Israeli attacks continue in Lebanon. Shahan Gantaharyan
09-09-2026 11:40 Lebanon A comment
The Israeli attacks in Lebanon continue. "Noyan Tapan" spoke with political analyst Shahin Ghantaharyan.
– The situation around Lebanon remains extremely tense. What picture is forming today?
– The most obvious contradiction is that on one hand, there is talk of continuing negotiations, while on the other hand, military operations are not only ongoing but also expanding. Various structures, including healthcare and state institutions, are becoming targets of Israeli strikes.
This means that the prospects for political negotiations and military pressure are developing in parallel. And this is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the situation.
– Can we say that military operations are also a means of negotiating pressure?
– Yes, that impression is clearly being created. When military operations continue and even intensify alongside discussions about negotiations, it is difficult to view them completely separately.
Military pressure can serve as a means to dictate political conditions. In this case, negotiations are taking place not in a peaceful environment but under conditions of power relations.
– What political significance does the possible transfer of negotiations from Rome to Paris have?
– At first glance, it may seem that this is simply a change of the venue for negotiations. However, such changes in international politics often have symbolic and political significance as well.
The choice of Paris can be seen as an attempt to assign France a certain role in the Lebanese issue. However, it is important to understand that hosting the negotiations does not necessarily mean carrying out real political mediation.
– In other words, can France become the main mediator?
– For now, it is premature to draw such a conclusion. The main external actor in the Lebanese issue continues to be the United States.
Washington is unlikely to be willing to cede its central position in the negotiation process to any European state, including France. Therefore, Paris may become an important political platform, but not necessarily the main center for decision-making.
– Why is Europe unable to play a more influential role?
– The problem of Europe is not only related to the Lebanese issue. Overall, in recent years, the political influence of European states in international crises often does not correspond to their economic and diplomatic capabilities.
France continues to have special historical ties with Lebanon, but these ties are not sufficient for Paris to independently assume a decisive role in the resolution of regional conflicts.
– Could Israel's attitude towards France's possible involvement create a problem?
– Certainly. If one of the parties has reservations about any mediator or external actor, that circumstance limits their political possibilities.
Israel's position regarding France's more active involvement could be an important factor. And here, Washington's position is also crucial.
– What role do the United States play in this entire process?
– The United States remains the force without whose participation or agreement it is difficult to imagine a serious political process.
Therefore, if the negotiations move from Rome to Paris, it should not be assumed that the actual political leadership is also changing. A change of venue does not necessarily mean a change in the balance of power.
– Is the international community responding adequately to what is happening in Lebanon?
– This is perhaps one of the most acute questions. The international community talks about negotiations, ceasefires, and political solutions, yet military operations continue simultaneously.
What is more concerning is that civilian, healthcare, and state structures are becoming targets. And the question arises: how adequate is the international response to the reality that Lebanon is experiencing today?
– What is the situation in Beirut under these circumstances?
– Beirut has found itself in an extremely complicated situation. On one hand, it must respond to military pressure, while on the other hand, it must participate in political processes and try to prevent further escalation of the situation.
However, the greatest contradiction is that Lebanon is expected to negotiate under conditions where military operations are ongoing.
– So, where is the main problem – in Rome, in Paris, or in the negotiation format in general?
– The problem is not the city of negotiations. Yesterday it was Rome, today it may be Paris, tomorrow it could be another capital.
The real question is whether it is possible to achieve a political solution when negotiations are taking place under ongoing military operations and power pressure.
As long as that fundamental contradiction is not resolved, the geography of negotiations may change, but the essence of the crisis will remain the same – negotiations under bombardment.
* This text was automatically translated by Artificial Intelligence (AI).
ENGLISH
