Dismiss This Minister For the Sake of Lebanon and the Presidency

Al Binaa

23-04-2025

The President of the Republic, alongside the Prime Minister and the government, remains committed to the belief that a diplomatic solution can succeed in securing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied areas within the Blue Line and halting the continuous aggression against Lebanon. Such an achievement would amount to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the primary foundational part of Resolution 1701, thereby opening the path to reconstruction. The President, along with the Prime Minister and government, believes reconstruction can be supported through diplomatic efforts.
Regardless of whether one is optimistic or sceptical about the possibility of Washington distancing itself from Israel in favour of its role as a guarantor and mediator of the agreement, the President's and government's plan suffers from a critical flaw, indeed, a fatal defect. Lebanon's diplomacy is crafted behind the scenes at the Foreign Ministry: in its dispatches to ambassadors, its daily communications, and the official correspondence sent by the Foreign Minister to his counterparts around the world. Yet, this minister openly and repeatedly declares his rejection of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the President and the government, and he translates that rejection into practice by refusing to adhere to it. Not only that, he actively promotes a diametrically opposed strategy.
At the heart of this alternative strategy lies the dangerous logic of instrumentalising continued occupation, ongoing aggression, and the suspension of reconstruction funding as levers of pressure to force Hezbollah's weapons onto the negotiating table. The Minister openly states his 'understanding' of the occupation's persistence, of the aggression, and of the withholding of funds, as long as Hezbollah has not surrendered its arms. But in truth, his statements amount to nothing less than incitement, encouraging the continuation of occupation, aggression, and financial strangulation.
In any government, the Foreign Minister is the head of diplomacy and the official spokesperson for the state's foreign policy. His words carry the same weight as those of the President and the Prime Minister. In Lebanon's case, however, Israel, and likely the United States and certain Arab states, will not hesitate to treat the Foreign Minister's statements as the official Lebanese position, relegating the words of the President and Prime Minister to mere political rhetoric meant for domestic consumption.
Just as dangerously, while a Foreign Minister may personally disagree with a government's foreign policy, the nature of the role demands institutional discipline, a capacity to silence personal opinion in favour of conveying the state's unified stance. But in our case, we are dealing with a Minister who not only defies this obligation, but insists on publicly displaying his dissent and marketing it as policy. He has become a threat to any diplomatic endeavour championed by the President.
The Minister's latest achievement, widely reported by the media, is his alleged intention to summon the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, in protest over a tweet concerning disarmament. At first glance, one might assume the ambassador interfered in a purely Lebanese matter, and that his tweet addressed Hezbollah's disarmament or, as the Minister claims, the notion that arms should be held exclusively by the state. But I seriously doubt the Minister even read the tweet. I therefore urge everyone who commented, or plans to comment, on the Minister's announcement to summon the Iranian ambassador on grounds of interfering in internal Lebanese affairs, violating diplomatic norms, or insulting the President (who holds the monopoly over arms as a constitutional principle), to first read what the ambassador actually said.
Here is Ambassador Mojtaba Amani's tweet: 'The disarmament project is a clear conspiracy against states. At a time when the United States continues to supply the Zionist entity with the latest weapons and missiles, it prevents other countries from arming and strengthening their armies, and pressures others to reduce or destroy their arsenals under various pretexts. Once these countries yield to the demands of disarmament, they become vulnerable to invasion and occupation, just as happened in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We in the Islamic Republic of Iran are fully aware of the dangers of this conspiracy and its threat to the security of the region's peoples. We warn others not to fall into the enemy's trap. Maintaining a deterrent capability is the first line of defence for sovereignty and independence, and it must never be compromised.'
A brilliant tweet by the Iranian ambassador on the importance of regional states maintaining their military capabilities, generally referring to their national armies, and of pursuing further armament, because surrendering weapons invites occupation and humiliation. He provides examples, and points out that the very America pushing for disarmament is the same America arming Israel to the teeth. He adds that Iran, which is being pressured over its missile arsenal, will not submit. There is no harm in taking this as advice addressed to Lebanon and other states in the region, especially since the tweet mentions neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah, nor the issue of exclusive state control over arms, nor any other matter the Minister seeks to exploit.
The ambassador's message is clear: 'Arm your armies. Enhance your deterrent power. Do not fall for the disarmament trap.' If the Lebanese Army were to arm itself and benefit from the capabilities of the Resistance, would that violate the concept of exclusive state control over arms that the President defends?
When Morgan Ortagus stood at the presidential podium and thanked the enemy, the Minister felt no diplomatic sensitivity. In a TV interview, she even mocked Lebanon, asking sarcastically, 'Where is Lebanon?' When questioned about the President's refusal to engage in negotiations proposed by Washington, she said, 'That's not what the President tells us', an obvious attempt to undermine the President's credibility. Just days ago, she made a deeply offensive remark about a major Lebanese leader, former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt. Yet the Foreign Minister did not once feel the need to formally address Washington to say: Your envoy is disrespectful, kindly replace her for the sake of our bilateral relations.