Kuwait army says it faces missile and drone attack

PARIS: Concerned about the alarming developments in the situation in Lebanon, Paris has called for an urgent meeting of the Security Council, while the special envoy of the French president, Jean-Yves Le Drian, is due to go to Beirut tomorrow, Wednesday.

French diplomacy is mobilizing to come to the aid of a country whose situation is a real plague for its inhabitants, in particular the hundreds of thousands of displaced people scattered across the territory following Israeli evacuation orders.

Behind this initiative, a central question arises: what purpose can an emergency meeting at the UN still serve in a context where the balance of power seems locked?

For Paris, the objective of this meeting is clear: it is not so much a question of extracting a resolution, unlikely due to the balance in the Security Council, as of “putting the pressure back on” and putting Lebanon back at the heart of international attention, while all eyes are largely turned towards Iran.

It is clear, for French diplomacy, that the situation has crossed a critical threshold in recent days. Especially since, already fragile, the ceasefire now appears emptied of its substance.

The strikes continue, Israeli threats intensify, including against Beirut, and the minimum conditions for credible dialogue seem to be collapsing.

Discussion channel between Lebanon and Israel

We can no longer even talk about a ceasefire, we essentially recognize on the French side, and this deterioration is all the more worrying as it comes at a time when a channel of discussion has opened between Lebanon and Israel under American mediation.

A choice considered courageous by French diplomacy, but which places Beirut in an extremely delicate position because, in the absence of reciprocity on the ground, these negotiations risk losing all credibility.

Paris insists on this point: if we want the Lebanese authorities to be able to move forward in these discussions, they must still be given the opportunity. However, the intensification of Israeli military operations reduces this political space to nothing.

Worse still, it could strengthen the actors that these negotiations precisely seek to contain, first and foremost Hezbollah.

In this equation, France tries to defend a pragmatic approach. She continues to recall the responsibility of Hezbollah in the spiral of the conflict, while emphasizing that Israel’s current strategy is counterproductive, believing that, if it were necessary to sabotage the discussions, we would not do it any other way.

From then on, the stated priority is the reestablishment of a “robust” ceasefire, an essential condition for any political progress, as well as the reactivation and improvement of the mechanism put in place at the end of 2024, today largely inoperative.

Paris insists on the fact that, without a credible framework for verification and de-escalation, diplomatic initiatives risk remaining a dead letter.

But beyond the immediate emergency, France is working on a longer-term strategy which is based in particular on strengthening the Lebanese state, starting with its army. The objective is to help Lebanon gradually regain its sovereignty by limiting the influence of non-state armed actors.

This requires increased support – financial, logistical but also political – to the Lebanese armed forces, without requiring them to engage in direct confrontation with Hezbollah, which is considered unrealistic in the current context. It is rather a question of strengthening their presence on the ground, controlling logistical and financial flows and securing key areas, notably the border with Syria.

On this last point, Paris sees an important lever because, unlike in previous years, a certain level of cooperation with the Syrian authorities seems possible, opening the way to better control of the flows which supply Hezbollah.

Another major project from the French point of view: the future of the international presence in Lebanon. The announced withdrawal of UNIFIL by the end of the year is causing serious concern.

France’s levers remain limited

France considers that such a security vacuum would be dangerous and therefore calls for rapid reflection on a new system, potentially more adapted to current realities.

This approach is part of a broader desire to remobilize international partners. In this regard, Paris is working closely with several countries in the region, notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar, as well as with certain European partners, in order to try to recreate a collective dynamic around Lebanon.

However, there remains a reality that is difficult to get around: France’s levers remain limited in the face of the central role of the United States in mediation. French diplomacy nevertheless strives to exert indirect influence by increasing exchanges with Washington and delivering a constant message: without a ceasefire, no lasting progress is possible.

Furthermore, Paris is exploring other avenues of pressure, particularly at the European level. The debate on the association agreement between the European Union and Israel could thus evolve under the combined effect of the situations in Gaza, the West Bank and now in Lebanon.

Finally, the mission of special envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian in Beirut has an essential political dimension since, beyond the support shown, for him it will be a question of dialoguing with all Lebanese political forces in order to promote a minimum of internal cohesion.

An issue considered crucial by French diplomacy in a deeply fragmented country, where community divisions weaken any national strategy.