Lebanese President Michel Aoun made a bombshell announcement on Saturday. Following the normalization deal between Israel and the UAE, he hinted he would be willing to enter into peace talks with Israel if lingering issues were resolved. This is a major shift of position in the “resistance axis” that considers Israel as an existential threat to Lebanon. It is important to analyze Aoun’s statement in the light of his ally Hassan Nasrallah’s earlier message, in which he asked his supporters to “store their rage” for when it is needed. He said that no one can take the president down. He also threatened civil war, something the Lebanese across the board want to avoid. The ghost of 15 years of bloody civil war still haunts every Lebanese family and home. No one would like to start a confrontation with Hezbollah that could ignite a civil war. This threat overrides his claim that the weapons of Hezbollah are not intended to be used against fellow Lebanese, but rather are aimed at protecting the country from external enemies, with Israel topping the list. Hezbollah and Aoun closely liaise on their political statements and actions. Hezbollah has shown in the past that it is ready to compromise on its “sacred principles” to save its own skin or that of its ally. For example, Amer Fakhoury, the Israeli agent who was responsible for the notorious Khiam prison, was released in March. That move could not have happened without Hezbollah’s acquiescence, and hard-core supporters criticized the group for what they thought was its crossing of a red line. The deal was supposed to prop up Gebran Bassil with Washington, which indirectly extended a lifeline to Hezbollah as it struggled under the brunt of US sanctions. All these positions show that Hezbollah’s survival instinct can overcome ideology, and that sacred principles can falter in the face of hard-core pragmatism. Nevertheless, the threat of a civil war and the overture to Israel are two positions that will greatly compromise the credibility of the resistance axis in Lebanon. For them to take such positions shows a great deal of despair. The allies Hezbollah has used to breathe in the suffocating sanctions atmosphere now seem to be subject to sanctions themselves. The Magnitsky Act will target corrupt politicians as well as businesspeople in the close circle of Hezbollah and its allies. The announcement about Israel might be a maneuver to gain time or the sympathy of the US. Aoun made this dramatic statement, which could be considered as blasphemous in the resistance axis dictionary. To add to the pressure of the sanctions, foreign boots are now on Lebanese soil — a territory that Hezbollah considers its turf. The FBI has sent officers to join France’s forensic police and help investigate the cause of the Aug. 4 Beirut explosion. Hezbollah and its ally are also anxious about the verdict of the international tribunal into the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which is due to be announced on Tuesday after being postponed because of the tragic blast. Adding to the heat of August, the mandate of the UNIFIL forces needs to be renewed before the end of the month. What if the UN Security Council insists on the enforcement of resolution 1701 — the deployment of UNIFIL on all Lebanese borders — being a precondition for the renewal of its presence? What if UNIFIL forces were to be deployed on the borders and stationed in the airport? That would strangle Hezbollah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already sent a veiled threat to Nasrallah, saying that, in order for the tragic incident at the port not to be repeated, the Hezbollah chief should not store weapons in “inhabited areas,” the same way he stored weapons in the port. A civil war, as Nasrallah alluded to in his speech, would be as destructive for Hezbollah as it would be for the country. Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib All the indicators are that the pressure is taking its toll on the Hezbollah-Aoun alliance. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Hezbollah will bow to international pressure and gracefully exit the scene or give up its arms, as many voices both domestically and internationally are demanding. Nevertheless, we have seen that Hezbollah’s survival instinct can overshadow its ideology. A civil war, as Nasrallah alluded to in his speech, would be as destructive for Hezbollah as it would be for the country. It might also trigger an international intervention, meaning the end of the group. This is Hezbollah’s last option, but it might take this path if Nasrallah feels he is facing his doom. The question is that, now we are about to reach the optimal point of the pressure on Hezbollah, what sort of arrangement can be reached with the group? What sort of compromise would it be ready to make in order to secure its survival? Would a compromise be possible in the current conditions? The situation is very delicate and a proper balance is needed to avoid Lebanon descending into another round of violence, which it cannot handle. Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view