Hezbollah: Lebanon risks civil war if government enacts disarming plan
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem issued a strong warning to the Lebanese government against moving forward with its plan to disarm the Iran-backed militant group, accusing it of acting on orders from the United States and Israel, and threatening that such a move could spark a civil war.
Qassem said his group will not "surrender its weapons" while Israel, which significantly weakened Hezbollah during a 14-month war last year, remains a threat and continues to strike Lebanon, occupy parts of its territories and hold Lebanese prisoners.
"We will fight this as a Karbala-style battle if necessary, confronting this Israeli-American scheme no matter the cost, confident that we will emerge victorious," he said in a televised speech released Friday.
To Muslim Shiites, Karbala means standing against tyranny, sacrifice and steadfastness in the face of overwhelming odds.
Qassem's strong warning came after he met with Iran Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who visited Beirut on Wednesday, where he heard firm statements from President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam rejecting any interference in their country's internal affairs.
Larijani tried to play down recent comments by Iranian political and military officials who criticized the Lebanese government for endorsing the objectives of a U.S.-proposed plan to disarm Hezbollah and for tasking the Lebanese Army with developing a strategy to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year.
The Iranian officials also maintained that Hezbollah, which has been funded and armed by Iran since its formation in the early 1980s, would never be disarmed.
Qassem said the government took "a very dangerous decision" last week, exposing the country to "a major crisis" and stripping it of "defensive weapons during times of aggression."
He also accused it of "serving the Israeli agenda" and carrying out "an order" from the U.S. and Israel "to end the resistance, even if that leads to a civil war and internal strife."
He held the government fully responsible for any sectarian strife, internal explosion, or destruction of Lebanon and warned it against dragging the Army into such an internal conflict.
Qassem, said, however, there "is still an opportunity, room for dialogue and for making adjustments before reaching a confrontation that no one wants."
He added that Hezbollah was ready for confrontation and that demonstrations will be held across Lebanon, including "heading to the U.S. Embassy," located in Awkar, north of Beirut.
Hezbollah, which reportedly lost the bulk of its military capabilities in ongoing Israeli airstrikes targeting its positions in southern and eastern Lebanon, accepted the ceasefire accord to stop a war that killed or wounded more than 20,000 people and left border villages in southern Lebanon in ruins.
While it implicitly agreed to discuss its weapons as part of a national defense strategy, the group resisted government efforts to set a timetable for disarming -- a key U.S. condition for unlocking much-needed international and Gulf Arab funding to support Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery.
Lebanon's decision to set a timeline for Hezbollah disarming was mainly motivated by the risk of another devastating war with Israel and of losing well-needed funds to rebuild its war-devastated regions.
"Let us work together to build the country, so that we may all win," Qassem said. "There is no life for Lebanon if you choose to stand on the opposite side."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Trump, Putin tout progress to end war in Ukraine, but no cease-fire announced
1 of 14 | Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump after a joint press conference following a meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday. Photo by Bob Strong/UPI | License Photo Aug. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after a 3 1/2-hour face-to-face summit in Alaska on Friday, said they made progress in reaching a deal on peace in Ukraine, though no cease-fire was announced. The two leaders appeared before reporters at 3 p.m. local time but took no questions from them. Their meeting began at 11:30 a.m. Alaska time. They also didn't mention a key issue: whether Russia or Ukraine will give up acquired land. But when asked later in person by Sean Hannity on Fox News whether they agreed on a land swap, Trump said: "Those are points that we negotiated and those are points that we largely have agreed on. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say no." He also told Hannity that he would hold off on imposing more sanctions or "other severe consequences" against Russia if the war wasn't halted. Earlier this month he threatened harsh sanctions. Neither president gave any details to reporters. "We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to," Trump said, speaking for 3 1/2 minutes. "We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there." He said: "There's no deal until there's a deal." Putin, speaking first for about eight minutes and 30 seconds, said an accord to end the 3 1/2-year-old war will "pave the path toward peace in Ukraine." The agreement must deal with security. "As I've said, the situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to our security," Putin said. "I agree with President Trump, as he has said today, that naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well. Naturally, we have prepared to work on that," he said. Missing from the summit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He and his aides were not invited, though Trump has said he hopes for a second meeting that will include him. Putin said Friday that he suggested the next meeting to take place in Moscow. "That's an interesting one, I'll get a little heat on that one," Trump said. "But I could see it possibly happening." Trump said he will discuss details of the first meeting with allies and Zelensky. "I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate,"Trump said. "And I'll, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting. It's ultimately up to them." Putin told Ukrainian and European leaders not to intervene. "We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive all this in a constructive manner and will not create any obstacles, will not make attempts to disrupt the emerging progress through provocations and behind-the-scenes intrigues," he said. Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of Ukraine's parliament, posted Friday on Telegram: "It seems that Putin has gained more time. No cease-fire or de-escalation has been agreed upon." John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser during his first term, told CNN: "Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won. Trump didn't come away with anything, except more meetings. "He escaped sanctions. He's not facing a cease-fire. The next meeting is not set. ... It's far from over, but I'd say Putin achieved most of what he wanted. Trump achieved very little." The two leaders praised each other. "Our negotiations took place in a respectful, constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, were very thorough and useful," Putin said. Trump said: "We had many, many tough meetings, good meetings," and "always had a fantastic relationship with President Putin." He said their relationship was hurt by investigations during his first term in office about Moscow's interference in the 2016 election. "We were interfered with by the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax," Trump said. "I've made it a little bit tougher to deal with, but he understood it." In the interview with Hannit, Trump said: "So I think the meeting was a 10 in the sense that we got along great. And it's good when, you know, two big powers get along, especially when they're nuclear powers." Trump and Putin stood in front of blue backdrop that read "Pursuing Peace." It was the seventh face-to-face meeting between the two leaders. The summit was originally supposed to be one-on-one with interpreters. During the president's flight to Alaska, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters aboard Air Force One about a change in plans for the meeting, saying there wouldn't be an expected one-on-one meeting -- with interpreters -- between Trump and Putin. The two men met that way at their meeting on July 16, 2018, in Helsinki, Finland. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 14, 2022, when Joe Biden was the U.S. president. Putin has had two terms as president since 2000. He was prime minister from 2008 to 2012. Putin told reporters he agreed with Trump that the war wouldn't have happened if Trump were president then. He also said Trump will "help us bring back business life and pragmatic relations between Russia and the U.S." In the summit, Trump was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also is Trump's national security adviser, as well as U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. Putin was accompanied by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov, an aide on foreign policy issues. After the bilateral portion of the summit, the delegations were to meet for lunch, but The Wall Steet Journal reported it didn't happen. Trump's delegation included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles. Before Putin departed, he laid flowers on the graves of Soviet soldiers at Fort Richardson Memorial Cemetery. They died while bringing equipment from the United States to the Soviet Union during World War II. The U.S. purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867 for $7.2 million. Alaska became a U.S. state in 1959. After Putin's plane departed, Trump left around 4:20 p.m. and headed back to Washington, D.C. Leaders' arrival Their planes both arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, which is geographically close to Russia. It is a U.S. Army and Air Force base. Trump first arrived aboard Air Force One after flying 4,000 miles from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. The nonstop flight lasted six hours. Before the flight, he posted on Truth Social: 'HIGH STAKES!!! About 30 minutes later, Putin got off an Ilyushin II-96, the primary aircraft in the Russian presidential fleet. His flight lasted 12 hours from Russia's Magadan Airport in the far eastern nation. The party broke their journey for a "full-fledged regional trip," including a visit to an industrial plant and a meeting with the regional governor, according to the Kremlin. Trump didn't leave the plane until Putin's jet landed. While on the ground, he greeted Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and Gov. Mike Dunleavy, all Republicans. Trump met Putin near his plane, and they shook hands. They went on a red carpet and posed for a photo. They didn't answer any questions from reporters. Putin didn't answer whether he would "stop killing civilians," appearing to gesture that he couldn't hear the question. Putin joined Trump in the U.S. president's limousine, known as the Beast, as they departed from the tarmac. They both sat in the back of the vehicle. American fighter jets flew overhead. In war-torn Ukraine, Zelensky before the summit urged an end to the war in a video post on X on Friday. "On the day of negotiations, the Russians are killing, as well," he said. "And that speaks volumes. ... Ukraine is ready to work as productively as possible to bring the war to an end, and we count on a strong position from America. Everything will depend on this -- the Russians factor in American strength. Make no mistake -- strength." He added: "Russia must end the war that it itself started and has been dragging out for years. The killings must stop. A meeting of leaders is needed -- at the very least, Ukraine, America, and the Russian side -- and it is precisely in such a format that effective decisions are possible. Security guarantees are needed. Lasting peace is needed. Everyone knows the key objectives. I want to thank everyone who is helping to achieve real results." Unease over the staging of a summit on Ukraine without Zelensky also showed little sign of abating, with protests in the streets of Anchorage in support of Kyiv and questioning Trump's ability to negotiate a deal with Putin. Ukrainians were also on the streets of Kyiv, demonstrating outside the U.S. embassy, demanding the return of their loved ones held by Russia over "land swaps" envisaged in any peace deal.
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
A silver lining in Trump's anti-climate agenda
Presented by With help from Noah Baustin, Annie Snider and Jordan Wolman THE SAFETY IN ENDANGERMENT: The Trump administration is about to roll back the federal government's power to regulate climate change, but a former top Biden administration official sees a silver lining for California. Ann Carlson, a UCLA professor who served as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under Biden, said the Trump administration's move to nix the so-called endangerment finding — which the Obama administration issued in 2009 and lays out the legal basis for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health — could open the door for states to create their own emissions rules for the transportation sector. While states are preempted from setting vehicle greenhouse gas standards under Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case that affirmed EPA's authority to regulate those emissions, Carlson said that the federal government getting out of the emissions game would present state leaders with a serious argument that preemption is off the table. That would be especially useful for California, after Congress in June revoked its unique ability to create stricter-than-federal pollution rules. Carlson spoke with POLITICO about the endangerment finding, the Supreme Court and what electric vehicle policies she wants California to push forward. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It seems counterintuitive that the Trump administration rolling back EPA's ability to reduce greenhouse gases could potentially help California regulate its own emissions. Can you explain your thinking? I would start with the reality that what it looks like when you read the endangerment finding proposal from EPA is that it's essentially making arguments that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. That's the section that regulates vehicle emissions. So if that's true, then the states presumably are not preempted from regulating greenhouse gases. If you want Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, which is essentially what they're arguing, then you're basically saying that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover greenhouse gases, or at least with respect to mobile sources. How exactly would that help a state like California to develop greenhouse gas rules for vehicles? One of the arguments that opponents make against California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate mobile sources is that Section 209, which is the section that both preempts other states and gives California its authority, is really designed to attack air pollution, because historically, that's been California's big problem. Los Angeles has the worst air pollution in the country, and that's really what that provision is about. And so if California is trying to use its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, opponents say that is beyond its scope. But now, if EPA is in fact arguing that Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which gives it authority to regulate pollution from mobile sources, doesn't cover greenhouse gases, then states aren't preempted from regulating them. You could have 50 states potentially regulating greenhouse gases coming out of vehicles. Do you think that argument would hold up in front of a conservative Supreme Court? What EPA is doing is squarely putting on a collision course the combination question of whether Massachusetts v. EPA should be overturned and whether states can regulate independently because they're not preempted. Let's take power plants as an example. States can regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, because there's no preemption provision in the Clean Air Act. That's why California has its cap-and-invest program, for example. I believe the answer would be that if Section 202 doesn't cover greenhouse gases, there should be no prohibition on states regulating. Does that mean the Supreme Court would agree with me? Who knows. But it would raise a conundrum for them, because the conservatives on the court have been very reluctant to let EPA regulate greenhouse gases ambitiously. This seems to be a serious conundrum for the auto industry, which pushed the administration to revoke California's EV mandate. It's not an accident that the industry has not been urging EPA to withdraw the endangerment finding. If you look at who's aligned with that concept, going back to the first Trump administration, auto companies and the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce are staying on the sidelines. It's the oil industry generally that has been arguing in favor of doing this. Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order after Trump revoked California's EV mandate, directing state agencies to develop recommendations for maintaining progress. If you were a state regulator, what policies would you advocate for? Incentives are one way to push. For example, replacing the rollback of the federal tax credits is one possibility. Cities and counties can invest in zero-emission technology and consider things like feebates, where you reward buyers of electric vehicles through lower vehicle license fees. You can use the indirect source rules that require stationary sources that attract a lot of vehicle traffic to ensure that some of those vehicles are low-emission or zero-emission. All of those sorts of things are, I think, appropriate. I think the harder question is, can you do enough to replace straight regulation? Yeah, right. That's why this opportunity is potentially interesting. If the endangerment finding is going to go away, maybe California has authority that it didn't think it had. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! WAIT FOR US: The Trump administration is jumping into truck manufacturers' lawsuit seeking to dissolve a zero-emission sales agreement with California. The Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division filed the motion to intervene in a Sacramento federal court on Thursday, three days after four truck makers — Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar and Volvo North America — sued to break a 2023 voluntary agreement with the state. The move is the latest step in the administration's aggressive effort to dismantle California's electric vehicle policies, most notably Congress' June revocation of EPA waivers that allow the state to enforce ZEV mandates. DOJ's filing, like the industry's lawsuit, argues that without the waivers, California no longer has the authority to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership, which was negotiated by nine manufacturers and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. 'Agreement, contract, partnership, mandate — whatever California wants to call it, this unlawful action attempts to undermine federal law,' Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson said in a statement. — AN ROLL OUT THE RED CARPET: A who's who of the California wind energy industry, and their regulators, visited Merced County on Thursday to tour the under-construction Gonzaga Ridge Wind Farm. Just three of the new turbines being installed will produce more power than the 1980s-era installation of 166 turbines that it's replacing, according to the developer, Scout Clean Energy. In total, its capacity will reach 147.5 megawatts. 'That demonstrates how far the technology has come,' said California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild as he gazed at the site. 'This is what the future looks like.' Besides the state's top energy boss, POLITICO also spotted Ignis Energy USA General Manager Pedro Blanquer, Wind Stream Properties co-owner Bob Gates, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria's field representative Vanessa Barraza and California Wind Energy Association lobbyist Melissa Cortez. Also in attendance were representatives of Clean Power SF, whose agency has committed to purchasing the power for San Franciscans to use, and the state park system, whose land the installation sits on. Rows and rows of turbine blades were being stored on the location, a welcome site to Scout Clean Energy CEO Michael Rucker. When his team heard that the Trump administration would be imposing hefty tariffs, they sped to expedite shipping supplies from India, Germany, and Malaysia. The blades, which were manufactured in Turkey, cleared customs one day before Liberation Day, according to Rucker. 'We were lucky,' he said. — NB BETTER TO BE LUCKY: Warnings that the Trump administration's Forest Service downsizing could hamper wildfire response efforts haven't materialized yet, thanks in part to favorable weather conditions in fire-prone parts of the country. Democratic lawmakers and state officials across the country have warned that the Trump administration is courting disaster by removing about 5,000 Forest Service workers through early retirement and buyout programs, including about 1,600 people with wildland firefighting qualifications. But decent spring and summer rainfall and cooler temperatures across the West have helped contain wildfires, making existing personnel and resources adequate for ongoing response efforts, POLITICO's Jordan Wolman reports. 'He's gotten lucky in a way,' Steve Ellis, a former Forest Service supervisor who now serves as chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, said of Trump. 'You're not really going to look bad until fire gets going and you don't have enough resources.' — AN, JW KEEPING THE TAP FLOWING: California can expect to receive steady Colorado River water supplies for the rest of the year, but the situation is getting dicey. The Interior Department announced Friday that states along the river will continue to get stable supplies, despite the latest projections for the waterway, which show water levels at the two main reservoirs continuing to plummet, POLITICO's Annie Snider reports. New projections show Lake Mead at elevation 1,056 feet at the beginning of 2026 — almost 8 feet lower than it was on New Year's Day 2025 — and Lake Powell at elevation 3,538 feet — 33.5 feet lower than it was on Jan. 1. But the Trump administration left open the possibility of making mid-year changes to how much water gets released from Lake Powell, and potentially also releasing water from other reservoirs upstream in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and New Mexico. The news comes as the administration warns it could develop its own water-sharing rules for Western states if they can't reach an agreement among themselves. — AN, AS — Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter gives Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin's AB 1408 a shoutout in his call to speed up clean energy installations. — A small Napa County town is experimenting with a new microgrid run on batteries and liquid hydrogen. — An invasive swan species is a growing threat to California's wetlands, sparking a debate over whether hunters should be allowed to begin killing the beautiful birds.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Clark becomes highest-ranking Democrat to accuse Israel of ‘genocide' in Gaza
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the number two House Democrat, called Israel's actions in Gaza a 'genocide' in remarks earlier this week. 'We each have to continue to have an open heart about how we do this, how we do it effectively, and how we take action in time to make a difference, whether that is stopping the starvation and genocide and destruction of Gaza, or whether that means we are working together to stop the redistricting that is going on, taking away the vote from people in order to retain power,' Clark said during a Thursday event in her district hosted by Friends Committee on National Legislation. Clark is now the highest-ranking House Democrat to use the term 'genocide' to describe the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. She joins other lawmakers, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who have said the same. The Hill reached out to Clark's office for comment. During the Thursday event, constituents questioned the Massachusetts Democrat over her acceptance of $371,187 from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as shown in a video posted by a reporter at The Greyzone News. 'In the past, I have taken AIPAC money, but again, that is not saying you're not going to do what is right here,' she answered. 'I understand that for some of you that's a red line.' Criticism in recent months has mounted against Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu over its war in Gaza. This week, Netanyahu said he has no choice but to ' finish the job ' in Gaza. During the 22-month war, which began after Hamas attacked Israel in 2023, the death toll has risen to over 60,000 people, and the enclave is experiencing mass starvation according to U.N. sources, which Netanyahu denies. Netanyahu has floated the relocation of Palestinians as the Middle Eastern country has been in talks with South Sudan about taking in people. 'I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,' Netanyahu said in an interview with i24, and Israeli TV station last week.
