The devastating explosion last Tuesday in the port of Beirut, as initially mentioned, was related to a fire in a warehouse for the production of raw materials for the production of incendiary items. But in the first official reaction to the blast, Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab stressed the need to investigate the cause of the blast, saying that we would not allow the perpetrators go unpunished. Diab’s remarks show that he does not consider the blast to be an accident, at least in terms of its context, and emphasizes the punishment of its perpetrators.

Also shortly after the incident, French President Emmanuel Macron arrived in Beirut and said in an interventionist statement that he would propose a political solution (for change) in Lebanon.

The recent incident in Beirut is a painful and unique incident that has been called a national catastrophe in Lebanon. To analyze this event, two issues must be considered; first, a Russian businessman wanted to take about 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate to Africa in 2014, but due to a technical defect in the ship, it was stopped at the port of Beirut and transported to warehouses in the port of Beirut by THE order of the government.

This amount of ammonium nitrate was stored for 6 years and the blast may have been considered a human error; Because placing more than 2,700 tons of flammable and dangerous ammonium nitrate in the largest port in the Middle East in Beirut is technically completely wrong, any technician can easily recognize that the presence of this amount of nitrate in a warehouse at the port will have dangerous consequences.

Even the former head of customs and agents repeatedly wrote letters to the governments of the time, now the government of Saad Hariri and the governments after it, emphasizing that the maintenance of this amount of ammonium nitrate is quite dangerous; However, these governments did not pay attention, and in the meantime, the main responsibility lies with Saad Hariri, and for this reason, secret hands are being exposed as to why Saad Hariri and his government, despite the correspondence sent by the Director General of Beirut Customs and Port Affairs, they did not pay attention. This is very suspicious and points the finger of blame at the Hariri government.

Another issue is who caused the explosion; reports indicate that the Zionist regime and the United States have experienced the latest technology of electronic warfare in Beirut. In the sense that, according to existing theories, security experts believe that a very small UAV embedded in a computer chip, smaller in size than a pigeon and embedded in a laser beam, was thrown from a place in Tel Aviv and this object looking like a small bird explodes in that area by emitting a laser beam. Preliminary reports and estimates suggest that Israel and the United States may have jointly launched the small, high-tech drone at the port of Beirut after learning of the amount of ammonium nitrate.

A security investigation committee has been set up by Hassan Diab’s government, and details of the investigation will be released after the results are obtained. The damage is estimated at $5 billion, but appears to be higher, given the Lebanese economic situation, which has entered a complex cycle of crisis. Given the economic pressures, the displacement of more than 300,000 Lebanese after the blast and the destruction of food and medicine warehouses, it seems that Lebanon is entering a new cycle of crisis and needs urgent international assistance.

In the meantime, we saw that after this incident, a clear scenario was followed by the Western media, including the American, as well as Zionist and Arab media to the effect that Hezbollah missiles were being kept in the said warehouse, which exploded due to heat. Riyadh even claimed that Hezbollah missiles had exploded following the Israeli missile strike.

This propaganda line seems to have been launched by these countries with the aim of creating a current against the Axis of Resistance and Hezbollah; But Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah in Lebanon, recently referred to Macron’s visit and said in a statement that “our view is positive and we are currently waiting to take a position.”

Noting that some are concerned and issuing warnings, he said: We say we are looking positively at the moment and I believe it is an opportunity for the Lebanese government and people to get out of the oppressive sanctions.”

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Lebanon, his interventionist remarks and his warning to the Beirut government suggest that future scenarios will be far more dangerous than the explosion at the Beirut port.

Also the contacts that US President Donald Trump and some other Arab and Western personalities had with Saad Hariri instead of Hassan Diab and Michel Aoun means that they still do not recognize the government of Hassan Diab. Regarding Macron’s immediate visit, it should be noted that he, like General de Gaulle, considers himself the lord and custodian of Lebanon.

These macro-interventions indicate that a dangerous scenario has been defined for Lebanon, which would first of all make the delivery of aid to Lebanon conditional on the formation of a national unity government. The formation of the government of national unity also means that the government of Hassan Diab will be removed and a government will be formed under former Prime Minister Hariri or the likes.

The next step will be to put pressure on the future Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, and at the same time, the court handling the assassination of Rafik Hariri will issue verdicts against Hezbollah leaders so that they can be detained.

Eventually, if the next government fails to disarm Hezbollah, the matter will probably be referred to the Security Council, and Hezbollah and Lebanon will be placed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to form a so-called global consensus against it. This scenario, which is being pursued by Trump and some Western governments, is very dangerous, and in this regard, Hassan Diab, who is aware of the situation, is expected to stand up and not allow them to succeed in advancing such a scenario.