The head of the Lebanese Forces party, in a statement to the newspaper "L'Orient-Le Jour," responded to a question regarding the current situation: "The holy month of Ramadan has begun without a ceasefire in Gaza, and the United States is expressing concerns about a potential comprehensive war in Lebanon. Do you share those concerns? What would be the position of the Lebanese Forces in the event of war?"
He stated, "Since the onset of hostilities, it has been clear that things are heading towards danger. This is why I say that no one should tamper with the existing balances in southern Lebanon since the adoption of Resolution 1701 in August 2006, especially since the ongoing confrontations in the south have not truly aided Gaza. Today, after five months, things are moving toward escalation, and the risk of war is very real. In my opinion, Israel will conduct an attack on Rafah, and its objectives and goals in Lebanon are serious as well. Based on this, we need to reassess our calculations moving forward."
He also underscored the severity of the situation, stating, "The most dangerous aspect is that everything suggests that Lebanon has no government responsible for its people, as the 'party' makes decisions that align with Iranian strategic interests in the region, which drive the Lebanese towards disasters, while the Lebanese government is absent, despite being responsible for the damages incurred to the country. Since the onset of the war, more than 300 people have been killed in Lebanon. Why? For whom? I don't know."
Regarding the recent initiative launched by the National Moderation MPs, he commented: "We quickly supported the National Moderation initiative because it is a logical proposal based on a one-day consultation among MPs, followed by an open election session with consecutive rounds. However, the initiative proposed by Speaker Nabih Berri last August (which includes a week-long dialogue followed by open election sessions) represents an attempt to establish a new official custom preceding the presidential elections, which is why we rejected it, as such an approach would mark the first step towards creating a dedicated body called 'the dialogue table' to become the mandatory passage for various constitutional requirements, which constitutes a violation of the constitution. Elections must be conducted according to constitutional procedures, and Speaker Nabih Berri's stances are merely a continuation of a decision to obstruct the holding of elections through unconstitutional proposals aiming to corner the opposition. However, we are not in a precarious situation, as we are holding consultations with our allies, which is natural. It is the best way to agree on a president for the republic."
When asked how to explain the division within the opposition regarding the National Moderation approach, he replied, "I don't know why the media always choose to exaggerate. The opposition consists of parties and figures, each with their own perspective. Differences in opinion do not affect the cohesion of this group."
Regarding leaks suggesting a possible rapprochement between the Shiite duo and the Free Patriotic Movement over the candidacy of George Khoury, the former military intelligence director and former Lebanese ambassador to the Vatican, he mentioned: "I never allow myself to express my opinion about a specific individual in the media. However, I regret to see names being proposed and leaked in the media solely to discredit them before it is time for serious discussions. In any case, this is not the way to reach an agreement on the presidential elections."
He concluded, "For us, we will not abandon the Azaour option as long as the resisting team (led by the party) does not withdraw its candidate, which it clings to more than ever. When the opposing party withdraws its candidate, we can discuss the principle of a third option. But everyone, including Nabih Berri himself, knows that the time has not yet come to take a serious position due to the resistance's rejection of the open session with consecutive rounds, and its simultaneous refusal to agree on the third option."
