Musk Calls Lebanese President as Starlink Seeks License
Billionaire businessman Elon Musk and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun spoke by phone to discuss making elements of Musk's sprawling business empire available in Lebanon, a statement from Aoun's office said on Thursday.
The statement said Musk called Aoun and "expressed his interest in Lebanon and its telecommunications and internet sectors".
Aoun invited Musk to visit Lebanon and said he was open to having Musk's companies present in the country, which ranks among the countries with the lowest internet speeds, Reuters reported.
The call came just weeks after Aoun and other top Lebanese officials met with Starlink's Global Director of Licensing and Development, Sam Turner, in Beirut for talks on providing satellite internet services in Lebanon. US ambassador Lisa Johnson was pictured attending those meetings.
The negotiations have prompted some pushback in Lebanon. Internet access in the country has so far been operated exclusively by state-owned companies and their affiliates, who are lobbying the government not to license Starlink.
Starlink recently received licenses to operate in India and Lesotho.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
23 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran's hackers keep a low profile after Israeli and US strikes
After Israeli and American forces struck Iranian nuclear targets, officials in both countries sounded the alarm over potentially disruptive cyberattacks carried out by the Islamic Republic's hackers. But as a fragile ceasefire holds, cyber defenders in the United States and Israel say they have so far seen little out of the ordinary – a potential sign that the threat from Iran's cyber capabilities, like its battered military, has been overestimated. There has been no indication of the disruptive cyberattacks often invoked during discussions of Iran's digital capabilities. 'The volume of attacks appears to be relatively low,' said Nicole Fishbein, a senior security researcher with the Israeli company Intezer. 'The techniques used are not particularly sophisticated.' Online vigilante groups alleged by security analysts to be acting at Iran's direction boasted of hacking a series of Israeli and Western companies in the wake of the airstrikes. A group calling itself Handala Hack claimed a string of data heists and intrusions, but Reuters was not able to corroborate its most recent hacking claims. Researchers say the group, which emerged in the wake of Palestinian militant group Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, likely operates out of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence. Rafe Pilling, lead threat intelligence researcher at British cybersecurity company Sophos, said the impact from the hacking activity appeared to be modest. 'As far as we can tell, it's the usual mix of ineffectual chaos from the genuine hacktivist groups and targeted attacks from the Iran-linked personas that are likely having some success but also overstating their impact,' he said. Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York did not respond to a request for comment. Iran typically denies carrying out hacking campaigns. Israeli firm Check Point Software said a hacking campaign it ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps has in recent days sent phishing messages to Israeli journalists, academic officials and others. In one case, the hackers tried to lure a target to a physical meeting in Tel Aviv, according to Sergey Shykevich, Check Point's threat intelligence group manager. He added that the reasoning behind the proposed meeting was not clear. Shykevich said there have been some data destruction attempts at Israeli targets, which he declined to identify, as well as a dramatic increase in attempts to exploit a vulnerability in Chinese-made security cameras – likely to assess bomb damage in Israel. The pro-Iranian cyber operations demonstrate an asymmetry with pro-Israeli cyber operations tied to the aerial war that began on June 13. In the days since the start of the conflict, suspected Israeli hackers have claimed to have destroyed data at one of Iran's major state-owned banks. They also burned roughly $90 million in cryptocurrencies that the hackers allege were tied to government security services. Israel's National Cyber Directorate did not return a message seeking comment. Analysts said the situation is fluid and that more sophisticated cyber espionage activity may be flying under the radar. Both Israeli and US officials have urged industry to be on the lookout. A June 22 Department of Homeland Security bulletin warned that the ongoing conflict was causing a heightened threat environment in the US and that cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks. The FBI declined to comment on any potential Iranian cyber activities in the United States. Yelisey Bohuslavskiy, the cofounder of intelligence company Red Sense, compared Iran's cyber operations to its missile program. The Iranian weapons that rained down on Israel during the conflict killed 28 people and destroyed thousands of homes, but most were intercepted and none significantly damaged the Israeli military. Bohuslavskiy said Iranian hacking operations seemed to work similarly. 'There is a lot of hot air, there is a lot of indiscriminate civilian targeting, and - realistically - there are not that many results,' he said.
Argaam
an hour ago
- Argaam
Q2 performance outlook for Saudi firms: What to expect?
The Saudi-listed companies will disclose their Q2 2025 financial results on July 1 and will continue until August 11. Investors and market participants are eagerly awaiting the start of earnings releases, expected to begin next week.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Where is Iran headed after the ceasefire
On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced an Israel-Iran ceasefire, after 12 days of intense escalation between the warring sides. The peak of that escalation came when US forces struck three sensitive Iranian nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – with precision strikes. These three sites are considered the backbone of Iran's nuclear program. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. Amid the flurry of analyses, this announcement appeared as a pivotal moment that warrants pause and reflection – not just as a step to de-escalate tensions, but also to understand Iran's place within the complex regional and global landscape. Since Khomeini's revolution in 1979, Iran has presented itself as the center of resistance forces in the Middle East. It built a political narrative based on standing firm against external pressures and supported anti-Western movements. It began with the hostage-taking of 52 American embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days and went on to directly target American interests in the region, all while chanting anti-US slogans and labeling it the 'Great Satan.' This approach undeniably granted Tehran influence within certain radical circles in the region, but on the flip side, it placed Iran in ongoing confrontation with its regional and global surroundings, leading to growing isolation – an isolation whose greatest cost was borne by the Iranian people. American writer Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York Times two days ago that Iran chose from the beginning to align itself with the 'resistance axis' that thrives on conflict, in contrast to other regional powers that bet on development, integration, and prosperity. While Tehran may have made some military progress, Friedman argues that the losses it has sustained – economically, socially, and diplomatically – far outweigh any gains. While internal burdens piled up inside Iran, neighboring moderate states were achieving growth indicators and strengthening their diplomatic presence as influential players on the global stage. Iran's insistence on its nuclear program stands as one of the clearest manifestations of the path it has chosen. The program is no longer just a subject of international suspicion – it has become a real threat to Iran itself before even threatening its neighbors. Today, the world no longer views nuclear capabilities as symbols of deterrence or admiration, but rather with suspicion – especially when such capabilities are tied to a vague political ideology and tense regional relations. How can a country demand the trust of the international community while simultaneously raising the level of threat to such heights? And how can anyone feel assured about a nation that operates under the logic that the only guarantee for survival is the pursuit of destructive tools? The truth is, the core issue does not lie in the nuclear program itself as much as it lies in the mentality behind it – a mentality focused on amassing power rather than pursuing development, seeking deterrence more than integration, and fearing its own people more than its adversaries. Unless there is a genuine transformation in this mindset, there will be little difference between the end of one war and the beginning of another, because the core of its political thinking will remain unchanged. Today, development is no longer a secondary option – it has become the most important benchmark for political legitimacy and the compass by which nations measure their ability to progress and maintain stability. Iran possesses the necessary resources to become a powerful regional economic force – if it chooses that path. But this will not happen without deep internal introspection and a redefinition of what 'power' means within its political discourse. The ceasefire, as announced by Trump, is not a victory for any side so much as it is a moment of reckoning. Tehran can either seize it as a beginning for a calm inward shift, or remain trapped in cycles of escalation and retreat, of withdrawal and suspicion – of both external and internal matters alike. At this crossroads, the true weight of nations is not measured by the number of ballistic missiles they possess, but by the clarity of their vision and their capacity to foster hope. Yes, the Iranian revolution has endured for 46 years, but the seismic blows its expansionist projects have suffered in the past two years reveal that this endurance is turning into a burden. What remains of the revolution should, ideally, be translated into a nation-building project – not into further siege and paranoia. Today, countries are measured by what they deliver to their people… not by what fear they instill in others.
