Will US pressure tactics on Lebanon make Hezbollah disarm faster?
Beirut, Lebanon – Pressure on Hezbollah to disarm is intensifying, spearheaded by the United States and backed by some Lebanese factions.
An Israeli war on Lebanon that killed much of the group’s top leadership last year – as well as hundreds of civilians, including at least 200 children – left the group reeling and was compounded by the fall of an ally, Bashar al-Assad’s regime in neighbouring Syria.
Hezbollah’s opponents are now taking advantage of these circumstances.
“It’s clear that Hezbollah has to be disarmed, and it’s clear that Israel is not going to accept terrorists shooting at them into their country,” Deputy US Special Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus told a Lebanese broadcaster during a visit to the country on April 6.
In another interview, when asked if pushing Hezbollah too hard might lead to internal strife, Ortagus said Hezbollah needed to be treated like “a cancer” and removed.
She also said economic and banking reforms are crucial to stop the cash economy that allows Hezbollah to operate outside the banking network and away from US regulation.
The group is in the most precarious position it has been in since its formation during the Lebanese Civil War.
On the one hand, it’s unlikely to want to disarm without major incentives while on the other, US and domestic pressure is piling up and attacks continue on Lebanon by Israel, which uses “Hezbollah elements” as justification and it has to cooperate so foreign funding can flow into Lebanon for reconstruction.
Hezbollah is still there
Much of the debate over Hezbollah’s arms, however, has not taken into account the group itself or its stance.
Hezbollah has not officially announced it will disarm. But the group is aware that the reconstruction of many of its supporters’ homes relies on the government accessing foreign aid.
Hezbollah wouldn’t accept “to give up its arms de facto out of principle”, Karim Safieddine, a Lebanese political writer and doctoral student in sociology at Pittsburgh University, told Al Jazeera. Instead, they could disarm “in exchange for big benefits”.
The Reuters news agency reported that a senior Hezbollah official had said the group will consider disarming if Israel withdraws from the five points in southern Lebanon it continues to occupy although the group’s media office later denied the report.
“Hezbollah agrees to a national dialogue to develop a defence strategy but won’t discuss disarmament,” said Qassem Kassir, a Lebanese political analyst believed to be close to the group. “Currently, it is impossible to discuss disarmament while the Israeli occupation continues. However, if Israel withdraws, I don’t know what will happen.”
Hezbollah is not the force it was thought to be 18 months ago. A large portion of its arsenal has been destroyed and its military leadership killed during the war with Israel, and its main pathway for receiving weapons was shuttered when al-Assad fled to Moscow in December.
While the group still maintains popular support in large parts of the south, the Lebanese military now largely controls southern Lebanon.
Despite its weakened regional stance, many analysts believe Hezbollah is still capable of challenging any domestic actors, including the military.
“Hezbollah are weakened but still strong in Lebanese terms,” a Western diplomat speaking on the condition of anonymity said. “They cannot frighten or threaten Israel any more but still have enough armaments to pose a threat internally.”
There is a fear in some quarters that, should Hezbollah be pushed into a corner, it could lash out and draw the country into civil strife.
“Yes, the pressure is very great,” Kassir said.
“But I rule out a civil war.”
Pressure on the new government
Before Israel’s war on Lebanon, Hezbollah was the country’s most influential military and political actor.
It drew most of its support from Lebanon’s Shia Muslim community, whose political representation it controlled along with its ally the Amal Movement, reportedly at times using violence against political opponents.
While it still has a lot of popular support in some parts of the country, Hezbollah’s political and military hegemony appears to be over.
“This always happens whenever there is an upheaval, and Hezbollah went through an upheaval,” Hilal Khashan, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, said.
Domestically, a consensus seems to be forming among powerbrokers that the state must be the sole arbiter of arms, as President Joseph Aoun has repeatedly expressed, in a clear message to Hezbollah.
“The decision has been made, and its implementation will take place through dialogue without any resort to force,” Aoun told Al Jazeera in an interview.
The president seems to have support from French President Emmanuel Macron.
But this measured approach is not universally appreciated, and pressure is building on Aoun and the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam from some quarters, particularly the administration of US President Donald Trump, to take a more aggressive approach.
“These forces essentially think [a measured approach] allows Hezbollah to regroup and isn’t tough enough,” Natasha Hall, a senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera.
That view is also shared by some groups in Lebanon, including the Lebanese Forces (LF), a right-wing Christian party that has four ministers in the Salam-led government. The LF’s two top leaders, Samir Geagea and Georges Adwan, have both taken a bullish stance.
Geagea criticised the concept of a national dialogue over Hezbollah’s arms and said a hard deadline of six months should be applied.
Adwan, the LF’s second-in-command, attacked one of Salam’s ministerial allies for saying Hezbollah could not be disarmed by force and disarmament should be incentivised through reconstruction. Adwan also mentioned the possibility of removing the LF ministers from Salam’s government.
That internal pressure by the LF, however, may not have the power or influence to push Hezbollah or the government to act.
“The Lebanese Forces can’t do much but bank on it politically,” Safieddine said.
Washington has the power
As the domestic struggle plays out, experts and analysts said the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is being decided on other stages: in Washington and the Trump administration’s talks with Iran, a longtime supporter of Hezbollah.
Iran and the US held Oman-mediated talks in Muscat on Saturday and are set for another round in Rome this coming weekend.
While the talks are supposed to focus on Iran’s nuclear programme, experts believe Iran-backed groups in its “axis of resistance” will likely also be on the agenda.
“Iran understands that if they want to continue with a nuclear programme and if it wants to continue to call on the so-called axis of resistance in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, the cost will be too high,” Khashan said.
“Hezbollah understands they have to disarm, and it’s going to happen not because of local pressure in Lebanon but because of political will in the US and Israel’s military capabilities,” he continued.
The possibility of Hezbollah disarming seems closer than at any other point in the group’s 40-plus-year history. But some analysts warned that Washington’s approach should consider the delicacy of Lebanon’s current leadership and its attempts to connect with Hezbollah’s traditional support base.
“You have to find a way to create a new sense of social belonging in the Shia community and make people feel the state can represent their interests,” Safieddine said, adding that cross-sectarian social belonging could replace the loyalty to Hezbollah.
“The United States can’t do that,” he said.
For Washington, however, these appear to be unimportant details in grander attempts at reshaping the region. The Trump administration, and the Biden administration before it, have consistently ignored local actors in these attempts.
“Washington feels it can disentangle these various conflicts and pay little attention to governance in these countries and then somehow lead to some kind of sustainable peace,” Hall said.
“For the last year and a half, [we’ve seen] we can’t just circumvent the Palestinian issue, the issue of Lebanese governance and corruption, Yemen, Syria and so on. But it seems there is still an effort to do so.”
Source: Apps Support
Amid Zimbabwe’s political crisis, hope and frustration brew
Harare, Zimbabwe – On a sunny April afternoon, 41-year-old Tawanda Zvamaida sat with four friends at an outdoor bar. They were discussing recent antigovernment protests where police arrested about half of the 200 protesters.
On March 31, protesters gathered following a call for demonstrations by a former member of Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s party.
Zvamaida lives in Chitungwiza, a town about 25km from the capital, Harare, and a stronghold for the opposition party, the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC). Many residents there supported the protests but did not attend. The country was brought to a standstill that day – the streets were quiet as businesses and schools shut and Zimbabweans like Zvamaida, a shop assistant at a clothing store in central Harare, stayed home. Despite police assurances that the situation was “peaceful”, many feared violence.
The protesters called for Mnangagwa, who came to power in 2017 after the army overthrew former President Robert Mugabe, to step down, decrying what they insist is a corrupt political elite and a struggling economy. Those arrested were accused of throwing stones at the police and have since faced charges of “participating in a gathering with intent to promote public violence”.
“Personally, I would love to participate in protests, but there was no clear plan of coordination,” Zvamaida explained. Without this, he thinks “fear gripped people” who wanted to protest, and that the arrests show that the police won’t tolerate any form of dissent.
Moment of hope
An internal split has roiled the ruling ZANU-PF party, which has been in power since independence in 1980. It has pitted supporters of Mnangagwa, who want him to rule until 2030 – despite a two-term constitutional limit that would see his term end in 2028 – and those opposed to this.
Blessed “Bombshell” Geza, a veteran of Zimbabwe’s war of liberation from Britain, called for the mass demonstrations. He was expelled from ZANU-PF on March 6 after calling on the president to go and is now wanted by the police for charges including undermining the president’s authority.
He has accused the government of corruption and jailing dissenting voices without trial, and argued that Mnangagwa, who promised jobs and democracy when he came to power, is surrounded by “criminals”.
For many Zimbabweans, the recent protests offered a moment of hope as they continue their push for economic and democratic reforms.
Cassandra*, a 37-year-old fruit and vegetable seller with a roadside stall in Chitungwiza says since the emergence of a strong opposition in the late 1990s, elections have had no use in Zimbabwe.
Polls have been marred by violence, repression and torture of opposition members, and election rigging. “Our vote for a democratic change has been stolen,” she said.
Under Mnangagwa, opposition party activists have been jailed for gathering together.
Meanwhile, for nearly three decades, Zimbabwe has faced an economic crisis characterised by high food prices, loss of currency value and low wages.
Cassandra says many of her friends have left Zimbabwe for neighbouring countries and Europe due to the lack of employment opportunities.
She believes Zimbabwe needs a new leader, but does not think Mnangagwa, who is 82, would resign voluntarily, nor does she believe it would be possible to have a leader outside of the ZANU-PF.
“The government is repressive. We cannot tolerate that. But, only a few can come out openly because, on the other hand, such persecution instils fear in the majority,” explained Cassandra.
‘We are suffering’
In the Chitungwiza neighbourhood of Manyame Park, residents say that they have lived without running water for more than 20 years and must buy drinking and bathing water from mobile storage tank providers.
Wealthy residents in Harare’s leafy suburbs have cushioned themselves from the water shortages by drilling private boreholes, a costly endeavour that people in Chitungwiza and low-income suburbs in Harare cannot afford.
Across the country, most people have lost a stable income as the economic crisis is forcing businesses to close. People largely work in the informal economy as vendors, “pirate taxi” drivers (operating private cars without a business registration), waiters in back yard food courts and as security guards.
“We are suffering in this country, yet the elite are looting and enjoying. We don’t have any hope in the current government,” said Takura Makota, a 38-year-old pirate taxi driver who plies the Chitungwiza–Harare route, and a resident of Manyame Park.
“Mnangagwa is running our country like a family business, benefitting his family and friends,” said Zvamaida, referring to so-called “tenderpreneurs” – individuals close to top government officials who many believe repeatedly win government contracts and benefit from taxpayers’ money.
Last March, First Lady Auxillia Mnangagwa and her husband were sanctioned by the United States for their alleged involvement in illicit gold and diamond networks. Upon his re-election in 2023, Mnangagwa appointed his son, David, as deputy finance minister and his nephew Tongai as the deputy tourism minister. Another son, Emmerson Jr, is also sanctioned by the US due to his links with Kudakwashe Tagwirei, a business tycoon accused of using his wealth to gain state contracts. Another wealthy businessman, ex-convict Wicknell Chivayo, who has close government ties and links to Mnangagwa, is known for his flashy lifestyle – driving expensive cars, using a private jet and wearing expensive jewellery. He was awarded a Zimbabwe Power Company (ZPC) tender to construct a solar project in 2015 at a cost of $172m. Ten years down the line, the project has not seen the light of day. A court cleared him of wrongdoing in 2023, and the ZPC was ordered to pay a $25m fine.
“You see all the people surrounding the president buying helicopters and private jets, in a country where the majority are unemployed, roads are potholed and hospitals don’t have cancer [radiotherapy] machines,” Makota said.
In Chitungwiza, Makota says dilapidated infrastructure is a constant issue. Roads built in the 1990s have not been maintained, bus terminals are run down and sewers are frequently blocked, posing a health hazard.
“With proper coordination, I’m sure that soon we can protest again, because the majority are hungry and are not happy,” he added.
‘It’s quite tense’
In Epworth, a periurban settlement located in central Harare, where both ZANU-PF and CCC command support, the country’s uncertain political situation has put residents on edge.
Many residents came to Epworth as victims of “Operation Murambatsvina” (Clear the Filth) executed by the Mugabe government in 2005. Police burned, bulldozed and destroyed tens of thousands of properties, leading to the mass eviction of people from their homes and businesses around the country.
Though government officials said the operation was designed to target urbanisation and criminal activity, activists, lawyers and victims told Human Rights Watch they believed the destruction was designed to punish people who voted for the opposition in recent elections and to prevent an uprising against a worsening economic situation.
As Geza and his supporters decide on a way forward, Lorraine Mutasa, a resident and local CCC politician, says the mood in Epworth feels particularly tense.
Since the protests, Mutasa said people who usually conduct business there are avoiding the area.
Trymore*, 42, a carpenter in Epworth, believes that people are afraid to speak openly about economic hardship for fear of being denounced by pro-government supporters.
“People are divided, that’s the problem. It’s unfortunate that all of us are suffering the same and have suffered for a long time, but … some fear persecution and support the ruling party. It’s sad that the ruling party has a history of violence. So at the moment, it’s quite tense, because people don’t know what to say or to whom to mobilise one another,” he explained.
Zvamaida, the shop assistant from Chitungwiza, believes citizens can bring about change, but that they need someone to unite around and will only take to the streets if there is a guarantee of safety. “People are already angry, but it is those elements which will bring them to the streets,” he said.
The government’s official spokesperson and information minister, Jenfan Muswere, did not respond to calls from Al Jazeera.
*Name has been changed
Source: Apps Support
The peril of a president who’s never wrong
Donald Trump is holding the world hostage.
True to his erratic nature, the US president has toyed with the global trading regimen like a yo-yo.
We are captive, to one degree or another, to Trump’s trigger-happy whims that – beyond the costs to balance sheets, jobs, retirement savings, and wallets – have exacted a heavy toll on our weary psyches.
His omnipotence overwhelms, leaving most of us feeling bereft and pining for a moment’s reprieve from the incessant chaos.
Last week, Trump confirmed, yet again, his talent for self-preservation without a speck of regret for the trauma and uncertainty he has caused.
In the face of disquieting polls, roiling equity markets, a sell-off of US Treasuries, and a brewing backlash within the Republican caucus and among the oligarchs who championed his presidency, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to announce a sudden reversal of the central aspect of what he considers to be a considered “economic policy” – blanket and hefty tariffs.
Reportedly, Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill were caught unawares by the president’s change of bulldozing course and left wondering what the captor-in-chief would do next.
One by one, the supposed “checks and balances” have, on the shameful whole, capitulated or, worse, enabled Trump’s imperious modus operandi.
In this broader context, Trump’s qualified and likely temporary tariff amnesty is not deemed a “defeat” or a “retreat” by the lord of Mar-a-Lago. It is part of his larger, ever-evolving “master strategy” to resuscitate America’s bygone manufacturing prowess.
To his legion of admirers and supporters, Trump is a mythical, infallible figure who spurns doubt since it is a symptom of weakness.
For Trump, certitude is a virtue. Posing questions and introspection are for sissies, not strongmen who have been tasked with rehabilitating America’s waning “greatness”.
Trump has the answers because he is the answer.
While others may scoff at his evangelical “conversion”, I am convinced that after dodging an assassin’s bullet, Trump had a transformative epiphany that reshaped his presidency into a messianic mission.
In a little-noticed section of his meandering address to a joint session of Congress in early March, Trump gave pointed expression to his belief that he had been saved by divine intervention in order to, in turn, save America.
“I believe my life was saved … for a very good reason,” Trump said. “I was saved by God to make America great again. I believe that.”
I am loath to disappoint, but this may be the rare occasion when Trump is telling the truth.
Though Trump’s latest prescriptions to “make America great again” have gone spectacularly awry, his critics are deluding themselves if they think that the “market mayhem” or a few fretting billionaire-bros will prompt him to abandon his chosen destiny and just cause.
Unlike Democrat US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), Trump confuses obstinacy with wisdom.
FDR braved calamity – financial collapse, sweeping poverty and despair, and the gathering advance of fascism overseas. He was obliged, to borrow a phrase, to make America great again.
During a speech delivered in May 1932, FDR addressed Americans’ anxiety – an unease that mirrors, almost to the letter, the angst felt by many of their descendants nearly a century later in the wake of the current jarring and potentially persistent financial turmoil.
“With these savings has gone, among millions of our fellow citizens, that sense of security to which they have rightly felt they are entitled in a land abundantly endowed with natural resources and with productive facilities to convert them into the necessities of life for all of our population,” Roosevelt said. “More calamitous still, there has vanished with the expectation of future security the certainty of today’s bread and clothing.”
FDR’s solutions were borne out of experimentation, not dogma.
“The country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something,” Roosevelt said.
FDR’s approach not only meant leveraging the means, resources, and ingenuity of the federal government to revive America, but the willingness of the commander-in-chief to dispense with orthodoxy and the arrogance of strutting firmness.
His legacy was not just the singular length of his revolutionary presidency – it was the good and fruitful sense to admit that failure is inevitable.
The other implicit meaning of FDR’s admonition is that even presidents can learn valuable lessons from making mistakes.
The experience and insight derived from “screwing up” can solve other troubles – big and small, near and far – that occur throughout a presidency.
Roosevelt listened. He learned by encouraging dissent. He wanted to be challenged. He knew that the people around him enjoyed expertise that he lacked. He understood that presidents are not all-knowing, that exercising his weighty responsibilities required, on occasion, a measure of humility.
Trump prefers dictates over debate. He demands and values absolute loyalty over discourse and objection. He is driven by instinct and seething grievances, not patience and deliberation.
In any working democracy, serious initiatives are the product of serious scrutiny. Trump is all performance, all the time. He rejects outright the essential qualities that informed Roosevelt’s shrewdness: Perspective and pragmatism.
The striking irony is that Trump hopes to mimic FDR by extending, albeit illegally, his presidency into a third term – if his health and popularity hold up.
The predictable consequence? Trump will never admit failure. To do so would involve Trump the invincible acknowledging that he has been or could be wrong.
That, as we know, has not happened and will not happen.
To his acolytes, Trump’s unwavering certainty is bewitching. His mad careening is celebrated as a calculated tactic. Amid these unsettling and turbulent times, the illusion of a leader who claims to be faultless may be comforting. Still, it remains a mirage.
The price of Trump’s signature recalcitrance will surge in the days, weeks and months ahead. Stock markets will gyrate wildly, once sturdy alliances will continue to unravel, public confidence will fray. And through the rocky tumult, Donald Trump will remain sure that he is right.
That is what makes America’s reckless president so dangerous.
Source: Andrew Mitrovica