AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Munir Shihadeh, a writer, former coordinator of the Lebanese government with UNIFIL forces, and former head of this country's military court, in an analysis of the trilateral Tampa meeting in Florida, wrote, "Lebanon goes to this meeting with its plans and demands, but Israel enters it with conditions of surrender, and Washington has transformed from the role of mediator into the guarantor of Israel's security."
Munir Shihadeh wrote in his analysis, "On Tuesday, October 20, 2026, a trilateral military meeting will be held in Tampa, Florida; a military delegation from Lebanon, a delegation from Israel, and under the direct supervision of Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State. The Lebanese presidency has announced that the Lebanese delegation will raise its demands for stopping the escalation of Israeli tensions, in the hope that results aligned with the provisions of the framework agreement will be achieved; but does a framework agreement fundamentally exist that Israel adheres to?"
Hours before the meeting time was fixed, Benjamin Netanyahu said bluntly, "I do not trust the Lebanese government's ability to disarm Hezbollah, and as long as the weapon is not disarmed, we will remain in the security zone. The ultimate goal is the destruction of Hezbollah."
The security zone envisaged by Netanyahu is no longer five points but a strip of occupation extending from Al-Labouneh to Jabal al-Bat and to the outskirts of Shaqif Castle and the Ali al-Taher hills. These are the very towns to which the Lebanese army demands the expansion of the pilot zone. So how can one negotiate with a party that openly says it will not withdraw and will not adhere to the cessation of hostile actions? The framework agreement is, for him, a mechanism for managing occupation, not ending it.
It is said that an official Lebanese figure received an important warning from the US Ambassador, Michel Issa, "Postpone Tampa until after the Israeli elections and the US midterm elections, because holding it in the current circumstances will be a ceremonial meeting that brings no tangible guarantee for Lebanon." But Washington has insisted on holding it. So what is the reason for this insistence?
Diplomatic sources clarify the equation, "Lebanon has pinned its hopes on Rubio's pressure to activate the framework agreement and facilitate its phased implementation. In contrast, Washington has only two demands from Lebanon: intensifying security and military coordination between the Lebanese and Israeli armies, and progress in disarmament in the south. But Israel's commitments are conditional on Tel Aviv's calculations and have no executive guarantee."
Shihadeh stated, "From the beginning, all signs indicated that Washington had moved from the position of mediator to the position of guarantor of Israel's security. This imbalance turns negotiations into a mechanism for managing field realities, not ending them."
Lebanon is asked to take tangible security and political steps, while Israel's withdrawal is tied to Netanyahu's electoral interests. This round of negotiations is being held only one week before the Knesset elections.
Simultaneously with the talks about Tampa, what is happening in the south? Artillery bombardment, a massive explosion in the occupied towns, the destruction of southern villages that undermines efforts to implement Resolution 1701, assassination by drone, continued flights, and prevention of the full deployment of the Lebanese army.
Even the pretext of disarming Hezbollah that Washington and Tel Aviv raise has collapsed morally. The Lebanese army seized a truck of explosives belonging to Hezbollah at the Dahr al-Baidar checkpoint and then quickly deployed in the Dahieh. These actions showed that the army is playing its role and the Lebanese government is fulfilling its duties. But what does Israel offer in return? Nothing.
Shihadeh wrote, "Lebanon's haste to participate in new rounds of Tampa realizes three disasters:
1. It grants Israel free legitimacy: any Lebanese participation without a real ceasefire becomes a cover for the continuation of bombardments and assassinations.
2. It renders the framework agreement meaningless: the agreement was supposed to include a cessation of hostile actions, a verification mechanism, a pilot zone, and then withdrawal. Today it has become this: Lebanon implements, Israel shirks implementation.
3. It strikes at the interior: the message to Lebanese, especially southerners, is that your diplomatic option does not stop even one drone flight.
Lebanon does not need more negotiations; it needs guarantees. As long as Washington does not transform from a biased mediator into a real guarantor, Tampa will be like the previous cases. A guarantor with a binding timetable for withdrawal, cessation of bombardment, and an international verification mechanism; otherwise, the result is the same: a souvenir photo in Florida and a missile in Yaroun.
History has taught us: Israel does not give through negotiation what it could not take through war, unless it is forced to. The question is not when the next round will be. The question is when Lebanon will hold the leverage to say, 'We will have no negotiation under fire'?"
**************
End/ 345E
