Hey Iran, What Business Is It of Yours?

The question, phrased this way, may come somewhat late in the day. Yet it has the merit of being asked in explicit terms. Under what rule of law or international convention does Iran interfere in Lebanese affairs?

And how has it managed to do so with complete impunity for more than forty years? Taking advantage of the collapse of the state, this interference has taken the form of military, political, and financial support provided to Hezbollah, to the point of involving our country in conflicts and confrontations that were never on the agenda of its legitimate government.

How does one flirt with a diplomatic incident without actually causing one?

The ambassador of the mullahs already does not enjoy the status of persona grata, the diplomatic term certifying that an envoy has been accredited by — and accepted by — the state to which he is posted.

Of course, Tehran was not about to wait for Mohammad Reza Shibani to present his credentials before trampling over our turf, encroaching upon our sovereignty, and, still less, deciding when to launch hostilities against Israel or when to halt them.

With remarkable audacity, the Revolutionary Guards behaved as though they were at home; and our officials, when they were not complicit with them, were content merely to look the other way, as though unwilling to face the obvious.

This situation was supposed to continue indefinitely, with Lebanon bearing the burden. But that was before the unexpected deviation of the head of state, who recently insisted on drawing a distinction between the assistance provided by the Islamic Republic and the interference it permits itself in our internal affairs.

Such meddling, constituting a serious violation of a country's sovereignty, could only be conceived in the era of the “foreign tutelages to which it is forbidden to return.”

Yet the improvement brought about by this departure from the norm may prove short-lived. For Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, the Lebanese file cannot be separated from the Iranian one.

Claiming solidarity with our country and demanding an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in order to achieve peace in accordance with the Islamabad Agreement, Tehran is involving us more than ever in its political game and in negotiations concerning the future of the Persian Gulf.

So our fate would be decided in Islamabad rather than Washington?

According to Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, Hezbollah’s rejection of the June 3 ceasefire agreement (1) can only be explained by Tehran’s desire to remind everyone that such a decision belongs to it: as the Iranian capital, Tehran cannot be excluded from the negotiations.

 According to one senior Iranian official, Iran has made far too many sacrifices on the Middle Eastern stage for a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel to be negotiated without its approval.

Moreover, what did we really know about the memorandum of understanding drafted in Islamabad, whose various versions had until now been riddled with inaccuracies and omissions?

And now that it has been electronically signed in its final form, who would wager on its implementation—or even its “durability”? (2)

Did you say interference?

Faced with rapidly approaching deadlines, Tehran nevertheless sought to reopen communication with Baabda through Abbas Araghchi.

The very same minister who recently mocked President Joseph Aoun’s remarks by asking whether it was the Islamic Republic or the Jewish State that occupied one-fifth of Lebanese territory. Yet in saying so, Iran’s chief diplomat fell into his own trap.

One could easily reply that it is his country that occupies a far larger portion of “useful Lebanon” than the area occupied by Israel (3).

And this is without even mentioning the grip of Wilayat al-Faqih over the machinery of the deep state that governs us. All of this, of course, is exercised through its proxy, Hezbollah. Was it not Hezbollah, empowered by the Revolutionary Guards, that was able to drag Lebanon into devastating conflicts and trigger mass evacuations?

(1) Lebanese-Israeli negotiations are due to resume on June 23.

(2) Sina Toossi, “Even if Iran benefits from this deal with Washington, any peace is likely to be temporary,” The Guardian, June 16, 2026.

(3) “Useful Lebanon” is a pejorative and cutting expression—but after all, people have also spoken of “Useful Syria.”