BEIRUT — In one of the most closely watched political interviews to emerge from Lebanon in recent months, Fouad Makhzoumi, Lebanese parliamentarian, billionaire, and a leading candidate for the premiership, sat down with Al Arabiya to lay out a frank diagnosis of Lebanon’s crisis — and what he believes are the nation’s final options for survival.

Makhzoumi’s remarks, which circulated widely on social media and drew immediate commentary from analysts and politicians across the region, touched on the failures of the ceasefire mechanism, the expanding Israeli footprint in the south, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and Lebanon’s singular reliance on Washington as its only viable lever of pressure against Tel Aviv.

The Ceasefire That Was Never Fully Implemented

Speaking candidly about the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Makhzoumi argued that a failure of genuine coordination within the Mechanism Committee had allowed the situation to deteriorate far beyond what was necessary. Had there been real institutional follow-through from the outset, he contended, the committee’s work would not have been suspended, the Lebanese army would have completed its mission in the south, and many of the subsequent crises could have been avoided.

The consequences of that failure are now visible on the ground. When the ceasefire was struck, Israel was occupying five points in southern Lebanon. Today, Makhzoumi noted with evident alarm, Israeli forces are operating across approximately 80 villages — a direct result, he said, of the war that Hezbollah chose to wage in support of Iran, dragging Lebanon into a conflict it did not initiate and cannot sustain.

Washington as Lebanon’s Only Lifeline

On the diplomatic front, Makhzoumi placed his trust firmly in the Lebanese negotiating delegation currently engaged in direct talks in Washington. He expressed particular confidence in the expertise of Ambassador Simon Karam and Ambassador Nada Maalouf, describing their mission as critical to reaching outcomes that are both positive and durable.

Yet he was unequivocal about where ultimate leverage lies: the United States of America, he argued, is the only power capable of compelling Israel to honor its ceasefire commitments. President Donald Trump, he recalled, has personally pledged to help Lebanon — to support the Lebanese Army and assist in the reconstruction of the devastated south.

Key Points From the Al Arabiya Interview

Fouad Makhzoumi

@fmakhzoumi

Key points from my intervention on Al Arabiya channel — on the ceasefire, Hezbollah’s arms, Lebanon’s negotiations in Washington, and the invocation of UN Resolution 1701 as a last resort.

↗ View full thread on X

The Government’s Dilemma — and Hezbollah’s Refusal

Makhzoumi acknowledged the Lebanese government’s diligent efforts to fulfil its disarmament obligations, while noting with frustration that what has been required has not been implemented to the degree it should. Government decisions taken on August 5 and 7, 2025, and reaffirmed on March 2, 2026, established a clear institutional mandate. Hezbollah’s continued defiance of those decisions, Makhzoumi argued, leaves the state with only one path forward.

That path is Paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which explicitly authorizes the Lebanese government to request military assistance from friendly nations and regional allies when it cannot enforce its own sovereignty. For Makhzoumi, this is not a radical proposition — it is the logical and legal end-point of a state that has exhausted every other avenue.

Analysts React: “Not a Headline — A Political Map”

The interview drew immediate and notable reaction. Bechara Gerges, a prominent political commentator, urged every Lebanese citizen and every serious friend of Lebanon to listen to Makhzoumi’s remarks in their entirety — arguing that the value lies not in any single viral soundbite, but in the coherent sequence of his argument.

Gerges described the interview’s architecture as moving systematically through how Makhzoumi names the crisis, frames the state, defines the strategic danger, and situates Lebanon’s choices inside a wider regional and international equation — elements that, when cut into isolated clips, lose their cumulative force.

The Legal Loophole That Left Hezbollah Armed

Global entrepreneur and broadcaster Mario Nawfal highlighted one of the interview’s most historically significant passages: Makhzoumi’s explanation of how a deliberate act of political redefinition — carried out by Hezbollah and its Syrian backers in 1992 — allowed the group to remain armed while every other Lebanese militia disarmed in the post-civil-war settlement.

The episode remains one of the most consequential political manoeuvres in modern Lebanese history. By securing international recognition of Hezbollah as a “resistance” rather than a militia, the group exempted itself from the disarmament clauses of the Taif Agreement — a status it has maintained, with Iranian and Syrian backing, for over three decades. Makhzoumi’s framing of this as a deliberate legal exploitation, rather than a principled distinction, is a pointed challenge to the narrative that has shielded Hezbollah from accountability under Lebanese law.

As Lebanon’s negotiating delegation continues its work in Washington, and as pressure mounts from both domestic political forces and the international community for a final resolution of the arms question, Makhzoumi’s remarks stand as among the most direct and consequential public statements from a senior Lebanese political figure on the path ahead.