israel” was ready to launch war after the Pope’s departure. These reports were attributed to diplomatic circles that had recently visited Beirut.
Third: Netanyahu’s Letter to the “Israeli” President Requesting a Pardon
Even Netanyahu’s pardon request to the “Israeli” president carried undertones of threat and war-mongering, and it was leveraged to serve this “Israeli” agenda. In his letter, Netanyahu wrote that “the coming months will witness extraordinary events in the Middle East, requiring massive preparations and round-the-clock diplomatic and security efforts.”
In summary, the Resistance does not fear threats, nor is it swayed by the multiple deadlines, which began as warnings until the end of summer, then shifted to late November as a final deadline, and later extended to the end of the year—all designed to exert pressure and extract concessions. The resistance has consistently rejected these pressures, as stated by Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem:
“Do you expect there to be a war later? Possibly, at some point, yes, that possibility exists, but the possibility of no war also exists; because ‘Israel’ is studying its options, and America is studying its options as well. They know that with this people, with this Resistance, with this spirit, they cannot achieve what they want.”
Sheikh Qassem also addressed everyone succinctly:
“They must despair. They threaten, they do what they do. They gather the whole world against us. They try by all means. This is a people who cannot be defeated, and a people who will not surrender. We will neither be defeated nor surrender, and humiliation is far from us.”
No comments:
Post a Comment