Samir Geagea Affirms Framework Agreement Will Be Implemented Despite Hezbollah Opposition

Since the signing of the framework agreement between Lebanon, the United States, and Israel last Friday, Lebanon has appeared caught between two opposing forces, Washington and Islamabad, amid a tense atmosphere in Beirut suggesting political and security unrest. The situation has been marked by a struggle framed as either the government falling in the streets or the agreement being rejected in parliament.

Hezbollah has vocally demonized the framework agreement, while political and constitutional confrontations have emerged, with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri threatening to challenge the pact, which is seen as undermining Iran’s influence in Lebanon. Attention has turned to the implementation of the fourteen provisions of the trilateral framework, which precedes Tehran’s insistence that it controls the process through its memorandum of understanding with the United States.

Against this backdrop, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai interviewed Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces party, who shared his perspective on the agreement and the political dynamics surrounding it.

Geagea described Lebanon as a country caught between two opposing paths, Washington and Islamabad, each pulling in opposite directions. While the framework agreement is regarded as the best possible outcome, he considers it the most important achievement in Lebanon in the past fifty years. He rejected Hezbollah’s characterization of the agreement as "devilish," clarifying that the "devilish situation" refers to Lebanon’s ongoing miserable and destructive conditions over the last four decades, which have prevented progress and caused waves of youth emigration.

He acknowledged the agreement is not perfect but explained it reflects the balance of power at the time of its creation. He criticized Hezbollah for placing Lebanon in a prolonged crisis with no alternative but to accept this necessary agreement, which he views as an essential step to end the longstanding and explosive vulnerability in southern Lebanon that has turned the country into a playground for external interests.

Geagea recalled the 1949 armistice agreement, which Lebanon and Israel had respected until it was undermined starting in 1964. He traced the escalation from the Palestinian resistance in the mid-1960s, through the national resistance in the early 1980s, to Hezbollah’s armed presence from the mid-1980s onward. This persistent instability has compromised Lebanon’s sovereignty, undermined state institutions, and subjected the country to economic and political crises affecting every household.

The significance of the Washington-signed agreement, Geagea said, lies in its potential to permanently close this vulnerable front, allowing Lebanon to return to normal statehood. He acknowledged some details could have been better but emphasized that the agreement’s terms were constrained by the existing balance of power.

Regarding concerns that Iran’s influence in Lebanon, particularly through Hezbollah, controls the implementation of the agreement and has declared it "born dead," Geagea highlighted several factors that have changed the situation. He said Hezbollah’s position is weaker now than in 2023 and 2024, especially after the fall of the Assad regime, which was a key strategic factor for Hezbollah. The current Lebanese government under President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, along with shifts in regional power balances following Iran’s war, have strengthened Lebanon’s position and weakened Hezbollah’s.

These developments, Geagea argued, make it unlikely that Hezbollah can prevent the framework agreement’s execution.

On the claim that Iran secured a ceasefire in Lebanon and might obtain Israeli withdrawal without concessions, Geagea disputed this, stating the ceasefire was imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump for his own reasons and that Iran’s role was limited. He said the ceasefire was not effective until after the framework agreement was signed, and Iran’s ability to secure Israeli withdrawal is speculative and unsupported by facts.

He stressed that Iran’s involvement in Lebanon is inherently problematic, as it pursues its own strategic interests rather than Lebanon’s welfare. Geagea argued that Iran has used Lebanon to strengthen its regional position and settle scores, and that Lebanon’s interests are the responsibility of its own government and leadership, not Tehran.

Regarding the emerging political battle over the agreement’s constitutionality, with Speaker Nabih Berri warning of parliamentary opposition, Geagea said Berri has the ability to create issues from nothing. He affirmed support for any constitutional process but noted that Berri has reportedly requested the agreement not be presented to the cabinet, aware that a majority supports it in both government and parliament. Geagea expressed confidence that any constitutional challenge would fail given the current majorities.

Asked if there is any objection to the agreement being submitted to parliament, Geagea said there is no objection. He added that there is ongoing legal debate about whether such agreements require cabinet or parliamentary approval, but emphasized that his party has no problem with any constitutional step as long as it is legitimate.

On concerns about a political bloc forming to oppose the agreement and potential parliamentary traps, Geagea reiterated confidence in the parliamentary majority supporting the framework. He cited recent statements from deputies Ibrahim Mneimneh and Ahmad Al-Kheir, among others, and mentioned a rapid public opinion poll indicating majority support across Lebanon’s Christian, Sunni, Shiite, and Druze communities.

Regarding fears of planned chaos in Lebanon and what his party’s alternative would be if Hezbollah succeeds in disrupting or overturning the agreement, Geagea interrupted to assert that Hezbollah will not succeed in defeating the agreement within constitutional institutions, as it lacks the capacity to do so in cabinet or parliament.

He expressed confidence that President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, the current government, and the parliamentary majority will prevent any threat to stability. He also stated that Lebanon’s security forces, including the army and internal security, will protect stability, despite his view that there was some failure in enforcing government decisions on August 5 and 7, 2025.

On recent Gulf support for Lebanon, including Kuwait’s headline "Kuwait and Lebanon One Heart," the UAE allowing its citizens to travel to Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia lifting restrictions on Lebanese exports, Geagea said Gulf countries have always been supporters of Lebanon. He explained that in the last decade, the absence of an effective Lebanese state and the dominance of an armed group hostile to Gulf countries led to some distancing.

He observed that as Lebanon’s state institutions have reasserted themselves under President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam, and the parliamentary and governmental majorities, Gulf countries have begun to reconsider their positions. Saudi Arabia resumed accepting Lebanese exports, the UAE restored travel permissions, and Kuwait has consistently supported Lebanon. Geagea expects further positive steps as Lebanon demonstrates its seriousness and state presence, which will encourage Gulf states to open their doors and hearts to Lebanon as usual.