With conflict escalating in the Middle East, Iran is at a crossroads: How to maintain influence in Lebanon while avoiding direct war?
The ongoing Middle Eastern conflict has significantly reshaped the balance of power, not only within the region but also beyond its borders. This conflict touches upon the key geopolitical interests of major regional and global powers, such as Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, and Russia, leading to shifts in diplomatic and military strategies, as well as power dynamics.
A recent example are the events of the past few days when Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati made an unexpected move, given the country’s diplomatic practice, by issuing strong criticism of Iran. Mikati condemned Tehran for “blatant interference” in Lebanon’s internal affairs, referencing recent comments by Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
The Prime Minister’s main discontent stemmed from the discussion of UN Resolution 1701, which governs the situation in southern Lebanon after the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. The resolution mandates that only the Lebanese armed forces and UN peacekeepers are allowed in the area. However, Ghalibaf, in his remarks, suggested holding talks about the implementation of this resolution with France as a mediator – a proposal Mikati saw as an attempt to impose external control on Lebanon.
Ghalibaf’s statements, published in Le Figaro, sparked a wave of criticism in Lebanon, particularly from political forces advocating for the country’s sovereignty. Mikati stressed that any issues regarding the implementation of international resolutions must be handled solely by Lebanese authorities, and external interference in such matters is unacceptable. He asserted that while Lebanon is ready to cooperate with international partners like France, all negotiations must originate from a sovereign state. Moreover, the Prime Minister expressed concern that such remarks could further exacerbate an already tense situation in a country still grappling with ongoing military conflict.
Mikati instructed Lebanon’s foreign minister to summon the Iranian chargé d’affaires to seek clarification on Ghalibaf’s comments. He pointed out that during previous visits by Iranian officials to Lebanon, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, he had made it clear that any attempts to interfere in Lebanon’s affairs would be perceived as a violation of sovereignty. Mikati also emphasized that the current situation in Lebanon, where the country faces unprecedented aggression from Israel, requires special understanding and support from the international community, rather than attempts to impose external control.
The escalation around Iranian officials’ remarks coincided with Ghalibaf and Araghchi’s recent visits to Lebanon, which were accompanied by statements that many in Lebanon interpreted as attempts to meddle in the country’s political process. Specifically, Araghchi disregarded a proposed roadmap for ending the war, developed by Lebanese politicians Nabih Berri and Walid Jumblatt, which included a ceasefire, presidential elections, and the implementation of UN Resolution 1701, yet it notably omitted Hezbollah. Such actions drew widespread criticism, especially from those who believe Lebanon must determine its own destiny without external influence.
France, as one of Lebanon’s key international partners, and former colonizer, also voiced opposition to Iran’s position. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his disagreement with Iran’s actions, saying they endanger Lebanon’s civilian population. Macron stressed that Hezbollah must disarm and cease its terrorist activities to allow the Lebanese people to achieve unity and restore stability. His remarks came amid active French diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict in Lebanon and provide assistance to the country, which faces severe humanitarian and political challenges.
Mikati’s statements received widespread support within Lebanon. Political leaders, such as Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces party, and Sami Gemayel, leader of the Kataeb party, welcomed the Prime Minister’s intiative. Geagea noted that Mikati’s stance offers hope that the state is beginning to take responsibility for its internal affairs, despite the difficult situation in the country. Sami Gemayel, in turn, called Mikati’s position a vital step towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty and state authority. He stressed that future actions should focus on strengthening state power and preventing foreign interference.
Lebanon: A perpetual battleground
Lebanon has long been a battleground for regional and global powers, where diverse interests intersect and often conflict. Its strategic location, coupled with its religious and ethnic diversity, has made it a stage for external forces seeking to advance their own goals, often at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and the well-being of its people.
During Lebanon’s civil war from 1975 to 1990, Israel played an active role in the conflict. Fearing attacks from Palestinian armed groups operating from southern Lebanon, Israel conducted military operations to secure its own northern borders. In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon with the stated goal of expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This intervention led to complex alliances, including cooperation with some Lebanese Christian militias like the Lebanese Forces. These groups fought against common adversaries, including pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian forces. Israel’s involvement deepened the conflict and contributed to its prolongation.
Syria also played a significant role in Lebanon during this period. Under the pretext of restoring peace, Syrian troops entered Lebanon in 1976 and remained for nearly three decades. This military presence allowed Damascus to exert substantial influence over Lebanese politics, supporting groups aligned with its interests, such as the Amal Movement and later Hezbollah. Many Lebanese saw Syria’s involvement as an occupation that undermined the country’s sovereignty.
Saudi Arabia’s influence was mainly channeled through Lebanon’s Sunni community. By forging close ties with prominent families like the Hariris, Riyadh sought to counter Syrian and Iranian influence. Rafik Hariri, a prominent businessman and politician who served as Prime Minister several times, was a key figure in these relations. Saudi financial support bolstered Sunni political parties, including the Future Movement (Al-Mustaqbal), promoting policies in line with Saudi interests. The assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 sparked the Cedar Revolution, a wave of mass protests that led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
Despite the departure of Syrian forces, Lebanon remained a playground for external actors seeking to expand their influence. Saudi Arabia continued to back Sunni leaders, including Rafik’s son, Saad Hariri, who also became Prime Minister. However, he faced significant challenges from Hezbollah, which had grown stronger with Iranian support. Meanwhile, various Christian factions in Lebanon maintained close ties with Western countries and, in some cases, engaged with Israel. This complex web of alliances deepened internal divisions and contributed to ongoing political and economic crises.
Throughout these turbulent periods, the interests of external actors often took precedence over the needs and aspirations of the Lebanese people. Each regional and global power pursued its strategic objectives, sometimes exacerbating sectarian tensions and undermining efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability. The people of Lebanon have often borne the brunt of these confrontations, suffering from the consequences of conflicts fueled by outside interests.
In recent developments, the ongoing conflict between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah has once again highlighted Lebanon’s vulnerability to external interference. Reports of significant losses within Hezbollah, including high-ranking commanders, have emboldened the group’s domestic opponents, who see an opportunity to shift the balance of power. Western countries have also stepped up efforts to weaken Iran’s influence in Lebanon. This renewed international involvement underscores a persistent trend of external forces meddling in Lebanese affairs to advance their interests, often with little regard for the country’s sovereignty or the welfare of its citizens.
Thus, Lebanon’s history shows that the country has often fallen victim to geopolitical games, where the fate of its people has been relegated to the background. Achieving lasting peace and stability requires external powers to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and foster dialogue that prioritizes the interests of all its citizens.
Is Iran losing its grip?
The ties between Iran and Lebanon have deep historical roots, dating back to the period before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, it was after the revolution that relations between the two countries underwent significant changes. Iran’s new leadership, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, adopted a policy of exporting the Islamic revolution and supporting Shiites abroad. This led to increased engagement with Lebanon’s Shiite community, which was seeking support.
In the early 1980s, during Lebanon’s civil war, Iran used the political vacuum to bolster its influence. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Tehran began providing financial and military assistance to local Shiite leaders. One of the key outcomes of this cooperation was the establishment of Hezbollah in 1982, a Shiite armed organization formed in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The armed group became not only a tool of resistance against Israeli occupation but also a significant political player in Lebanon, representing the interests of the Shiite community and promoting an ideology closely aligned with Iran.
Hezbollah has been a strategic partner and a vital instrument of influence in the Middle East For Iran. Supporting the organization allowed Tehran strengthen its position in the region, challenge Israel, and exert influence on Lebanon’s internal politics. Hezbollah has received substantial resources from Iran, including financial aid, military equipment, and fighter training. This cooperation helped transform the group into a powerful military and political force capable of influencing Lebanese government decisions.
Over time, Hezbollah became one of the most influential parties in Lebanon, participating in both parliament and government. This gave Iran the ability to affect Lebanese politics from within, advancing its interests and countering the influence of other regional players, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.
In recent years, external forces, including Israel and Western countries, have intensified efforts to weaken Iran’s influence in Lebanon. Israel, viewing Hezbollah as a direct threat to its security due to the organization’s missile arsenal and military capabilities, has carried out operations aimed at destroying Hezbollah’s infrastructure and killing key figures.
Recent strikes have led to the elimination of several high-ranking Hezbollah commanders and fighters, which domestic opponents of the group in Lebanon saw as an opportunity to shift the balance of power.
Israel’s strategy was based on an understanding of Lebanon’s internal divisions. By exploiting tensions between different political and religious factions, Israel hoped its actions would be supported or, at the very least, not met with significant resistance from Lebanese society.
Today, Iran finds itself in a difficult position. On the one hand, Tehran seeks to maintain its influence in Lebanon and continue using Hezbollah as a tool of regional policy. On the other hand, direct military confrontation with Israel or an escalation of tensions could lead to serious consequences for both Iran and the broader region. Economic sanctions, internal challenges, and international pressure limit Iran’s ability to respond to these challenges.
Iran prefers to avoid direct confrontation, opting for a strategy of restraint and diplomacy. Tehran continues to support Hezbollah through political and economic channels, attempting to strengthen its position without direct intervention. However, increasing pressure from Israel and the West, coupled with criticism from Lebanese authorities, complicates this challenge. The ongoing weakening of Hezbollah could reduce Iran’s influence in Lebanon, which would deal a significant blow to Tehran’s strategic interests.
Pressure on Iran and its allies heightens the risk of further escalation in the Middle East. If Iran decides to take more aggressive steps to defend its interests, this could lead to large-scale military events, affecting not only Lebanon and Israel but also other countries in the region. Given the complexity of the ethnic and sectarian landscape, as well as the presence of various armed groups, such a scenario could have catastrophic consequences.
The situation in Lebanon reflects the intricate nature of the geopolitical game in the Middle East, where the interests of various states are intertwined and often conflict. The criticism from Lebanese authorities towards Iran is part of a broader strategy by external forces aimed at redistributing influence in the region. Faced with mounting pressure, Iran must balance defending its interests with the risk of escalating the conflict.
Achieving stability will require coordinated efforts from the international community aimed at supporting Lebanon’s sovereignty and preventing external interference. Only through dialogue and mutual understanding can a path to peace and sustainable development be found, one that considers the interests of all parties involved, and, most importantly, the well-being of the Lebanese people.
