The US-Iranian Memorandum of Understanding and the 60-day Transitional Period to reduce tensions and create favourable conditions for negotiations appear to be in a state of major vacillation. All indications show that we are facing a moment of escalation whose goal may be to send mutual deterrent messages, but it constitutes a clear and highly likely slide towards an open war whose extent, direct repercussions, and subsequent repercussions on the region cannot be determined. In this regard, the Middle East lives at a crossroads, carrying many open risks and different scenarios.
In the same context, in the line of crises and wars and from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, the proposal to form a tripartite American-Iranian-Lebanese committee to work to stop the war in Lebanon has no chances to be implemented. This was not surprising to many, considering that it would have actually established Iran's role as a «partner» in managing the Lebanese-Israeli file, something that Washington rejects, even if it accepts it «verbally» at a certain moment.
On the other hand, Washington has moved towards sponsoring and embracing the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, and some say that by formulating those negotiations practically means separating the whole conflict paths in the region. This last matter is accredited by the Lebanese authorities, both president and government, despite the fact that they are aware of the difficulties and challenges of these negotiations.
In fact, the negotiations face many challenges, the most important and dangerous of which is undoubtedly the Israeli policy that aims to consolidate the occupation and enable control under various titles and arguments, taking advantage of the balance of power on the ground. The American role remains more than necessary to pressure Israel in this area. Many are asking whether Washington is prepared to change its known policies and consequently exert the necessary pressure on Israel to facilitate the negotiating process.
The path whose primary goal from Lebanon's perspective remains to end the occupation and the Lebanese army's total control over the area extending from the south of the Litani river to the internationally recognized Lebanese border. It is a path that faces many difficulties and challenges and is undoubtedly affected by the multifaceted and multilateral conflict in the Gulf and the region. But this path remains necessary to liberate the land and restore effective sovereignty, especially if it is consolidated through an internal national dialogue of ideas that crystallizes practical proposals and formulas which could contribute to supporting and strengthening the Lebanese position.