Khairallah Khairallah

The essential point of the bold address that President of the Republic Joseph Aoun delivered to the Lebanese remains that relating to the attainment of "permanent agreements" with Israel in the light of a ceasefire. The head of state deliberately affirmed Lebanon's complete exit from the Iranian game by passing over in silence any role for the "Islamic Republic" in reaching the ceasefire. He instead underscored the role of "friend" President Donald Trump and the Arab group, "at the forefront of which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." This has undoubtedly drawn the wrath of Iran and Hezbollah upon a president who is working to end the occupation and restore the displaced to their villages.

The announcement of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, with American participation, in Washington, amounts to no more than a first step along a long road that will pave the way for a definitive separation between the Iranian and Lebanese trajectories. It should likewise open the path, at least in principle, to a peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel modelled on the Egyptian-Israeli treaty of 1979 and the Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement of 1984. What is now at stake is Lebanon's capacity to recover its autonomous decision-making and to dissociate it from Iranian tutelage, much as it once managed to sever the unity of path with Syria under the successive reigns of Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad. Both had wielded the slogan of "unity of path and destiny" with Lebanon as a bargaining chip in their dealings with Washington, and as a tool for perpetuating the state of neither-war-nor-peace that has so long defined the Middle East.

Lebanon has now been left to its fate, in the absence of a unified position from the country’s senior officials — the President of the Republic, the President of Parliament, and the President of the Council of Ministers — both in the search for a way out and in the face of Israel’s determination to establish a buffer zone in the south. The Israeli threat, however, extends well beyond the creation of this buffer zone; it is becoming increasingly clear that the Hebrew state is bent on destroying Lebanese villages along what is considered the border between the two countries, lines that have never been officially demarcated.

Whether the Iranian ambassador designated to Lebanon, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, stays or goes is beside the point. What matters is the symbolic weight carried by two distinct stances, that of the Lebanese Foreign Ministry, which declared the ambassador persona non grata, and that of the "Shia duo" in response. Beyond the national considerations that compel Lebanon to take a courageous stance toward a state that incessantly interferes in its internal affairs and treats it as a mere vassal colony, the official Lebanese position speaks to the depth of the change that has taken place in the country itself, in the region, and far beyond. A depth that still escapes Iranian thinking, and that of the Lebanese sectarian militia in its service known as Hezbollah. It should never be forgotten that Hezbollah remains nothing more than a brigade of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, whose members are for the most part Lebanese nationals.

Among the most priceless comments I have recently heard was one made by a mouthpiece of the so-called "Resistance" appearing on a Lebanese satellite channel, who claimed that "Hezbollah is defending its land" against Israel. It would be hard to find a more brazen distortion of reality — one perpetrated by a Sunni figure who has spent several years serving as a front for the party in exchange for regular remuneration. Not a single word uttered by this "Sunni Resistance" figure contains a grain of truth. He conflates the defense of a land — which is not Hezbollah's land — with the active consolidation of Israeli occupation. The truth is straightforward: the party reopened the southern Lebanon front, once again, on direct Iranian orders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of Lebanon or its people.

The sheer number of rockets recently fired from Lebanese territory toward Israel speaks to several things at once. Chief among them is this: unlike the Lebanese authorities, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has not wasted a moment since the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel was reached. That was on November 23, 2024, under the government of President Najib Mikati. President Nabih Berri had played a pivotal role in brokering the agreement, which reflected the Party’s urgent need, at that juncture, to halt the fighting at any cost. It has become abundantly clear that Israel exploited the ceasefire to assert its freedom to continue its campaign against Hezbollah, while the Revolutionary Guard used the same agreement to consolidate its presence in Lebanon and prepare for the coming phase of confrontation between Iran on one side and America and Israel on the other.

By imposing Mojtaba Khamenei as "Guide" to succeed his father, the Revolutionary Guards have brought to an end a regime whose very cornerstone was the categorical rejection of dynastic succession. The first directive issued by Mojtaba in the immediate wake of his accession to the office of "Guide" — the supreme and absolute authority of the "Islamic Republic" — is proof enough. The directive, which lays bare the Guards' appetite for escalation, reads as follows: “First: we grant the armed forces full and unconditional authorization to choose the time, place, and means appropriate for responding to any aggression threatening our national security.

The unified position of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members regarding the Iranian attacks against the six member states suggests a form of renaissance for this bloc, at least in appearance. It must be acknowledged that the Council has experienced deep internal turmoil since late 2025, following Saudi-Emirati disagreements in Yemen, disputes that had already come to light in Sudan. Some believe that the initial spark was in Libya. These disagreements have paralyzed the Council, even leading to an unprecedented internal crisis in the 45-year history of this regional bloc. The Iranian threat was precisely the raison d'être of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The name given to this six-member council was carefully chosen. The apparent objective was to avoid provoking Iran by refraining from using the phrase «Arabic Gulf», considered taboo in Iran. The Gulf States, under the impetus of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan, strove to contain the threat posed by the slogan of «exporting the revolution», launched by Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, in 1979, after the fall of the Shah's regime.

The least that can be said about dragging Lebanon into the war targeting the “Islamic Republic” of Iran is that it constitutes a crime against the country and against the people of the South in particular. It appears that the aim is to finish off Lebanon at the very moment the United States, in coordination with Israel, has decided to rid itself of the Iranian regime. What is the point of binding Lebanon's fate to that of a regime in Iran that wants to commit suicide? What is to be done when the Israeli occupation continues to expand in the South, the number of displaced persons keeps rising, and even parts of the Bekaa are affected? Is the underlying Iranian demand to push Lebanon into an internal crisis from which it can never escape, by turning the South of the country into another Gaza?

Were things normal between America and Israel on one side, and Iran's "Islamic Republic" on the other, there would have been no need for all this time and all these frictions to reach an agreement between the three parties — which are, in reality, only two. In the end, America and Israel cannot be separated when it comes to the essential questions: the chain of demands made of Iran, whether regarding its nuclear file, its ballistic missiles and launch platforms, or the proxy arms controlled by the Revolutionary Guard beyond Iranian soil. Were things normal, Iran would have acted as Germany and Japan did at the end of the Second World War, when they surrendered to the Americans and their European allies. That is how Germany saved itself — and Japan likewise. Japan required a second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki after the first on Hiroshima, to grasp the meaning of America's resolve to inflict a crushing defeat upon it. Military defeat freed both countries from despotic regimes that had made each of them a threat to their surroundings, and indeed to the entire world. It enabled Germany to catch its breath and reclaim its standing in Europe and the world, while Japan's economy became one of the most significant on earth — once Japan was convinced that military confrontation with the United States served no purpose.