BEIRUT — Lebanon’s 82nd Independence Day speech was made amid a national climate marked by uncertainty, sacrifice, and a persistent longing for a tangible, “third” independence, one defined by security, territorial integrity, and genuine sovereignty.

President Joseph Aoun’s address, delivered from the South Litani Sector in Tyre, was largely rhetorical, resembling the perennial declarations of the Arab League since 1948 — deeply symbolic, yet disconnected from the concrete realities on the ground.

While the speech evoked historical pride and national sentiment, its framing of Lebanon’s Resistance as “some actors in denial of regional changes” directly reverses reality.

In practice, Hezbollah alone demonstrates a pragmatic acknowledgment of shifting regional dynamics.

The Resistance continuously recalibrates strategies, monitors evolving threats, and adjusts its posture to preserve Lebanon’s security. It is a perspective thoroughly documented in its recent Open Book.

Moreover, the speech emphasizes negotiations as primary tool for addressing external threats. Yet, historical experience repeatedly demonstrates the limits of such approaches.

From the Oslo Accords to the Beirut Initiative, the current ceasefire arrangements, and every so-called “peace agreement” has failed to prevent Israeli expansionism, territorial violations, or threats to Lebanese civilians.

The Israeli enemy keeps strategic areas of Lebanon under its occupation, reinforces settlements, and maintains military positions that jeopardize national sovereignty.

Civilians remain under persistent threat, and communities, particularly in border regions and the Bekaa Valley, are subject to harassment and displacement by both external actors and extremist proxies.

The speech fails to recognize these realities or honor the sacrifices of those Lebanese citizens forced to endure occupation and incursions.

The address also invoked the Gaza agreement as a model for conflict resolution. Yet, it overlooks the daily violations and human cost in Gaza, systematic killings, restrictions on Palestinian identity, and the looming threat of renewed hostilities.

By portraying such agreements as ideal models, Aoun’s speech overlooks the core lesson highlighted in Hezbollah’s Open Book: only agreements anchored in enforceable deterrent power can truly safeguard sovereignty and protect civilians.

Similarly, Aoun praises engagement with the Syrian state as constructive. In reality, this overlooks the persistent threat posed by al-Julani’s extremist factions, which continue to terrorize and forcibly displace dozens of families from their homes and lands on the eastern borders.

Under these circumstances, such engagements cannot strengthen Lebanese sovereignty; instead, they expose the state’s vulnerability to external manipulation and underscore the ongoing human cost borne by ordinary citizens.

Likewise, references to economic recovery — often attributed to Banque du Liban policies — fail to acknowledge that many measures disproportionately target communities supporting Resistance, while obstructing post-conflict reconstruction.

Diplomatic gestures, such as high-profile visits from regional leaders like bin Salman, was presented by the President as an achievement to be celebrated.

Yet, in reality, this visit serves primarily to bolster Saudi influence and pursue transactional interests, such as arms deals or potential normalization with Israel rather than producing any genuine gain for Lebanon, or the Arab nation’s sovereignty.

Structurally, the President’s speech oscillated between symbolism and optimism but rarely bridged the gap to actionable policy. Emotional rhetoric, while unifying, cannot restore displaced populations, rebuild infrastructure, or secure the nation.

The enduring work of armed Resistance, rooted in strategic foresight and operational preparedness, remains the real guarantor of Lebanon’s security and autonomy.

*The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Tehran Times’ editorial stance.