A senior Hezbollah official said the party has not closed the door to direct contact with Washington, shifting a longstanding position and prompting speculation about undisclosed communications.
Mahmoud Qmati, a member of Hezbollah's political council and former minister, said the party would pursue contacts with the Americans if conditions and interests permit, without ruling out direct engagement. The party's media office did not deny the statement, only clarifying that Qmati was referring to the Islamabad track rather than Washington as the path to full Lebanese liberation and Israeli withdrawal.
Sources close to the Shia bloc told the newspaper that Qmati's position was not spontaneous but directed by the party leadership. The media office's intervention to clarify his remarks suggested party authorization for the statement.
Qmati is known as a key operative for the party and has recently attacked President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam while threatening street action to topple the government and rejecting any disarmament of Hezbollah. He has cited a US-Iran memorandum of understanding as a preferred alternative to the Framework Agreement.
Sources indicated that Hezbollah has exchanged messages with Washington through unnamed local intermediaries as well as through Turkey and Qatar, with some suggesting that mediated meetings and perhaps closer contacts may have occurred, though Qmati is not authorized to disclose them.
The party had previously avoided commenting on indirect contact with Washington, a position interpreted as protecting the mandate given to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is conducting negotiations on its behalf. Berri reached a ceasefire agreement with American mediator Amos Hochstein that resulted in the joint US-France statement.
The mandate to Berri remains active, though Amal leadership has expressed reservations about Qmati's fiery statements, including his attacks on Aoun and Salam and threats to mobilize street action against the government.
Sources said Hezbollah does not oppose mediated contact with Washington provided Iran is included and provided such contact occurs discreetly, following Iran's signing of its own memorandum of understanding through Pakistani mediation. The party's mediated engagement aligns with its support for the Islamabad track while it insists on rejecting the Framework Agreement.
When President Donald Trump told Aoun during their meeting that he would not object to contacting Hezbollah if asked, the party remained silent. Sources questioned whether this silence was deliberate, meant to obscure domestic attention from its mediated contacts with Washington while it opposes the Framework Agreement.
Political sources noted that the credibility of Qmati's remarks depends on Washington's willingness to engage. They also questioned why Hezbollah has cut off contact with Aoun while its leadership is aware that any development of Washington contact would not come at the expense of Aoun and the Framework Agreement majority, but rather in the context of Hezbollah's potential readiness to participate in a settlement based on state monopoly of arms.
Qmati also said that Hezbollah's non-response to some Israeli strikes on Aliyeh al-Tahir does not signal weakness or incapacity, and that any Israeli attempt to advance toward the hills would face proportionate resistance as the party evaluates all available options regarding the situation.
Sources questioned whether Qmati's reference to evaluating all options meant Hezbollah was ready to hand over the Aliyeh al-Tahir hills to the army or to deposit them with Berri, with the final choice contingent on opening a channel to Washington in hopes of persuading the party to yield the hills in exchange for joining the state project, but only after surrendering its weapons. Alternatively, they asked whether Hezbollah still insists on tying the hills' fate to the pending US-Iran memorandum and is counting on Iranian leadership to intervene at the right moment.
Some Hezbollah opponents who were not surprised by Qmati's remarks saw them as carefully calculated rather than a slip of the tongue. They argued that intensified US contact depends on Hezbollah's readiness to implement the Framework Agreement and separate it from the US-Iran memorandum, which cannot be implemented without a Middle East settlement. This would require Hezbollah to coordinate with Aoun and the government on Lebanese efforts to implement the agreement, which alone can decouple Lebanon's crisis from regional dynamics, provided Washington pressures Netanyahu to remove remaining obstacles and thereby supports Aoun, who sees direct negotiation as his only path to outmaneuver his rivals, particularly Hezbollah.
