In his meeting last week with President Donald Trump, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun went out of his way to defend Lebanon’s speaker of parliament, Nabih Berri. Mr Aoun underlined that “Berri is a man of state” from southern Lebanon, and he understood the magnitude of the destruction there. He wanted an end to the war, Mr Aoun continued, but acknowledged the “sensitivity of his position and ties to Hezbollah”.
It was noticeable that prominent supporters of Israel in Washington did not take kindly to this, nor to Mr Trump’s description of Mr Berri as “a good guy”. For example, Rob Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, described the remark as a “miscue”, adding that the speaker was “Hezbollah’s ally and enabler”, so that anyone “feeding this line to the president is not a friend of peace”.
It’s not surprising that Israel and its US allies have sought to tar Mr Berri. The reason is that the speaker, the most prominent Shiite official in Beirut today, is the only interlocutor the Lebanese government or anyone else has with Hezbollah. His silencing would give the Israelis latitude to impose their will in Lebanon by force rather than through negotiations, which demand compromises.
There is no doubt the speaker is one of the paramount representatives of Lebanon’s predatory political class that plundered the country and brought on the collapse of its financial system in 2019–2020. However, without a credible Shiite partner, Mr Aoun and the Lebanese government could face insurmountable obstacles in implementing their plan to disarm Hezbollah and extend state control throughout the country.
This was made clear by Mr Aoun, whose defence of the speaker in the Oval Office was designed to secure US endorsement of his role, but also protection against Mr Berri’s detractors in Washington and Israel. The president remembers that when the Israelis bombed Lebanon on April 8, killing at least 357 people, one of their targets in Beirut was the neighbourhood where Mr Berri’s private residence is located. The message to the speaker was clear: We will assassinate you if you don’t turn against Hezbollah.
Mr Berri was a key figure in negotiations during 2024 to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon, when he was the main counterpart of US envoy Amos Hochstein. The speaker, a skilled political operator, had to walk a tightrope between Hezbollah and the Americans, and later faced criticism for accepting an arrangement that effectively consecrated Hezbollah’s defeat, even though the party had signed off on it.
Today, his position is even more delicate. Mr Berri is well aware that Israel views him as an obstacle. But he can also see the widespread, systematic devastation Israel has caused in southern Lebanon, the Shiites’ historical heartland, knowing his community may not soon recover. This could have a major impact on Shiite power in the country.
Mr Berri understands that this situation requires an urgent end to hostilities and negotiations for an Israeli withdrawal. But he also has to calculate that for as long as Iran uses Hezbollah as a proxy force in its conflict with the US and Israel, the Iranians will be suspicious of whatever he does. So, officially, he opposed the recent framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel, even while quietly accepting it is the only game in town.
There is also much self-interest in the speaker’s position. His own power is tied to the strength of his community, as well as to the continuation of negotiations with Hezbollah, which only he can mediate. That’s why demands that Mr Berri break with Hezbollah are unrealistic, even unrealisable. The speaker will never provoke a rift in his community, as this would accelerate Shiite marginalisation. Nor can he be expected to undermine his own political utility by severing ties with Hezbollah.
Mr Aoun needs Mr Berri on board to push forward with his plan to establish pilot zones in the south in which the Lebanese army can take over from withdrawing Israeli troops. Mr Berri appears to be quietly in agreement with the plan, despite public statements to the contrary, because it potentially allows the displaced to return to their villages. He knows such symbolism is important for a Shiite community that fears the permanent loss of the south, even if the process is in its preliminary stages.
The paradox is that Hezbollah is caught in a bind. While it opposes any negotiations with Israel and severely criticised Mr Aoun for his meeting with Mr Trump, the party cannot actively oppose a mechanism that may liberate southern villages from Israeli occupation.
Nor is Hezbollah’s preferred approach, to revive the resistance option against Israeli forces, sensible. The party was unable to contain Israel’s offensive earlier this year, nor has it prevented the systematic demolition of more than 60 southern villages by the Israelis. It has liberated no land, while its decision to attack Israel in early March, effectively because of an Iranian directive, gave Israel an excuse to widen its areas of control in the south.
This ruinous strategy created consternation among Shiites, even if many of them would oppose Hezbollah’s forcible disarmament. However, they cannot oppose the Lebanese government’s decision to engage in negotiations to secure an Israeli departure, or to deploy the army to southern villages, no matter what the party thinks. Mr Berri gets this, which is why he will probably continue to help advance the process as best he can.
