Latest news with #Hizbullah
Memri
a day ago
- Politics
- Memri
Zeinab Akil, Daughter of Hizbullah Military Commander Ibrahim Akil, Killed by Israel in 2024: If Hizbullah Can No Longer Import Weapons from Iran, We Could Always Use Our Bare Bodies as Weapons
Lebanese journalist Zeinab Akil discussed the future of Hizbullah in a July 15, 2025 interview with LebanonOn (YouTube). Akil said that Hizbullah won the 2006 war with Israel, after which it became a regional player, engaging in strategic expansion and increasing its influence in the region. She stated that being on Western terror lists is an honor for Hizbullah, and that this is why Hizbullah can never be tempted to become merely a political party. Akil said that Shiites are proud to end their lives with martyrdom, but this does not mean they seek to die or do not value life. She added that if Iran did not supply Hizbullah with weapons, it would obtain them from India, China, Russia, or elsewhere, and therefore Hizbullah should not be called an Iranian proxy or an 'Iranian export.' According to Akil, all attempts to bring about Hizbullah's disintegration have failed. She said that if a worst‑case scenario were to occur, she herself is already planning to carry out a suicide attack, and she would not be the only one to do so. She asserted that Hizbullah and the entire Shiite sect in Lebanon would become a 'time bomb' of martyrdom‑seekers. Akil said she cannot imagine South Lebanon without Hizbullah's weapons, but just as Hamas obtains weapons despite a siege, Hizbullah would find ways to bring in weapons from elsewhere and, if necessary, fight with their bare bodies. She added that even a stabbing attack with a knife in Israel makes Israelis say they are exhausted and cannot take it anymore. 'Every person, every individual will become a weapon,' she said. Zeinab Akil is the daughter of Hizbullah military commander Ibrahim Akil (also spelled Aqil), who was killed by Israel in September 2024.
Memri
3 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
U.S. Softens Its Position On Hizbullah And Its Weapons; Special Envoy Thomas Barrack: Hizbullah Is 'A Political Party,' It Will Hand Over Only Its Heavy Weapons, And Only Over Time
In the past few months, there has been a significant shift in the U.S. administration towards a softer position vis-à-vis Lebanon and also vis-à-vis Hizbullah and its weapons. This is evident in both tone and essence. This change was reflected in the appointment of Thomas Barrack, an American businessman of Lebanese origin and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, to oversee the Lebanon portfolio. He replaces Morgan Ortagus, who was known for her hawkish approach to Hizbullah.[1] Barrack's softer tone regarding the Lebanese government, and the essence of his statements, surprised many in Lebanon and abroad, who had expected him to continue in Ortagus' footsteps and strongly pressure the Lebanese state to disarm Hizbullah. However, Barrack effectively recognized Hizbullah as a political party that should not be ignored, differentiating between this and the organization's "military wing." Moreover, he avoided indicating whether the U.S. would remove Hizbullah from the list of terrorist organizations if it disarmed its military wing and focused on its political activity. The U.S. has already done this for Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), the jihadi terrorist organization that took over Syria in December 2024 and is headed by Ahmed Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani. Barrack also framed Hizbullah's disarmament as a domestic Lebanese issue that would have to be with Hizbullah's consent and not imposed by force, making clear that the U.S. has no intention of interfering in the matter. Furthermore, he in effect recognized Hizbullah's right to continue to possess arms by calling for it to give up only its heavy weapons, and even this only gradually, as Israel withdraws from the territory it occupied in southern Lebanon and carries out other steps. The positions expressed by Barrack are in contrast with the traditional positions of the U.S., which does not distinguish between Hizbullah's so-called "political wing" and "military wing," but rather defines the entire organization as terrorist.[2] In addition, the U.S. has to date insisted that Hizbullah disarm completely across all of Lebanon, in accordance with the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire agreement of November 27, 2024, which is, as is known, guaranteed by the U.S. and France. It should be noted that the early signs of this shift were apparent during the tenure of Ms. Ortagus. Although she vetoed Hizbullah's participation in the new Lebanese government, calling it "a red line," the U.S. embassy in Beirut welcomed the new government under Nawaf Salam, which preserves Hizbullah's representation in that it includes two ministers from this organization.[3] This report will present recent statements by U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack on the topic of Hizbullah's disarmament. U.S. Special Envoy Barrack: Hizbullah – A Political Party That Has A Future In The Country "Hizbullah is a political party. It also has a militant aspect. Hizbullah needs to see that there's a future for them, that that road is not harnessed just so we're against them and that there's an intersection of peace and prosperity for them also…"[4] This surprising declaration – which completely contradicts the U.S. position that defines Hizbullah as a terrorist organization without any distinction between its military and political wings – was made by none other than Thomas Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Special Envoy to Syria, and diplomat in charge of the Lebanon portfolio, at a press conference he convened in Beirut on July 7, 2025, following a meeting he had with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. Asked how the U.S. intended to respond if Hizbullah refuses to turn over its weapons to the Lebanese government, Barrack said: "The good news for the U.S. is we don't intend to deal with it. We intend for you to deal with it, so this is not a situation of the United States coming in and saying let us tell you we want a regime change, let us tell you we're unhappy with one of your largest political parties… What we're doing is saying, you want change, you change it and we'll be there to support you. If you don't want change it's no problem. The rest of the region is moving at Mach speed and you will be left behind, sadly, you will be left behind." Posing a rhetorical question to the journalists at the press conference, Barrack asked: "Is Hizbullah a political party in Lebanon?", and added: "… So why do you think America or France or Great Britain are going to come in and resolve a political party in a sovereign country? That's not going to happen. It's your problem. You figure it out…"[5] Thomas Barrack, U.S. Special Envoy to Syria and U.S. ambassador to Turkey (Source: July 8, 2025) The significance of the remarks by U.S. Envoy Barrack is that he recognizes Hizbullah as a legitimate political party in Lebanon that has a future in the country. At a press conference he convened in New York on July 11, he reiterated the distinction between Hizbullah's military and political wings. Although he clarified that the U.S. sees Hizbullah as a terrorist organization, he stressed that, from a Lebanese perspective, Hizbullah has a political wing. He said, "And I got in trouble the other day because I said Hizbullah has two parts. First of all, certainly America looks at it as a terrorist organization. So Hizbullah, terrorist organization, same sentence – I'm saying it. That's what it is. However, in Lebanon, it's a political party. So, in Lebanon you have 13 to 15 parliamentary participants. That's Hizbullah the political party, one of the parties that represents the Shias along with the Amal party. And you have Hizbullah the militant group, which we think is backed by Iran, which is the foreign terrorist organization, which we have issues with. The process of Hizbullah putting their arms down starts with the Lebanese government process. They have to – and the council of ministers – have to authorize that mandate and that act, and Hizballah itself, the political party, has to agree to that…"[6] Barrack: "I Can't Answer" Whether The U.S. Will Remove Hizbullah From Its Terror List Furthermore, Barrack did not rule out the possibility that the U.S. would remove Hizbullah from its terror list if it decided to disarm and become a regular Lebanese political party – which the U.S. administration has already done for Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham that today rules Syria. Asked at a press conference about this, Barrack replied, "It's a great question, and I'm not running from the answer, but I can't answer it."[7] Barrack: Hizbullah Will Hand Over Only Its Heavy Arms, And Consensually Along with accepting Hizbullah as a legitimate political element, Barrack drew back from the U.S. position in the matter of disarming Hizbullah. In the past few months, the U.S. has been strongly pressuring the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah across the country, in accordance with the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement that came into effect on November 27, 2024. But it is clear that this position has also changed somewhat since Barrack was placed in charge of the Lebanon portfolio. During his first official Lebanon visit, on June 19, 2025, Barrack handed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun a document that, according to reports in the Lebanese and Arab media, included a road map for Lebanon's future. Along with demands for economic reform and normalization with Syria, it also included a demand for Hizbullah's disarmament throughout the country.[8] At a July 11 press conference in New York, Barrack clarified that Hizbullah must consent to its disarmament – that is, the process must be coordinated with it and approved by it, not imposed on it. He said, "The process of Hizbullah putting their arms down starts with the Lebanese government process. They have to – and the council of ministers – have to authorize that mandate, and that act, and Hizbullah itself, the political party, has to agree to that."[9] Also at the July 11 press conference, he underlined the demand that Hizullah hand over only its heavy weapons and not its light weapons, noting that the organization must agree "over a time period to forego its major weapons, right – everybody in Lebanon is packing a 357 Magnum. I mean, it's like having a belt. So we're not talking about small arms. We're talking about the weapons that could affect Israel."[10] These statements are in line also with a report published by the Lebanese daily Al-Mudun in early July, which said that according to the road map presented by Barrack to the Lebanese government, Hizbullah must lay down its heavy weapons – missiles and drones – as Israel withdraws from the areas in southern Lebanon that it controls.[11] This too is a withdrawal from the U.S. position, which up until now has called on the Lebanese government to completely disarm Hizbullah across Lebanon, without connection to an Israeli withdrawal. Hizbullah: We Make No Distinction Between A Political And A Military Wing; We Are One Organization With One Leadership It should be noted that, contrary to the remarks made by U.S. Envoy Barrack, Hizbullah itself denies that there is any distinction between its political and its military wings. In an interview with the Lebanese Al-Nahar daily that was published on July 11, 2025, Ihab Hamadeh, a Hizbullah MP, said: "Hizbullah does not have two wings. It is one organization with one leadership."[12] Similarly, in June 2013, about a month before the EU decision to add Hizbullah's military wing to the list of terrorist organizations, Na'im Qassem, who is currently Hizbullah's secretary-general, mocked the distinction between the organization's military and political wings, saying: "We do not have a military arm and another [arm] that is political. These Europeans are making themselves ridiculous… They are manipulating their own peoples [by saying] that they are conducting a dialogue with [Hizbullah's] politicians rather than with members of [its] military [arm]. They have forgotten that for us, every child is both a military man and a politician."[13]
Al-Ahram Weekly
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Fluid borders - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
When American officials invoke the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement — whether it is contextually justified or not — they are doing two things. First, they are recalling a traumatic historical episode marked by the arbitrary partitioning of the region's lands and peoples to serve the imperial designs of early 20th-century France and Britain. Secondly, they are issuing a veiled warning, framed as historical reflection. No state in the region has called for dismantling the Sykes-Picot framework. Yet when US officials speak of the 'injustice' it inflicted, their rhetoric hints at disruption. Then as now, a familiar pattern emerges: a dominant power seeks to reshape the region according to its own strategic and ideological aims. Though increasingly criticised by US diplomats, the Sykes-Picot order shaped the modern Middle East — a region still burdened by structural crises. But undoing this legacy, however flawed, risks exacerbating instability rather than resolving it. Since May 2025, Tom Barrack, the billionaire real estate developer and longtime ally of Donald Trump, has served concurrently as US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Lebanon. In this dual role, Barrack has repeatedly invoked the legacy of Sykes-Picot as the deepest root of the region's upheavals. He made his first explicit reference to this on May 25, shortly after his appointment, in a post on X: 'A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain—not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again.' He added: 'The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions.' In a June 2025 interview with Turkish media outlet NTV, Barrack again referenced the historical roots of regional instability, commenting on the stalled negotiations between Syria's interim government and Kurdish representatives over integration into state institutions: 'I think all these borders go back to Sykes-Picot, to the Sèvres Agreement, to all the failed lines. It's time to redraw and reach a new agreement.' On July 11, in an interview with The National, the official media outlet of the Abu Dhabi government, Barrack returned to the same theme — this time more implicitly. He invoked the term Bilad Al-Sham, a historical designation for Greater Syria prior to the 20th-century colonial partitions, warning that Lebanon could lose its autonomy if it failed to act decisively regarding Hizbullah's military arsenal: 'If Lebanon doesn't move, it's going to be Bilad Al-Sham again… Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort,' Barrack said. He stressed that Lebanon faces an 'existential threat' if it does not disarm Hizbullah and reassert state sovereignty. Bilad Al-Sham historically refers to a vast area in the Arab Levant encompassing modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan — territory that was fractured by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Barrack's remarks provoked a sharp backlash across Lebanon's political spectrum. Many factions denounced his comments as an unacceptable intrusion into Lebanon's internal affairs and a direct challenge to its sovereignty. Ibrahim Al-Moussawi, a Hizbullah MP and member of Lebanon's Foreign Affairs Committee, called Barrack's remarks 'deeply troubling,' framing them as evidence of a broader US geopolitical agenda. In response to the growing controversy, Barrack attempted to clarify his comments in a follow-up post on X, claiming his remarks were meant to praise Syrian reforms, not threaten Lebanon. He reiterated Washington's commitment to fostering balanced and respectful ties between Beirut and Damascus. Notably, Barrack was not alone in challenging the permanence of the Sykes-Picot borders. On 3 July, Israeli outlet i24 News cited a source close to Syrian interim President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, who spoke in a startling manner about security and political arrangements between Israel and Syria that embrace a land swap including even Lebanon, within the framework of a vision that can be summarised as 'fluid borders,' where borders can be modified and lands exchanged in order to achieve 'peace,' 'stability,' and 'cooperation.' 'There is no such thing as peace for free,' the Syrian source told i24, outlining two main scenarios reportedly under discussion. In the first, Israel would retain a third of the Golan Heights, return another third to Syria, and lease the remaining third for 25 years. The second scenario would see Israel keeping two-thirds of the Golan while handing back the final third, potentially under a lease agreement as well. Intriguingly, this plan might also involve transferring the Lebanese city of Tripoli, along with areas in the north and the Beqaa Valley, to Syria. According to the source, Syria views Tripoli as a lost part of Greater Syria, one of five regions detached during the French Mandate to form modern Lebanon. The ambitions don't stop at redrawn borders. The vision includes a sweeping regional agreement involving Israel, Syria and Turkey, centred on water sharing, possibly even a pipeline connecting the Euphrates to Israel. And, in a similar way to the wave of anger Barrack's statements about Bilad Al-Sham prompted in Lebanon, these statements sparked outrage, but Damascus distanced itself from them. It's difficult to determine the seriousness of these proposals. Many consider them 'trial balloons.' An Arab diplomat based in London told Al-Ahram Weekly that Barrack's persistent references to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Bilad Al-Sham are causing increasing alarm in the region. 'The frequency and consistency of these remarks,' the diplomat noted, 'are far from coincidental; they appear as calculated signals. The US, Israel, several Gulf states, and political factions in Lebanon appear to be exerting intense pressure for the swift disarmament of Hizbullah. They have elevated this objective above all else,' he added, 'even concerns about rekindling internal strife or provoking another civil war in Lebanon. 'Why this urgency? Maybe because negotiations between Israel and Syria's transitional government have reportedly reached advanced stages. Washington seeks to normalise relations with both Syria and Lebanon in tandem. Hizbullah's political and military influence renders that impossible. Hence, the push to neutralise it,' he argues. The paradox lies in the fact that while the US claims to oppose colonial-style interventions like the Sykes-Picot Agreement, its support for Israeli territorial ambitions in Palestine, Southern Lebanon, and parts of southwestern and southern Syria undermines this stance. Critics argue that the US message — promoting non-interference and respect for self-determination — is contradicted by its actions. Moreover, many interpret Barrack's criticism of the Sykes-Picot Agreement as part of a broader realignment in US Middle East policy. Rather than rejecting the logic of the 1916 agreement outright, Washington may instead be seeking to replace it with a framework more closely aligned with its contemporary strategic goals—and those of Israel. In this context, Barrack's remarks on Sykes-Picot, Bilad Al-Sham, and the 'New Syria' as a regional model may point to a deeper ambition: the gradual unravelling of the century-old state system in the Middle East. Undoing Sykes-Picot, when deemed necessary, would involve more than just redrawing borders; it would signify the dismantling of the centralised, nationalist state structures that have shaped the region for generations. It is precisely this state-based order that remains the final obstacle to realising the vision of Greater Israel. Furthermore, the concept of 'fluid borders' in the Middle East — promoted subtly through US and Israeli strategic thinking — has become an increasingly evident tool for territorial manipulation under the guise of security. Rather than respecting the internationally recognised borders drawn during the Sykes-Picot era, which, though colonial in origin, still serve as a framework for sovereignty, the new strategy exploits Israel's security anxieties to justify de facto annexations and military buffer zones. This shift towards 'security geography' enables Israel, with US backing, to establish temporary or permanent military control beyond its recognised borders, particularly in areas like Gaza, where the ongoing genocidal war on the Palestinians has resulted not just in military incursions but in the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the depopulation of large parts of northern Gaza. These actions raise credible concerns about long-term demographic engineering and the creation of a strategic 'security belt' similar to the one previously attempted in Southern Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. In Syria, Israel has increased its military footprint in the Quneitra Governorate near the Golan Heights — an area long coveted for its strategic depth and water access. Since early 2025, Israeli strikes and covert operations have extended deep into Syrian territory, capturing Mount Hermon and parts of Daraa, reinforcing the notion of a shifting border under military logic. In doing so, Israel has positioned itself as a permanent security actor in southern Syria, creating facts on the ground that undermine Syrian sovereignty and suggest the transformation of temporary military actions into long-term territorial control — an echo of the occupation of the Golan Heights, which was similarly justified as a security necessity before its de facto annexation. Meanwhile, the Israeli military's increasing activity along the Lebanese border, especially in Southern Lebanon around Marjayoun and Bint Jbeil, reflects a renewed interest in buffer zones reminiscent of the pre-2000 occupation. Following heightened clashes with Hizbullah since late 2023, Israeli shelling and displacement of border villages have prompted fears that Israel is once again attempting to push the frontier northwards. In this context, the rhetoric of 'defensive measures' cloaks a strategy that erodes state borders to secure territorial depth against asymmetric threats. This undermines Lebanon's sovereignty and supports the broader theory that the principle of 'fluid borders' is being implemented as part of a US-Israeli effort to reorder the region. Thus, by challenging the validity of the Sykes-Picot framework, the United States is not promoting justice or local autonomy, but rather redrawing lines of influence to serve hegemonic and expansionist interests. * A version of this article appears in print in the 17 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Memri
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Speakers at Dearborn Shiite Event: Khamenei Is the Leader of the Free World; Zionists Are 'Not Human' Despite Their Flesh and Bones; They Can Clip Our Videos, but the Truth Is Out
During the June 29, 2025 Muharram commemoration at the Shiite Hadi Institute in Dearborn, Michigan, Hassan Salamey, a local lawyer and activist, recited a poem in which he said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the leader of the free world 'who made the demons run and scatter with shooting stars.' Ahmad Charara, listed as the key principal of the Hadi Institute in Dearborn, also recited a poem, declaring: 'We will never be silenced. If they have the nerve to say they will assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei […] To hell with your dirty and stained mouth!' Charara chanted 'Away with the humiliation!' along with a recording of assassinated Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah. On July 1, Salamey recited another poem in which he said that Zionists are not humans regardless of their flesh and bones. Charara said: 'We are not scared. They can call us names, they can label us, they can try to clip our videos to make them look sinful, but the truth is out in the open.' Both events featured lectures by local Islamic scholar Usama Abdulghani, described as the 'spiritual leader' of the Hadi Institute and the associated K–5 Hadi Montessori School. Charara also appears in fundraising videos for the Hadi Montessori School, and according to social media, he has visited south Lebanon in February 2025.
Memri
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Reactions In Lebanon To War Against Iran: Hizbullah Justifies Its Non-Intervention; Its Opponents Hope For Downfall Of Iranian Regime
Israel's military operation against Iran, launched on June 13, 2025, and the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sparked conflicting reactions in Lebanon, reflecting the depth of divisions in this fractured country that has yet to recover from the war between Hizbullah and Israel, which ended in November 2024. During the fighting, many in Lebanon – including President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam – were deeply concerned that Hizbullah would fulfil the role assigned to it by its patron, Iran, by coming to its aid in the conflict and thus dragging Lebanon into another war. The country's leaders made it clear to both Hizbullah and Iran that Lebanon had no connection to the war and must not be embroiled in it. Hizbullah, for its part, found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Battered and weakened by the damage to its military infrastructure and its standing within Lebanon after its war with Israel – which it launched in order to support Hamas – the organization was hard put to justify renewing the hostilities with Israel on behalf of a foreign country and dragging Lebanon into another round of fighting. Moreover, joining the war would have strengthened its opponents and validated their argument that Hizbullah must be fully disarmed. On the other hand, aiding its patron Iran, especially amid an unprecedented assault by Israel and the U.S., is one of Hizbullah's main roles and one of the key reasons Iran has supported it in the first place. Yet now, when it was expected to 'repay' Iran for its support, the organization was failing to fulfill its role. Throughout the fighting, Hizbullah limited itself to expressing solidarity and organizing rallies in support of Iran. Its senior officials claimed that this country could defend itself, meaning it did not need Hizbullah's assistance. As expected, after the ceasefire, Hizbullah adopted Iran's narrative of victory, partly to demonstrate that its intervention had indeed been unnecessary. Conversely, Hizbullah's opponents did not hide their satisfaction and joy over the attacks on Iran, describing them as a "gift" to Lebanon and openly expressing support for Israel and the U.S. Like liberal voices across the Arab world,[1] some in Lebanon mocked Iran, calling it a "paper tiger" after it failed to prevent the significant damage to its military capabilities. While voicing concern that Hizbullah would join the fighting, these actors renewed their calls to accelerate the disarming the group, so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons. This report presents reactions in Lebanon to the Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran. The Official Lebanese Position: Lebanon Has No Connection To The War; We Condemn Iran's Strike on the U.S. Base in Qatar Like all the Arab countries, with the exception of Syria, the state of Lebanon condemned the Israeli attack on Iran, on the grounds that it "undermined international efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East."[2] At the same time, Lebanese officials conveyed a clear message – to audiences both within Lebanon and abroad – that they opposed dragging their country into war, as Hizbullah did after Hamas launched its terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, a decision that brought heavy losses and massive destruction upon Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun emphasized during a June 16 cabinet meeting that Lebanon must be kept away from conflicts "in which it has no part."[3] Following the U.S. strike on Iran he reiterated this position, stressing that "Lebanon – its leadership, its parties and its people – now understands better than ever that we paid a heavy price for the wars that have taken place on our soil and in the region. Lebanon does not want to pay anymore, and has no national interest in doing so, especially given that the cost of these wars has been, and will continue to be, more than it can bear." It is worth noting that President Aoun did not condemn the U.S. strike on Iran but merely expressed concern over "the escalation of tensions that threaten stability and security in many regions and countries," and called for "restraint and serious and constructive negotiations to restore stability to the countries of the region and to avoid further destruction and bloodshed."[4] Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a close ally of Hizbullah, likewise expressed his position on involvement in the war, saying in an interview with Lebanon's MTV channel on June 19: "[I am] 200 percent [sure] that Lebanon will not join the war, because it has no interest in doing so and because it would pay the price. [Moreover,] Iran does not need us..."[5] According to Lebanese press reports, government officials did not stop at declarations, but exerted significant pressure on Hizbullah to stay out of the war. For example, Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Rodolph Haykal made it clear to Hizbullah leaders that Lebanon must steer clear of the conflict and must not be dragged into a war in which it has no part, and that they must conform to the official position that only the state has the authority to decide on matters of war and peace."[6] However, following Iran's strike on the U.S. base in Qatar, official Lebanon deviated from its neutral stance and, like the rest of the Arab states, condemned it as an attack on a sovereign Arab country. President Aoun called it "an infringement of the sovereignty of a sister state and a move that will escalate tensions in the region." He added that Qatar enjoys the "sympathy and support of the Lebanese president and people in protecting its sovereignty, territorial integrity and its fraternal people."[7] Hizbullah: We Support Iran, Which Does Not Need Anyone To Defend It It appears that these pressures exerted on Hizbullah – along with the severe blow dealt by the war with Israel to its military capabilities and its standing within Lebanon – achieved their goal. Throughout the fighting between Israel and Iran, and even after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran's allies in Lebanon, chief of them Hizbullah, refrained from taking military action against Israel or the U.S. Instead, they sufficed with condemning the Israeli and American attacks, organizing support rallies (which drew only small crowds) and applauding Iran's strikes on Israel. Iran's war with Israel and the U.S. was described as a battle between truth and falsehood, as a continuation of the Battle of Karbala,[8] and, in an effort to rally support from the Arab and Islamic world, as a war against the entire Islamic nation. To justify their failure to intervene in the fighting, Hizbullah officials stressed that Iran could take care of itself and needed no assistance. The organization's secretary-general, Na'im Qassem, said after the start of the Israeli operation against Iran that Hizbullah "supports the rights and the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran and any measures it takes to protect itself and its choices…"[9] Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah said that "Iran never told anyone to fight in its name. When it is attacked, its national honor and its sovereign status compel it to rely on its own strength, on the will of its people and on the decisions of its leadership…"[10] Rally in solidarity with Iran in South Lebanon (Image: June 20, 2025) However, three days before the American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem expressed a somewhat different position, stressing that Hizbullah was not neutral in its position on the war. He said: "We in Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance are not neutral [in our stance] towards Iran's legitimate rights and independence and America's falsehood and aggression… We stand with Iran in its confrontation against this global injustice… We are not neutral. Therefore, we express our position in support of Iran, its leadership and its people." Qassem then hinted that Hizbullah might even take military action against Israel, stating: "We will act as we see fit in response to this oppressive 'Israeli'-American aggression… This [Iranian] people cannot be defeated. Past aggression by 'Israel' has proved its steadfastness under any pressure… However, this does not absolve us of our responsibility to stand with Iran and support it in any way that will help end this tyranny and arrogance."[11] The shift in Hizbullah's position was possibly the result of pressure from within the organization and perhaps also from Iran itself. These statements exacerbated the prevailing fears in Lebanon that Hizbullah would intervene in the conflict, and sparked criticism from government officials and from the group's opponents – which prompted Hizbullah to convey once again that it had no intention of joining the fray. For example, in its response to the U.S. strike on Iran, the organization limited itself to expressing "full solidarity" with Iran and complete confidence in Iran's ability "to withstand this aggression and make the American and Zionist enemy taste the bitter flavor of defeat." In other words, it signaled that it did not intend to join the fighting.[12] Iran Defeated Israel And The U.S. Just By Standing Up To Them; It Gave Us Everything And Received Nothing In Return Predictably, just as it did after its own war with Israel, Hizbullah tried to present Iran's non-surrender as a victory. In a statement it issued on June 25, a day after President Trump declared a ceasefire with Iran, the organization congratulated Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Iranian people for the "divine victory" they achieved by means of their "precise and painful" strikes against "the Zionist enemy" and for their "amazing response" to the American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Calling this "the dawn of a new historical era in the confrontation with the American hegemony and the Zionist savagery in the region," the statement also urged all the peoples of the Islamic nation "to derive inspiration from this tremendous victory."[13] On the same day, the organization held a support rally outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, [14] at which Hizbullah MP Muhammad Ra'ed congratulated Iran on its "victory" and declared, "Iran is now a deterrent regional force… It proved this with its steadfast stance and by bending the usurping Zionist enemy to its will."[15] Two days later Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem said, in a similar vein, that Iran had won the war because Israel had not achieved its three goals in launching its attacks: the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, the destruction of its missile array and the toppling of the Iranian regime. Qassem justified the Iranian regime's decision to agree to a ceasefire, saying that this was "truly in Iran's interest because it put an end to the aggression against it." He added that his organization's support for Iran was "a sign of respect for Iran, due to its support for the downtrodden. It gave us everything and received nothing in return… We are proud of our support for Iran and stand under the banner of the wise and courageous leadership of Imam Khamenei."[16] Hizbullah Opponents: The Attack On Iran Is A Gift To Lebanon Conversely, many other voices in Lebanon supported the Israeli and American attacks on Iran and even relished its defeat. Opponents of Hizbullah and Iran in the country thanked President Trump and indirectly also Israel, and described the attacks as "a gift" to Lebanon, due to the heavy damage this country has suffered over the years at the hands of Iran and its ally Hizbullah. Opponents of Iran in Lebanon expressed hope that the attacks would not only damage the regime's military capabilities but actually bring about its collapse, and opponents of Hizbullah called to accelerate the disarming this organization so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons on behalf of external forces. Concern That Lebanon Would Be Dragged Into Another War; If Hizbullah Wants To Fight Let It Go To Iran And Fight There As stated, during the war many voices in Lebanon, including regime officials, expressed deep concern that Hizbullah would decide to violate the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel and fulfill the role assigned to it by its patron Iran, of protecting Iran in its time of need. They presented this concern as yet another argument for disarming Hizbullah completely rather than disarming it only in South Lebanon. MP Sa'id Al-Asmar of the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc said: "The Lebanese have no part in the war on Iran. Our domestic interest is to keep Lebanon out of it. What we want is for Iran not to interfere in our internal affairs and not to export its program. We have had enough of its evil and its export of weapons and wars… [We say] no to the culture of death and to wars in Lebanon… Only the [Lebanese] state – and not any sect or party [within it] – can defend the Lebanese people. Salvation can only come from the state and from Hizbullah surrendering its weapons."[17] Lebanese journalist Tarek Abou Zainab wrote on his X account: "The Lebanese refuse to become victims of destructive regional conflicts and refuse to be fuel for Iran's nuclear ambitions."[18] Journalist Rami Na'im warned Hizbullah to stay out of the war, writing: "#Lebanon_does_not_want_war. Do not drag us into proxy wars, because you will be digging your grave with your own hands. #Thank_you_Trump."[19] Political activist Karen Al-Bousany called on President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam and Parliament Speaker Berri to officially decare that Lebanon would not join the war between Israel and Iran, and added, "We do not want civil wars or a war that has nothing to do with us. And last but not least: Hizbullah, where was Iran when Israel attacked you in Lebanon?"[20] Georges Hayek, a member of the Central Council of the Lebanese Forces party, wrote on his X account: "The Iranian people will not allow Lebanon to be sacrificed again on the Iranian altar. Neutrality is the source of security and stability. Whoever wants to defend Iran can go and commit suicide over there."[21] Lebanese activist Carla Hayek wrote: "O Na'im Qassem, sit tight. Lebanon has no part in this war. If you want to fight, go to Iran and volunteer to join the IRGC."[22] Calls To Accelerate The Disarming Of Hizbullah As noted above, the concern that Hizbullah would decide to extend military support to Iran and thus drag Lebanon into another war caused its opponents to intensify their calls to completely disarm the organization. Amjad Iskandar, editor-in-chief of the daily Nidaa Al-Watan, which opposes Hizbullah, criticized the Lebanese authorities for delaying in fulfilling their commitment to disarm this organization, as well as Hizbullah itself for evading this. He wrote: "The ball is now in the court of the state as well as in Hizbullah's court. But Hizbullah is a totalitarian organization that adopts a suicidal policy and ascribes no importance whatsoever to the homeland or the people. For this reason, it is inconceivable that the state should continue to delay. What should have happened six months ago [after the signing of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel] must [now] happen within six weeks or less. Only determination will prevent civil war. The Lebanese people and all its sectors will support the state if it actually decides to act like one. The Lebanese are tired of being fuel for other people's wars, of defending foreign agendas and of becoming victims of sectarian adventures that do not suit them."[23] In an article in Nidaa al-Watan, Charbel Jabbour, a Lebanese journalist and senior member of the Lebanese Forces party, wondered whether the state would "take advantage of the end of the Iranian role – [a role] that gave birth to Hizbullah – to complete the imposition of its sovereignty [over all of Lebanon's territory]..." He urged Hizbullah itself to "take the initiative and declare the end of its armed project. Otherwise the state must assert its sovereignty and announce, for example, that the discovery of weapons depots will expose their owners to arrest and prosecution." He stressed that the fact that Hizbullah had not yet joined the fray did not mean that its armed role had ended for good, and added: "Today Hizbullah is weak, but tomorrow it may become stronger. Therefore, the state must act decisively and swiftly to disarm it."[24] Iran Is A Cancer That Must Be Excised; It Poses A Much Greater Danger To Lebanon Than Israel; The Attack On It Is A Gift For Lebanon Many Lebanese welcomed the attacks on Iran due to the numerous crimes it had committed against the Arab peoples in general and Lebanon in particular, as they put it. For example, one day before Israel launched its operation against Iran, political activist Karen Al-Boustany called for military action against the Iranian regime, which she likened to a cancer. She wrote on her X account: "If you want to get rid of a cancer you must excise it completely. [In this case] the patient is the Middle East, the hospital is the U.S., the surgeon is Israel, the disease is Iran, and the type of disease is Khamenei. Soon the region will be completely healthy, Inshallah." [25] These voices expressed support for the Israeli offensive and called it a "gift" to the Lebanese people. Lebanese journalist Rami Na'im wrote on his X account a few hours after the start of the Israeli attacks: "Iran is a lie that has cost us thousands of lives. The resistance [axis] has become a thing of the past. Lebanon is grateful to Trump..."[26] In an interview with a website called "No to the Iranian Occupation," Na'im said: "I want to congratulate the Lebanese people on the occasion of the attack on Iran. Congratulations to every Lebanese who has fought against this criminal Iranian regime, which brought Lebanon to a state of collapse on every level. Iran is far more dangerous than Israel, for Israel is restrained by the U.S., whereas Iran is restrained by no one. Iran is a danger to Lebanon. What happened today [the attack on Iran] is a gift to all the Lebanese people. It is a gift to the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution[27]... a tribute to every youth who died defending Lebanon's sovereignty."[28] Georges Hayek of the Lebanese Forces party wrote on X: "The souls of the martyrs, from Mahsa Amini[29] to Rafic Hariri,[30] Gebran Tueni and Luqman Salim,[31] are breathing in relief after the removal of the Iranian mullah regime."[32] Activist Carla Hayek discussed the damage caused by Iran to the region, writing: "A Lebanese kills a [fellow] Lebanese, an Iraqi kills an Iraqi, a Syrian kills a Syrian and a Yemeni kills a Yemeni – [all] for the sake of that Zoroastrian pig [Khamenei] and his destructive enterprise."[33] Opponents of the Iranian axis in Lebanon praised U.S. President Donald Trump for his decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, with some even describing this as a mission to save humanity. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Thank you, Donald Trump. The entire Middle East thanks you, first and foremost Lebanon. Iran is without a nuclear program, and must surrender before time runs out."[34] Charles Jabbour wrote: "When the U.S. president carried out the attack that ended Iran's nuclear program, the threats of Iran and its proxies to harm American interests in the region did not cause him to hesitate even for a moment. This is because, by destroying the [Iranian] nuclear program, which could have turned the region into a firestorm, he is saving humanity..."[35] The Iranian Regime Is A Paper Tiger In light of Israel's successful attacks on Iran, some mocked the latter for touting its military capabilities and said that its defeat spelled the end of the entire resistance axis. Georges Hayek wrote in an article on the Grand Lebanon website titled "The Official End of the Resistance Axis": "…What Israel has done obviously humiliated the [Iranian] regime, which 'puffed itself up' for years and presented itself as a 'tiger' that could destroy Israel in seven hours. The Israeli attack reveals that the opposite is true…"[36] Carla Hayek shared an image depicting Iran as a cat that sees itself as a lion, and commented, "The Iranian regime is a paper tiger."[37] Hopes That The Attacks Would Lead To The Downfall of The Iranian Regime, Making The World A Better Place Many of the writers expressed hope that the attacks would lead to the downfall of the Iranian regime and put an end to the danger it poses. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Khamenei's time is almost up. His regime is teetering, and like the [former] Syrian regime [its officials] are preparing to flee. It's only a matter of time until Iran is liberated." In another post the following day, he wrote: "Soon we will visit Tehran to celebrate Khamenei's downfall. Iran will not last long. It has begun to crumble from within..."[38] In his article on the Grand Lebanon website, Georges Hayek wrote: "For 35 years, Khamenei's regime has impoverished Iran, plundered it and turned it into a place of political oppression. The Iranian people and the peoples of the region, who have suffered from its military proxies, deserve to live in stability, in prosperity and in partnership with the international community. After the collapse of the [resistance] axis, the region may not immediately become more stable and united... but with the end of the Iranian revolutionary project it will undoubtedly become a better place."[39] Georges Hayek wrote on X: "If this war [ends] without any change in the Iranian regime, it will be like someone showering and then failing to change their underwear."[40] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim wrote: "Never trust someone you have wounded, because once the wound heals he will destroy you. If the loathsome Iranian regime is not overthrown, once its wounds heal it will rebuild itself again and commit even more despicable crimes against us. I hope the Persian regime falls for good."[41] Mockery Of The Iranian Regime's Victory Celebrations: If This Is A Victory, What Does Defeat Look Like? Alongside expressions of satisfaction over the outcomes of the war, several commentators expressed disappointment that the campaign did not end with the fall of the Iranian regime. Journalist and politician Charles Jabbour, for example, wrote on X: "In just 12 days, Iran's nuclear [program] was put out of commission. That is, in less than two weeks, we were rid of a program that had been in development for over two decades and cost hundreds of billions – [funds] that were denied to the Iranian people – all in order to achieve a goal that evaporated in a matter of days." He added: "Sadly, the goal [of the war on Iran] was not to overthrow the Iranian regime but to eliminate the nuclear program. That has been achieved. Bye-bye."[42] In another post, he wrote: "Heroism is not for the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian regime but for the Iranian people to overthrow it. I hope it will do so."[43] Some writers mocked Iran's victory celebrations. Writing in the Nidaa Al-Watan daily, journalist Abu Zouheir wondered what victory the Iranian leadership was talking about, given the hundreds of fatalities and the destruction of hundreds of homes. He also slammed the Iranian regime for holding these celebrations in the context of the attack on the U.S. Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, saying: "Tehran did not celebrate the harm caused to the 'usurping entity' Israel but rather the strike on the Arab soil of Qatar."[44] Activist Karen Al-Boustany shared an image of Khamenei congratulating the Iranian people on its 'victory over Israel,' and commented: "[This is] the latest joke. Congratulations to Iran and to Khamenei. It looks like they have the idea of victory backwards."[45] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim posted on X: "Iran has won. It lost officials and leaders, lost its air force, lost airports and sea ports, lost its nuclear facilities, lost engineers and nuclear scientists, lost oil and gas facilities, lost billions of dollars, and lost infrastructures. The question is: If all that is a victory, what does defeat look like[?]!!"[46] *N. Moses is a research fellow at MEMRI.
