The Washington framework agreement is discussed as a product of executive consensus. President Aoun signed. Prime Minister Salam endorsed. The cabinet approved. The institutional surface presents a unified Lebanese state negotiating with Israel under American sponsorship. The institutional reality is different. The framework was negotiated without the prime minister. Salam was not in Washington. He was not in Rome. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not present at either venue. The Lebanese civilian government was excluded from the negotiations entirely. Salam’s later endorsement was not consent. It was capitulation to a fait accompli.
Understanding this requires understanding the structural position of the Lebanese prime minister within the confessional system. The presidency, reserved for a Maronite Christian, commands the armed forces. The speaker of parliament, reserved for a Shia Muslim, controls the legislative agenda. The prime minister, reserved for a Sunni Muslim, occupies the space between them: he leads the cabinet, manages international relationships, and provides the state with its diplomatic credibility. His authority depends on the cooperation of the president, the acquiescence of the speaker, and the compliance of the sectarian blocs whose ministers sit in his cabinet.
The framework agreement has systematically stripped each of these dependencies from the prime minister’s control while leaving him formally responsible for a policy he was excluded from creating. This is not accident. This is institutional design. Aoun has created a precedent that teaches every future actor in Lebanese politics how to govern without the prime minister.
Start with the negotiation sequence. The framework was negotiated through military channels between presidential delegations and American/Israeli counterparts. The civilian government had no seat at the table. No foreign minister. No prime minister. No cabinet representative. The negotiations happened as if the Lebanese state lacked a civilian government entirely. Salam learned of the framework’s terms after they were finalized. He then endorsed it retroactively. This is not how consensual governance functions. This is how a presidency moves to exclude the prime minister from consequential decisions by creating facts before he is invited to respond.
Now consider what Salam’s exclusion signals to other actors. The president can negotiate security agreements without the prime minister’s involvement. The president can bind the state to military commitments through channels the PM does not control. The prime minister’s authority over foreign policy is not real authority. It is nominal authority that operates only when the president permits it. Every security minister, every military commander, every future actor watching this sequence has learned that presidential preference trumps prime ministerial authority. The PM can be sidelined without formal confrontation.
The veto structure has collapsed. In normal Lebanese governance, the prime minister can constrain executive action through cabinet dynamics and diplomatic channels. The framework agreement eliminated this possibility by excluding him from negotiations entirely.
The cabinet’s role was reduced to retroactive endorsement of decisions made in rooms Salam did not enter. This matters strategically. Every actor in Lebanese politics is now learning that international security agreements, negotiated through military channels and finalized by external powers, bypass the prime minister completely. No cabinet consent is required. No parliamentary discussion occurs. The framework proceeds because the president authorized it and the Americans backed it. The prime minister’s approval is window dressing.
Hezbollah’s rejection of the framework reveals the true measure of Salam’s marginalization. The most powerful non-state actor declared the agreement “null and void.” Under conditions where the prime minister held real authority, opposition of this magnitude would force renegotiation. Salam responded with nothing. Implementation continued. The pilot zones deployed. The army moved into southern zones. The prime minister’s complete inability to respond to the country’s largest military force demonstrates that the framework operates in institutional space the PM does not control and never controlled.
What remains of the prime minister’s authority is representational. Salam provides diplomatic cover. He signs documents. He delivers statements. He represents the Lebanese state to foreign governments. This function cannot be eliminated without cost. But representational authority without operational control is a specific political position:
Salam is the legitimizer. He is not the decision-maker. He provides the appearance of civilian government while real authority operates through presidential-military channels that exclude him.
READ: Israel fired 113 projectiles into southern Lebanon Wednesday, highest since June 21: UN peacekeepers
The mechanism through which the prime minister was marginalized is available to any future president. No amendment is required. No constitutional transfer of power is necessary. The president simply conducts security negotiations through military delegations, finalizes agreements with external powers, and presents the prime minister with completed policy requiring endorsement. The framework was the prototype. Future executives will replicate it. The Lebanese presidency has discovered how to govern a confessional state without requiring the prime minister’s consent or even his presence.
The long-term consequence is already visible. If the pilot zones succeed and the army establishes control over the south, the precedent becomes institutional norm: security policy moves through presidential-military channels with international backing. The prime minister’s role is diplomatic representation, not decision-making. If the pilot zones fail, Salam absorbs the political cost of a policy he endorsed but never negotiated, while Aoun retains military authority and presidential precedent. Either way, the prime minister loses and the presidency gains a model for future governance that bypasses civilian government entirely.
The marginalization of the prime minister has structural consequences for Sunni political positioning in Lebanon. The Sunni community has never possessed military capacity equivalent to Hezbollah or the Druze militias. It has compensated through parliamentary representation and, critically, through the prime minister’s international credibility. The PM was the Sunni community’s access point to power. He managed international relationships on behalf of the sect. He brokered security arrangements through diplomatic channels rather than military force. This strategy worked as long as the prime minister controlled foreign policy and security diplomacy.
The framework has exposed that this strategy no longer functions.
The president now negotiates security agreements directly with international actors, excluding the prime minister entirely. This means the Sunni community’s traditional power mechanism has been dismantled. Salam’s marginalization is not a personal failure. It is a structural collapse of the political strategy the Sunni sect has relied on for decades.
The Sunni community now faces a choice with no good options. It can attempt to reassert parliamentary authority over security policy, but parliament has been revealed as irrelevant to security decisions. The framework proceeded despite parliamentary opposition. Any future Sunni attempt to constrain security policy through parliament will face the same outcome: executive-military decisions backed by international powers will override parliamentary objection. It can attempt to develop military capacity independent of Hezbollah, but that requires resources, regional backing, and time. Neither is available. It can accept permanent subordination to whoever the president’s international patron is at any given moment. Currently, that patron is the United States.
The deeper consequence is that the Sunni sect’s historical strategy of using international relationships as substitute for military power has been shown to be dependent on the prime minister’s institutional relevance. When the prime minister loses authority, the Sunni community loses its primary channel for translating international relationships into domestic power.
Salam’s diplomatic credibility in Washington and Rome did not prevent his exclusion from negotiations. His international relationships did not give him a seat at the table. His credibility provided cover, not authority.
This means the Sunni community must either find a new power mechanism or accept permanent marginalization. Finding a new mechanism requires either developing military capacity (strategically difficult and regionally dangerous) or finding an international patron willing to guarantee Sunni political relevance independent of the PM position (strategically difficult and diplomatically unlikely). The most probable outcome is acceptance of subordination to whatever actor controls the presidency and its international backing at any given moment. For now, that is Aoun and his American patron. The Sunni community will be the administered, not the administrator. And this arrangement will persist as long as the president maintains American support.
OPINION: The logic of staying: Why Hezbollah and Amal will not resign
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
