Dismiss This Minister For the Sake of Lebanon and the Presidency
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Ya Libnan
an hour ago
- Ya Libnan
Iran's parliament votes to block Strait of Hormuz, in a move that will anger its neighbors and trade partners
Iran may be threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz but experts told CNBC that it's also the one with the most to lose. In major move after U.S. struck Iranian nuclear sites, the country's parliament on Sunday reportedly approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, risking alienating its neighbors and trade partners. The decision to close the waterway now rests with the the country's national security council, and its possibility has raised the specter of higher energy prices and aggravated geopolitical tensions, with Washington calling upon Beijing to prevent the strait's closure. Vandana Hari, founder of energy intelligence firm Vanda Insights, told CNBC's ' Squawk Box Asia ' that the possibility of closure remains 'absolutely minimalistic.' If Iran blocks the strait, the country risks turning its neighboring oil producing countries into enemies and risks hostilities with them, she said. Table: CNBCSource: U.S. Energy Information Administration Get the data Created with Datawrapper Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration revealed that Iran had shipped 1.5 million barrels per day via the Strait of Hormuz in the first quarter of 2025. Furthermore, a closure would also provoke Iran's market in Asia, particularly China, which accounts for a majority of Iranian oil exports. 'So very, very little to be achieved, and a lot of self inflicted harm that Iran could do' Hari said. Her view is supported by Andrew Bishop, senior partner and global head of policy research at advisory firm Signum Global Advisors. Iran will not want to antagonize China, he said, adding that disrupting supplies will also 'put a target' on the country's own oil production, export infrastructure, and regime 'at a time when there is little reason to doubt U.S. and Israeli resolve in being 'trigger-happy.'' Clayton Seigle, senior fellow for Energy Security and Climate Change at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that as China is 'very dependent' on oil flows from the Gulf, not just Iran, 'its national security interest really would value stabilization of the situation and a de-escalation enabling safe flows of oil and gas through the strait.' There are currently there are no indications of threats to commercial shipping passing the waterway, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center . 'U.S. associated vessels have successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz without interruption, which is a positive sign for the immediate future.' The Strait of Hormuz is the only sea route from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, and about 20% of the world's oil transits the waterway. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has described it as the 'world's most important oil transit chokepoint.' 'Iran's operations in and around Hormuz are unlikely to be 'all or nothing' – but instead move along a sliding scale from total disruption to none at all,' said Signum's Bishop. 'The best strategy [for Iran] would be to rattle Hormuz oil flows just enough to hurt the U.S. via moderate upward price movement, but not enough to provoke a major U.S. response against Iran's oil production and export capacity,' he added. On Sunday, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on X that pump prices in the U.S. could climb to $3.35-$3.50 per gallon in the days ahead, compared to the national average of $3.139 for the week of June 16. Should Iran decide to close the strait, it would likely use small boats for a partial blockade, or for a more complete solution, mine the waterway, according to David Roche, strategist at Quantum Strategy. In a Sunday note, S&P Global Commodity Insights wrote that any Iranian closure of the strait would mean that not only Iran's own exports will be affected, but also those of nearby Gulf nations, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar. That would potentially remove over 17 billion barrels of oil from global markets, and affect regional refineries by causing feedstock shortages, the research firm said. The disruption to supply will impact Asia, Europe as well as North America. Besides oil, natural gas flows could also be 'severely impacted,' S&P said, with Qatar's gas exports of about 77 million metric tons per year potentially unable to reach key markets in Asia and Europe. Qatar's LNG exports represent about 20% of global LNG supply. 'Alternative supply routes for Middle Eastern oil and gas are limited, with pipeline capacity insufficient to offset potential maritime disruptions through the Persian Gulf and Red Sea,' S&P added. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia pointed out that 'there is limited scope to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.' Pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the UAE have only a spare capacity of 2.6 million barrels a day between them, while the strait oversees the transport of an estimated 20 million barrels of oil and oil products per day, the bank said in a note. CNBC
Ya Libnan
an hour ago
- Ya Libnan
Iran's divided opposition senses its moment but activists remain wary of protests
A man holds an image of Reza Pahlavi, as people protest against the Iranian regime, following the death of Mahsa Amini, outside Iran's consulate, in London, Britain, October 9, 2022. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls/File Photo Iran's fragmented opposition groups think their moment may be close at hand, but activists involved in previous bouts of protest say they are unwilling to unleash mass unrest, even against a system they hate, with their nation under attack. Exiled opponents of the Islamic Republic, themselves deeply divided, are urging street protests. In the borderlands, Kurdish and Baluchi separatist groups look poised to rise up, with Israeli strikes pummeling Iran's security apparatus. While the Islamic Republic looks weaker than at nearly any point since soon after the 1979 revolution, any direct challenge to its 46-year rule would likely require some form of popular uprising. Whether such an uprising is likely – or imminent – is a matter of debate. The late shah's son, U.S.-based Reza Pahlavi, said in media interviews this week he wants to lead a political transition, proclaiming it the best chance to topple the Islamic Republic in four decades and saying 'this is our moment in history'. Triggering regime change is certainly one war goal for Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Iranians to say 'we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom'. Within a ruling system long adept at quashing public displays of dissent, there are signs it is readying for protests. Mohammad Amin, a member of the Basij militia that is often deployed against protesters, said his unit in Qom had been put on alert to root out Israeli spies and protect the Islamic Republic. However, while the strikes have targeted a security hierarchy that crushed previous bouts of protest, they have also caused great fear and disruption for ordinary people – and anger at both Iranian authorities and Israel, the activists said. 'How are people supposed to pour into the streets? In such horrifying circumstances, people are solely focused on saving themselves, their families, their compatriots, and even their pets,' said Atena Daemi, a prominent activist who spent six years in prison before leaving Iran. MASS PROTESTS Daemi's concerns were also voiced by Iran's most prominent activist, Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, in a social media post. Responding to an Israeli demand for people to evacuate parts of Tehran, she posted: 'Do not destroy my city.' Two other activists Reuters spoke to in Iran, who were among the hundreds of thousands involved in mass protests two years ago after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, said they also had no plans to demonstrate yet. 'After the strikes end we will raise our voices because this regime is responsible for the war,' said one, a university student in Shiraz, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. Another, who had lost her university place and been jailed for five months after the 2022 protests and who also requested anonymity, said she believed in regime change in Iran but that it was not time to take to the streets. She and her friends were not planning to stage or join rallies, she said, and dismissed calls from abroad for protests. 'Israel and those so-called opposition leaders abroad only think about their own benefits,' she said. Apart from Pahlavi's monarchists, the main opposition faction outside Iran is the People's Mujahideen Organisation, also known as the MEK or MKO. A revolutionary faction in the 1970s, it lost a power struggle after the shah was toppled. Many Iranians have not forgiven it for then siding with Iraq during the stalemated war of 1980-88 and rights groups have accused it of abuses at its camps and of cult-like behavior, both of which it denies. The Mujahideen are the main force behind the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which like Pahlavi has cultivated close ties with some Western politicians. At a Paris forum this week, the council's leader Maryam Rajavi reiterated her opposition to any return of the monarchy, saying 'neither the shah nor the mullahs'. How far opposition groups outside Iran enjoy any support inside the country is uncertain. While there is fond nostalgia among some Iranians for the period before the revolution, it is an era that most are too young to remember. Within Iran, the successive rounds of national protests have also focused around differing issues. In 2009, demonstrators flooded the streets over what they saw as a stolen presidential election. In 2017, protests focused on falling living standards. And in 2022 women's rights were the trigger. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the election candidate protesters said had been cheated in 2009, has been under house arrest for years and is now 83. His policy was to reform the Islamic Republic rather than replace it – the goal of many protesters in later movements. For opponents of the Islamic Republic inside Iran, those unanswered questions of whether or when to stage protests, what agenda to pursue, or which leader to follow are only likely to grow more pressing as Israel's airstrikes continue. (Reuters)
MTV Lebanon
2 hours ago
- MTV Lebanon
Netanyahu says Israel close to meeting its goals in Iran
Israel is very close to completing its goal of removing the dual threats of Iran's ballistic missiles and nuclear program, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. He promised not to let Israel be dragged into a war of attrition but also said he would not end the Iran campaign prematurely. 'We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed to achieve them, but we also won't finish too soon. When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop,' he told Israeli reporters. 'I have no doubt that this is a regime that wants to wipe us out, and that's why we embarked on this operation to eliminate the two concrete threats to our existence: the nuclear threat, the ballistic missile threat. We are moving step by step towards achieving these goals. We are very, very close to completing them,' he said. He said Iran's Fordow nuclear site had been very badly damaged by US bunker-buster bombs overnight but the extent of damage remained to be seen. Tehran has vowed to defend itself at all costs. Asked about the whereabouts of Iran's 60 percent enriched uranium, Netanyahu said: 'We've been following that very closely. I can tell you that it's an important component of a nuclear program. 'It's not the sole component. It's not a sufficient component. But it is an important component and we have interesting intel on that, which you will excuse me if I don't share with you,' he said. At least until Israel's first strikes against its enrichment installations on June 13, Iran was refining uranium to up to 60 percent purity, a short step from the roughly 90 percent that is bomb-grade and far higher than the 3.67 percent cap imposed by a 2015 nuclear deal, which Iran respected until the year after US President Donald Trump pulled out in 2018.
