Lebanese political sources close to the "Development and Liberation" bloc, headed by Speaker Nabih Berri, revealed to "Erm News" that Hezbollah refused to provide any prior guarantees against participating in a potential war between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other, despite Berri's efforts to dissuade it from intervening, amid ambiguous Iranian messages affirming Tehran's ability to face any attack alone, without explicitly requesting the party to stay out of the confrontation.

The sources quoted party leaders confirming that they "have not given and will not give guarantees to anyone" regarding not entering the war, clarifying that the decision will remain linked to military and political developments and what Israel may undertake, in a position contradicting media reports that spoke of Berri obtaining a new commitment from the party not to support Iran militarily.

The sources stated that the party does not treat the possibility of war as a predetermined decision to participate or abstain, but insists on retaining all its options and refuses to bind itself with prior commitments that may conflict with field developments. 

Berri Attempts to Extract Guarantees

According to the sources, Berri is trying to dissuade Hezbollah from any participation in the potential confrontation, based on his fears that opening the Lebanese front could lead to a wide Israeli war, at a time when the country is still suffering from the repercussions of previous confrontations and crises of displacement and reconstruction.

However, the party's leadership insists that its military decisions are solely its own, and that any final position cannot be taken in isolation from the nature of the potential attack on Iran, the extent of the confrontation, and Israeli actions towards Lebanon.

The sources emphasized that the refusal to provide guarantees does not mean the party's desire to ignite a new war, noting that it affirms in its political communications its commitment to civil peace and not to jeopardize internal stability.

This position reveals the limits of Berri's ability to influence the military choices of his ally, despite the role he plays in managing communications with the presidency, government, and external parties.

An Iranian Message Without a Clear Request

Regarding the Iranian position, the sources revealed that Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh informed figures from the Shiite duo, during his recent communications in Beirut, that Tehran is strong and capable of facing threats and assaults without the need for external military assistance.

However, it denied that the Iranian official requested Hezbollah not to intervene, or informed his interlocutors of an Iranian decision to keep the Lebanese front out of any upcoming confrontation.

These details gain importance in light of media narratives that spoke of Iranian reassurances to Lebanon, indicating that Tehran does not want to involve the party in a new war due to the imbalance of power with Israel.

The sources say that what the Lebanese figures heard was limited to affirming Iran's ability to defend itself, without delving into the military options that Hezbollah might adopt.

A Trust Crisis That Has Not Ended

The current communications come amid a previous trust crisis between Berri and the party, dating back to last March, when Hezbollah launched missiles towards Israel following the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei, despite narratives that spoke of a prior commitment from its Secretary-General Naeem Qassem not to intervene.

According to those narratives, the missile launch occurred without prior coordination with Berri; which placed the Speaker of Parliament before the repercussions of a military decision he did not expect, raising questions about the political leadership's ability to adhere to its reassurances.

However, sources close to the Development and Liberation bloc insist that the current position does not include any new commitment, quoting party officials who rejected considering the party's desire to avoid escalation as a binding guarantee against participation.

The sensitivity of the issue is heightened by the fact that any new confrontation could open the door to a wide wave of displacement, amid the ongoing economic and social burdens left by previous wars.

Explosives Increase the Distance

Berri's observations are not limited to the potential war issue; the sources revealed that he expressed his displeasure with Hezbollah for publicly announcing ownership of the shipment of explosives seized by Lebanese authorities in Dhahr al-Baydar.

They clarified that the Speaker preferred not to publicly adopt the shipment and to leave the handling of the issue to judicial and political paths away from the public escalation that put the government and security agencies before an additional test.

These observations reflect a divergence in managing sensitive files between the two sides of the Shiite duo, without necessarily meaning that the disagreement has transitioned to an open political confrontation.

The question that the recent communications have not resolved remains whether Hezbollah will translate its declared commitment to stability into an actual abstention from intervention, or whether developments in the potential confrontation will push it to make a different decision. 

Who Holds the Decision of War?

In the context of interpreting the limits of the party's military decision, Lebanese writer and political analyst Ali Hamadeh states that the decision of war and peace is not in Hezbollah's hands, but in Iran's.

Hamadeh adds to "Erm News" that the refusal to provide guarantees to Berri raises a problem that goes beyond the disagreement between two political allies, and relates to the entity that possesses the final decision regarding opening the Lebanese front; if the party's military leadership is linked to the calculations of regional confrontation, then political reassurances alone are not enough to exclude participation in war, especially if the Revolutionary Guard's assessments differ from the messages conveyed by Tehran's diplomatic channels.

Hamadeh points to the experience of last March as a test of the extent to which political communications can control field decisions, and confirms that the real test will not be in what the party says to its Lebanese allies, but in its ability to refuse to engage in a war that may be imposed by Tehran's calculations, even if it contradicts Lebanon's interests.