Amid the heightened tensions and political rigidity displayed by the official representatives of Lebanon's Shiite community, "Hezbollah" and "Amal Movement," over the nomination of Judge Nawaf Salam to form a government and the election of General Joseph Aoun as President of the Republic, it is essential to examine the scene with its positives and negatives and explore ways to untangle the complexities that have overshadowed the new presidential term from its onset.

First, Hezbollah, through its parliamentary bloc leader Mohammad Raad, declared from Baabda Palace the existence of a conspiracy aimed at "excluding" the sect, describing a "trap" set against it and accusing parties of "cutting off" the hand extended to elect the president, reneging on prior agreements.

In reality, claims of a prior "agreement" require evidence, whether verbal or written, and identification of the counterpart—be it Lebanese, foreign, or both. Questions remain about the credibility of promises, such as nominating Najib Mikati (former Prime Minister), addressing issues of weapons, reconstruction, appointments, and ministerial portfolios. Such political agreements of a national scale, particularly involving presidential elections and government formation, cannot be shrouded in secrecy or handled as intelligence maneuvers, bypassing the concerned components and powers.

References to U.S. and Saudi pressures on MPs to elect a president or nominate a prime minister align the "Shiite duo" with other parties if they too yield, albeit reluctantly, to these pressures, as demonstrated by their election of General Joseph Aoun under purported conditions for acceptance.

Second, a remarkable position emerged from the top religious authority of the Shiite sect, also from Baabda. Sheikh Ali Al-Khatib, Vice President of the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council, stated that "weapons are not sacred" and emphasized the need for security and stability alongside all Lebanese. This stance starkly contrasts with Hezbollah's longstanding rhetoric sanctifying its weapons, as articulated in the 2006 memorandum of understanding with former President Michel Aoun. Sheikh Khatib’s statement drew a swift rebuttal from another Shiite cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan, who countered that "nothing is more sacred than weapons."

Sheikh Khatib's stance resonates with the historical legacy of the sect, aligning with the national vision of Imam Musa al-Sadr and Sheikh Mohammad Mehdi Shamseddine, diverging from Hezbollah's transnational approach tied to Iran's regional agenda.

Third, political monitors have not noted any intent or clear moves to isolate the "Shiite duo," neither from their political opponents nor from the new leadership symbols, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. On the contrary, all stress a commitment to national partnership based on equity rather than dominance, which may explain the duo's sense of marginalization, a natural response for any power feeling weakened.

Their boycott of non-binding consultations conducted by the designated prime minister appears more as a psychological reaction to express displeasure than a political withdrawal or obstructionist stance.

Fourth, national agreements must not become selective, applying in some areas but not others. Such agreements must remain rooted in equal representation among major sects, reflecting the will of the people rather than being dictated by politicians or parties.

Fifth, the core of Lebanon’s current crisis lies in the erosion of its foundational diversity. While other sects maintain internal plurality, the Shiite sect has become politically monopolized by Hezbollah and Amal, stifling representation of diverse voices. Addressing this imbalance requires fostering internal diversity within the Shiite community, ensuring a healthier national dynamic and averting the risks of rigid sectarian blocs.

The new phase, launched by the inauguration and government formation speeches, calls for a shift in political discourse and behavior. Joint efforts, not unilateralism or isolation, are key to rebuilding the state. Abandoning obsolete methods, such as dominating state decisions and embracing corruption, is imperative. The rhetoric of "traps," "conspiracies," and "exclusions" must give way to a language of inclusion and cooperation. Between isolation and self-imposed seclusion lies a significant difference, and there is no need to fall into the latter under the pretext of the former.