Lebanese Member of Parliament Fouad Makhzoumi used a prime-time interview on Al-Hadath TV to deliver one of the most direct assessments yet of Lebanon’s political crossroads — backing President Joseph Aoun’s call for direct dialogue with Israel, challenging Hezbollah’s claim to veto Lebanon’s diplomatic choices, and framing the current moment as a rare and potentially irreversible historic opportunity.

Speaking with characteristic directness, Makhzoumi praised the Lebanese government’s recent decisions as historic and described them as enjoying broad official and popular support — then proceeded to map out exactly what full implementation should look like.

Makhzoumi offered unambiguous backing for President Aoun’s initiative to open direct dialogue with Israel, linking its success to what he described as a uniquely favorable alignment of regional forces. He cited US President Donald Trump’s personal engagement with the Lebanese file, the supportive role of Saudi Arabia, and the government’s deliberate policy of separating the Lebanese negotiation track from the Iranian issue as reasons for cautious optimism.

“The President’s stance on direct dialogue is a positive step,” Makhzoumi said, adding that Hezbollah’s attacks on the President — framed as accusations of treason — were themselves evidence that the initiative had landed where it hurt. “This explains Hezbollah’s reaction and its attack on him under the guise of accusing him of treason.”

Makhzoumi did not soften the numbers. He estimated that Lebanon’s successive wars — which he described bluntly as serving an Iranian agenda rather than any Lebanese interest — have cost the country more than $30 billion in losses, in addition to mass displacement and casualties. “These are senseless wars from which we have gained nothing,” he said, “because they are merely an Iranian agenda.”

He was equally direct in characterizing Hezbollah itself: “Hezbollah is an Iranian faction that drags us periodically into wars that have nothing to do with us and that we do not want. The Lebanese people want to live in peace.”

In one of the interview’s sharpest passages, Makhzoumi turned Hezbollah’s anti-negotiation rhetoric back on itself. He noted that Hezbollah had itself participated in negotiations with Israel on multiple occasions — in 1996 and again in 2024 through the Mechanism Committee — and pointed to the ongoing talks between Iran and the United States as an additional layer of contradiction.

Makhzoumi addressed the legal framing of normalization directly, arguing that the Arab League’s 1955 boycott legislation has been systematically misrepresented. “When the Arab League passed the boycott law in 1955, there was no criminalization of dealings with Israel — there was only a commercial and economic boycott,” he said. He accused Syrian influence and Hezbollah of distorting the law’s original meaning to criminalize contact far beyond what it actually specified. “We have now broken this stereotype,” he added.

Makhzoumi was careful to distinguish between the positions of Hezbollah and Speaker Nabih Berri’s Amal Movement. He noted that Amal ministers have attended Cabinet sessions and participated in government decisions, and that Speaker Berri has stated he will not obstruct negotiations with Israel. The distinction matters politically: it isolates Hezbollah’s rejectionism rather than attributing it to the broader Shia political establishment.

Makhzoumi outlined the sequencing he believes must underpin any durable outcome. He referenced his own five-point plan for Beirut’s recovery — covering disarmament and army deployment in the capital — as well as a recent conference held under the theme “Beirut, a safe and weapons-free city.” He argued that these initiatives reflect existing political will, and that President Aoun could build on concrete implementation progress to strengthen Lebanon’s negotiating position.

The sequence, as Makhzoumi described it: restrict weapons to the state south of the Litani, deploy the Lebanese Army across all regions within a defined timetable, support President Aoun’s negotiations from a position of demonstrated sovereignty, and work toward a comprehensive settlement including Israeli withdrawal from the south.

“I do not see the possibility of toppling the current government,” he added, “which derives the legitimacy of its decisions from the presidential oath, its ministerial statement, and the support of the Lebanese people.”