Lebanon cannot afford more misreadings of Berri’s role

The joint statement issued following the latest round of U.S.-mediated negotiations between Lebanon and Israel marked a significant milestone in efforts aimed at helping Lebanon emerge from the repercussions of the war and laying the foundations for a roadmap toward lasting stability. Such stability carries particular importance for the people of southern Lebanon, whose direct interests are closely tied to its achievement and consolidation.

However, the agreement faced opposition from the very outset. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) publicly rejected it, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem soon adopted the same position.

In the same context, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri expressed a stance that aligned in substance with the positions of both the IRGC and Hezbollah in rejecting the joint statement. His position raised political questions regarding the continued willingness of many domestic actors, as well as members of the Arab and international communities, to place their hopes in Berri as a figure capable of changing course and prioritizing Lebanon’s interests and state legitimacy over those of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is particularly significant given the sensitive phase Lebanon is currently experiencing and the challenges it faces concerning both internal stability and the proposed settlement process.

At this critical juncture, Berri’s position mirrored that of Hezbollah and the IRGC, placing him in opposition to the approach adopted by the Lebanese state in addressing this issue.

Recent political developments have further reinforced the conviction that Berri stands at the forefront of the political establishment that provides political cover for Hezbollah’s security and military apparatus, which remains closely linked to Iran. Owing to his long experience and considerable political skills, Berri has often sought to maintain a degree of distinction from Hezbollah during certain periods, particularly when the IRGC has allowed limited room for political maneuvering.

This perceived distinction has helped cultivate an image among both domestic and international actors that Berri represents a political channel through which compromises and understandings on contentious issues can be reached. Yet, at decisive moments and major national turning points, his positions have consistently converged with those of Hezbollah and Iran, especially when political maneuvering becomes constrained and fundamental choices must be made.

Berri’s position on the latest joint statement falls squarely within this pattern. He chose to align himself with Hezbollah and Iran against the course pursued by the Lebanese state, despite the potentially heavy costs that Lebanon as a whole and southern Lebanon and the Shiite community in particular—may bear. These costs include human losses, damage to villages and infrastructure, and the continued tension along the border.

In light of past experience, the continued reliance by some domestic and international actors on Berri as a partner capable of producing political settlements can no longer be viewed merely as a miscalculation. Rather, it increasingly reflects an unrealistic assessment of the role he plays and his position within Lebanon’s existing balance of power.

Over the years, Berri has successfully presented himself as a mediator capable of managing contradictions and maintaining channels of communication among rival parties. However, the outcomes of these settlements and understandings have ultimately demonstrated that they contributed, directly or indirectly, to strengthening Hezbollah’s influence and consolidating its control within state institutions.

Most of the political milestones that were hailed as negotiated achievements or national compromises ultimately reinforced power dynamics that enabled Hezbollah to expand its influence within political decision-making institutions and the security and military apparatus. They also strengthened its leverage across various branches of the state, including judicial and administrative institutions. Consequently, any political approach that seeks to separate Berri from Hezbollah is detached from reality and overlooks the facts established by Lebanon’s political experience over the past decades.