Lead:

Lebanese opinion writers are consumed by two intersecting crises: the domestic fallout from the US-brokered Framework Agreement with Israel, and the broader repositioning of regional and global powers in response to shifting Middle Eastern dynamics. The Framework Agreement has fractured the political consensus and raised fundamental questions about Lebanese sovereignty, while commentary on US hegemony, Israeli strategy, and Iran's role reveals deep anxiety about Lebanon's geopolitical vulnerability.

Voices & Positions:

In Al-Akhbar, analysts stress that implementation of the Framework Agreement threatens Lebanese sovereignty by circumventing UN Resolution 1701 and reducing Lebanon's negotiating leverage to a secondary role managed by Washington and Tel Aviv. They warn that the agreement represents a structural shift away from multilateral frameworks toward bilateral American mediation.

In Al-Diyadar, contributors including Ibrahim Najjar and others argue that the agreement's security provisions require careful legal scrutiny and that Washington must honor commitments to strengthen the Lebanese Army before any Israeli compliance can be assumed. They question whether the agreement's vague language on boundaries and security zones adequately protects Lebanese territorial integrity.

In Al-Nahar, columnists debate American global decline and resilience simultaneously, with some arguing that China's rising power fundamentally undermines US preeminence while others contend American institutional strength persists across defense and economic domains. Additional commentary examines whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become a strategic burden for Washington and whether upcoming Israeli elections will destabilize regional agreements.

Sheikh Maher Hammoud, in Islam Times, characterizes the agreement as a Western attempt to subordinate Lebanon entirely to American foreign policy, rejecting any separation between Hezbollah's status and broader Lebanese security interests.

Political scientist Walid Safi calls for revision of Framework Agreement provisions and their alignment with Lebanese sovereign decisions rather than external dictates.

Tension & Convergence:

Virtually all voices agree the agreement poses implementation risks and raises sovereignty concerns. However, they diverge sharply on whether the Framework Agreement represents inevitable adaptation to regional realities or capitulation to American-Israeli pressure. Nationalist columnists see existential threat; technocratic voices seek legal guarantees.

Editorial Takeaway:

The dominant voice today is one of profound anxiety: Lebanon's political class recognizes it lacks independent leverage in a multipolar competition between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran, and fears the Framework Agreement institutionalizes this dependency without adequate safeguards.