Lebanese Speaker Berri Vows to Block Security Deal, Citing Risk of 'Civil War'

Nabih Berri’s rejection of the framework agreement marks a significant escalation in the political rift within Beirut. Speaking to the pro-Hezbollah daily *Al-Akhbar*, Berri described the document not as a sovereign pact but as a list of "demands" that are "ten times worse" than the failed May 17, 1983 accord. By invoking the 1983 treaty—which was abrogated under intense Shia and Syrian pressure—Berri is signaling that the Shia political bloc views the current Washington-led diplomacy as an existential threat to its standing.

Warnings of Internal Strife

Berri’s rhetoric focused heavily on the danger of domestic instability. He cautioned that the agreement is designed to "sow discord among Lebanese" to the benefit of the "Israeli occupation." Despite the severity of his warning, Berri called on his supporters to avoid street protests, fearing they could be exploited to drag the country into chaos. Instead, he indicated that Amal movement ministers would participate in cabinet meetings to voice their opposition through official state institutions. He further emphasized that the Lebanese Army remains a "red line" and a guarantor of national stability, amid rumors regarding the potential dismissal of its commander.

Strategic Context and Regional Alignment

The Speaker's stance aligns with a broader rejection of the U.S. proposal by the Shia axis, which remains tethered to the "Islamabad Agreement"—the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States. Berri suggested that the Islamabad framework is the only mechanism capable of producing the "balances" necessary to force Israeli compliance. The deal, negotiated by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, would allow Israel to maintain a security zone in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is removed. Berri’s insistence on relying on U.S.-Iran talks instead signals a strategic attempt to bypass direct security arrangements with Jerusalem in favor of regional Iranian-led interests.