Salam: Israeli Withdrawal Possible Only Through Lebanese State Negotiations

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stressed that Iran's rejection of the ceasefire agreement with Israel did not occur without reason, but rather to affirm that the real decision-making power in Lebanon remains exclusively with Tehran.

Speaking to the British newspaper The Times, Salam stated, "It is very clear why Iran rejected the ceasefire agreement. Iran wanted to tell the entire world that Lebanon is nothing more than a card in our pocket, and we are the ones who decide on behalf of Lebanon; we alone hold the final decision."

He considered that Iran's refusal of the agreement, which took place before Hezbollah announced its official position, clearly reflects the deep Iranian influence within the party and demonstrates the complete dependency on Iran.

Salam added, "If there is anything this rejection indicates, it is the enormous control exercised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, not only over Hezbollah's military and security apparatuses but also over the decision-making process within the party itself."

He discussed the nature of the relationship between Hezbollah and Iran during two different periods, noting that "things were entirely different during the era of the late Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah." He added, "Nasrallah was largely an integral part of the decision-making process and had his say and relative independence."

Salam observed that "Iran today exercises direct and decisive influence over the party in an unprecedented manner," and stated, "Certainly, the only entity capable of mobilizing the necessary resources to rebuild what the war destroyed is the Lebanese state alone. Reconstruction can only be carried out through the state and its institutions, just as the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories can only be achieved through negotiations conducted by the Lebanese state."

Regarding his future outlook for Lebanon despite the war and challenges, Salam expressed cautious optimism: "I am not pessimistic at all; rather, I can say that I am optimistic, but I am not naive. I still firmly believe that this country possesses enormous and very significant potential, and we have no other option but to proceed on the path of serious reform. If we truly want to restore the state to stand on its feet again, there is no alternative but this path."