jordan pulse -

By Dr. Rashed Al-Shashani
Yes, it is the beginning of the beginning—not through the lens of Rubio, but through our own. The so-called "Framework Agreement" between Lebanon and Israel was nothing more than broad aspirations frequently repeated by the media without ever finding a practical path to implementation. It remains exactly that, compounded further by what we previously warned against: a trap that reshapes the Lebanese state into an armed proxy operating at the hands of the United States and under the thumb of Israel. This comes after Israel handed Lebanon over as bait to Iran and its factions, through which Iran and its allies have continuously demonstrated the fragility of Lebanon as a functioning state.
Iran moved immediately by stirring up the Strait of Hormuz to assert its control over the escalation dynamics with the United States, especially since Tehran holds the actual keys to a ceasefire across all its active fronts, including Lebanon. In response, the United States rushed to declare its "hegemony over Lebanon" via this framework agreement, aiming to strip Iran of this leverage. Thus, the agreement is nothing but another battleground in the broader conflict with Iran—which mobilized Hezbollah in Lebanon—delivered by Lebanese naivety and its "pool of bureaucrats" into the hands of competing powers as a theater for the chaos of the U.S.-Iranian settlement we noted before.
Lebanon's losses are not restricted to the aforementioned points or the coordination hotlines that will manage internal conflict and fighting. It will inevitably include a regression in support from its most vital Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. The United States has deliberately sought to block the path through which Riyadh attempted to rescue Lebanon from such a fate. Macron's recent call with the Saudi Crown Prince fits squarely into this scenario, as France has repeatedly tried to soften the pace of America's rush to push Lebanon toward this destiny—not out of affection for Lebanon, but due to the geopolitical friction between Paris and Washington.
First and foremost, I say: all bets will fail, and all factions will pay the price, including those who bent and twisted their positions to adapt to fluctuating events. The soft language, appeasement, and rhetorical rejections shared by Nabih Berri and Walid Joumblatt after smoothing out their political edges to strike a middle ground will bear no fruit. Berri—as the Speaker of Parliament and a core pillar of the Lebanese state, not merely an individual—failed to realize that trimming the claws of a political stance can wound deeper than their sharpest edge. Neither Joumblatt’s shy, hesitant insinuations, nor Hezbollah's street mobilizations, nor Naim Qassem's speeches—in which nothing changes except the delivery date—will avert the impasse of the point of no return.
On the opposite side, the champions of "sovereignty" and "legitimacy" find themselves increasingly orphaned and displaced. They will find no salvation in the endorsements of tribal factions, which inherently fracture any state-building project, nor in the rhetorical barricades of Samir Geagea and his supporters, who do not even know their own path to guide others. I will say no more here than this: the greatest flaw of this "agreement" is that it is a byproduct of this very "legitimacy."
This legitimacy, which failed to dismantle Hezbollah on its own, will certainly not succeed in doing so under American operational command—especially with talk of secret clauses, not to mention entering the realm of commercial deals where Donald Trump never misses an opportunity to intervene. Lebanon will end up cleaning up after the party when the Lebanese Army is transformed into an American-Israeli outpost, and the state is reduced to a solitary customs agent combating major smuggling rings. All this occurs while Lebanon struggles to secure an environment that Israel deems suitable for its withdrawal and redeployment across the border, or while trying to fulfill a rigid, performance-based commitment to prevent Iranian interference—tasks Lebanon has proven entirely incapable of managing. So, what exactly was agreed upon?!
The situation can be understood through another dimension when considering the involvement of the United States in monitoring financial flows to organizations, entities, and individuals. This aligns with Trump's emphasis on a parallel Syrian role to end the Lebanese-Israeli state of enmity. From Israel's perspective, this means neutralizing threats from armed Syrian groups, while reassuring Damascus that anxieties from that direction are cleared. This comes as part of a plan to encircle Hezbollah groups within a zone bounded by American-Israeli power and Syrian strategic caution. Here, we say to the factions of "sovereignty, legitimacy, and attack-for-the-sake-of-attack": the enemy is now in your lap (the enemy here being Iran and its proxies).
Regarding Marco Rubio’s tour, it moved precisely within this framework of dismantling and restructuring, seeking to abort Saudi Arabia's attempts to avert this outcome and its support for Lebanon, effectively sidelining Riyadh's influence there. Rubio's tour, which pointedly excluded Saudi Arabia, looked strictly after this objective. It sought to infiltrate the nature of Saudi-Emirati relations to establish a Gulf alignment backing the isolation of any Saudi attempt to break free from U.S. dominance, including Riyadh's efforts to draw these nations into its strategic direction—even if it requires altering tactics on the ground with yesterday's adversaries. As for reassuring these nations about the U.S.-Iranian agreement and protecting the interests of allies who altered their calculations after Iranian strikes, it amounts to nothing more than a decorated box containing a bomb.
Speaker Berri’s statements regarding Arab support overlooked—yet exposed—fears of sidelining Saudi Arabia from the Lebanese equation. Such an exclusion would mean the collapse of all attempts to exploit political wavering once Lebanon stands exposed, isolated under unilateral U.S. and Israeli control, particularly as Israeli military focus shifts toward Lebanon with all its institutional apparatus. This is precisely what Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf tried to remedy in his recent call with Berri—not to protect Berri, who was a primary cause of this slide, but because Lebanon has become the softest target that Trump can manipulate to succeed in his leverage against Iran.