Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was right when he said that the answers to the questions raised in the paper delivered by U.S. presidential envoy Tom Barrack to Lebanese officials should first be provided to us, before being given to anyone else.

In any case, Barrack’s paper is identical to Ortagus’s paper, which is essentially the paper of the U.S. administration itself. They contain the same demands, albeit sometimes worded differently by different envoys—perhaps this is what explains the Speaker of Parliament’s greater comfort with Barrack compared to Ortagus.

Accordingly, Lebanese officials are well aware of the contents of that paper and what is expected of them in response. And since the Prime Minister insists that the content of the paper reflects demands that are fundamentally Lebanese—before being American, Arab, or international—why the delay?

The justification for waiting may lie in reports from multiple officials indicating that the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament are still consulting to present a “unified” Lebanese response. But can one really imagine presenting multiple, conflicting responses? What kind of state knows the answer it needs to give for a long time but still hesitates to implement it?

It is tragically comical to hear the Speaker of Parliament question how the state can demand that “Hezbollah” hand over its weapons while it has failed to disarm the Palestinian camps.

This government’s problem is not ignorance of the solution—it knows the path forward but hesitates to take it, clinging to outdated standards that do not apply to the current, rapidly evolving reality. The government does not have the luxury of waiting: time is short, the demands are significant, and the path is clear.

The urgency of time does not only apply to the crucial condition of placing all weapons under the authority of the Lebanese state. It also, and just as urgently, applies to convincing Lebanese citizens that their government is serious about laying the foundations for reform, instilling accountability, and pursuing justice, not merely targeting those stripped of political protection. It is no longer acceptable for those in power to shirk their responsibilities by claiming they have done their part by conducting investigations and referring cases to the judiciary, as if their duty ends there. Their responsibility continues: they must follow up on these cases through the judicial system, press the courts to expedite proceedings, and take proactive measures within their ministries and administrations to prevent the creation of new cases that would later be sent to the judiciary.

Back to the core issue: Lebanon cannot afford the luxury of waiting. Its problems are well known, as are their solutions. What is missing is the right decision, and even when some decisions are made, they come entangled with the devils lurking in the details of their implementation.

And if time can sometimes help untangle certain issues, everyone must realize that time can also be a killer of opportunities.