'Will not surrender': Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem tells supporters; dismisses Israeli threats
Hezbollah
leader Naim Qassem declared on Sunday that the group will not surrender or lay down its arms in response to Israeli threats.
Addressing thousands of supporters during the Ashura commemoration in Beirut's southern suburbs, Qassem said, 'This threat will not make us accept surrender.'
Qassem, who succeeded the late Hassan Nasrallah after he was killed by Israel last September, stated that Hezbollah fighters will retain their weapons until Israel ends what he called its 'aggression.'
His comments come amid ongoing pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. Lebanese officials have said they are working to dismantle the group's military positions in southern Lebanon, near the Israeli border.
A
ceasefire
agreed upon last November required Hezbollah to move its fighters north of the Litani River, while Israel was to withdraw troops from Lebanese territory. However, Israel has maintained its presence at five strategic points. Despite the truce, Israeli airstrikes have continued in Lebanon, citing Hezbollah targets and accusing Beirut of failing to act.
Qassem said Israel must meet its obligations under the ceasefire—withdraw from Lebanese land, halt its attacks, release prisoners from last year's conflict, and support Lebanon's reconstruction—before any national security discussions can take place.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
He also rejected talk of normalising ties after an Israeli official floated the idea.
On Monday, US envoy Tom Barrack is expected to visit Beirut.
During the Ashura procession, Hezbollah supporters marched in black through the capital's southern districts, waving Hezbollah, Lebanese, Palestinian, and Iranian flags. Many held posters of the slain leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Lebanon's government has remained silent on the suggestion of normalisation. Syria, which was also mentioned by Israel's foreign minister, said it was 'premature' to discuss such a step.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
US to seal major trade deal with India soon, announces Trump
President Donald Trump has announced that the United States is close finalising a trade agreement with India. Speaking to reporters on Monday ahead of a dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Trump said, 'We've made deals with the United Kingdom and China. We're close to making a deal with India.' "Now, we've made a deal with the United Kingdom, we've made a deal with China. We're close to making a deal with India. Others we met with and we don't think we're going to be able to make a deal, so we just send them a letter. If you want to play ball, this is what you have to pay," Trump said. On Monday, the Trump administration began sending formal notifications outlining new tariffs on products imported into the U.S. from a number of nations. Countries that received these letters include Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and Tunisia. "We're sending out letters to various countries telling them how much tariffs they have to pay," Trump said. He added that the countries were 'ripping' the US and were charging us tariffs at levels that nobody's ever seen before. We have some countries that were charging 200% tariffs and making it impossible to do business. And what the tariffs are doing is they're driving people in and companies into the United States," he said.
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Remaking the nuclear order in West Asia
There is hardly any political leader who understands the laws of political survival better than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Realising that he is in a morass with respect to Gaza, as Hamas has not yet been dismantled even though its leaders have been killed, and all hostages have not been brought home resulting in growing domestic pressure, Mr. Netanyahu employed an old tactic — distract attention from an ongoing crisis by creating another one. Israel's surprise strikes on Iran, launched on June 13, created a new and larger crisis. The military action has been successful, with the U.S. finally coming on board. For the moment, PM Netanyahu is firmly back in the driver's seat. But this has also opened a Pandora's box of what next. Israel's calculations Mr. Netanyahu wants to keep Israel as the only nuclear power in the region. He is convinced that the Libyan model, where the nuclear programme was completely dismantled, is the only acceptable option, preferably with a change of regime. In 2015, he opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) primarily because it conceded a limited uranium enrichment right to Iran. Since mid-April, five rounds of talks took place between U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, with a sixth round due on June 15 in Muscat. After stumbling over the issue of Iran insisting on its right to enrichment as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), some progress was registered on the idea of a regional nuclear fuel consortium to provide fuel for the reactors in the region. Its location remained under discussion, making Mr. Netanyahu nervous. On June 11, Mr. Netanyahu barely survived a motion in the Knesset tabled by the opposition seeking to dissolve parliament, leading to early elections that are currently due in October 2026. PM Netanyahu has been facing domestic opposition since early 2023 due to his attempts at pushing though controversial judicial reforms that were widely seen as curbing judicial independence. The Hamas attack on October 7 had provided him a reprieve that has lasted nearly two years. Given Mr. Netanyahu's multiple domestic legal challenges, a continuing war is his 'get-out-of-jail' card. During the 20-month war, the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah has been decapitated, and a change of regime in Damascus last December has doused Iran's 'ring of fire.' On two occasions in 2024, Israel directly engaged with Iran and, in the process, knocked out its air defences around Tehran and other critical installations. Having buried the two-state-solution, and with Iran at its weakest, Mr. Netanyahu must have felt that this was the ideal time to neutralise Iranian nuclear and missile threats. The Iranians are known for their frustratingly convoluted negotiating style and given U.S. President Donald Trump's impatience, Mr. Netanyahu was able to convince him that a little military pressure would make them more accommodating. Iran's miscalculations As recently as March 26, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in her annual intelligence threat assessment to Congress stated, 'the Intelligence Community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. This gave Iran's leadership a misplaced confidence that as long as the negotiations continued on the idea of a regional enrichment facility, the U.S. would block any military strike by Israel. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report in May criticising 'Iran's general lack of cooperation' and the near doubling of its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium to over 400 kgs since February proved to be more damaging that Iran anticipated. This heightened Iranian concerns about the threat of a sanctions-snapback by the UN Security Council, which was waived in 2015 following the adoption of the JCPOA. Iran knew that given its ageing air force, it was dependent on its stocks of drones and missiles. Despite the debacles with Hamas and Hezbollah leaderships, Iran underestimated the extent of Mossad's penetration of its systems, evidenced by the targeted assassinations of its key military leaders as well as nuclear and missile scientists. The entry of the U.S. When the U.S. began to withdraw non-essential staff from its embassies in the region in early June, it was anticipating Israel's likely military action. In the past, U.S. reluctance to get involved had prevented Israel from military strikes but this time, Mr Netanyahu took a gamble and it paid off. Impressed with the success of Israel's military actions, Mr. Trump ordered supportive strikes on June 22, with B-2 bombers dropping GBU-57 'bunker-busters' on Fordow and Natanz, and Tomahawk cruise missiles on Isfahan. Following the token retaliation by Iran the following day, Mr. Trump declared an end to the '12-day-war'. Israel thus claimed victory, Mr. Trump declared the underground sites 'obliterated,' the Gulf states heaved a sigh of relief, and for Iran's Supreme Leader, regime survival was a victory. Iran suffered over 600 casualties, and all its air defences and half its stock of missile launchers, were destroyed. It failed to take down a single Israeli aircraft though it did bring down some drones. Of the 500 missiles that Iran fired, over 30 were able to get through causing 30 casualties. While Mr. Netanyahu's suggestion that sustained military pressure may bring about a regime change in Tehran has some support from Iran-hawks in Washington, it is anathema to Mr. Trump's MAGA support base, who are wary of entanglements abroad. The U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 respectively, were messy and costly, leaving behind a legacy of instability. Iran is three times larger, and Iranians are a people with a deep sense of nationalism based on their civilisational history. The current theocratic regime may be weak and its replacement may be less religious, but not less nationalist, and it would therefore push ahead with the nuclear deterrent. Mr. Netanyahu may not be averse to a forced regime change but the U.S. and the Gulf Arabs would not want to open this Pandora's box. Iran's nuclear capability Iran has had an ambitious civilian nuclear programme going back to the 1950s. It joined the NPT in 1970. Initially, the Islamic regime was uninterested in the nuclear programme, seeing it as a part of Western influence. This changed after the Iran-Iraq war and in the 1990s, it began developing a clandestine enrichment capability. The 2002 disclosures by a group of Iranian exiles, followed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, led the Supreme Leader to shift direction and aim for threshold status rather than develop a full-fledged nuclear weapon. The centrifuges and higher levels of enrichment also provided for bargaining space as Iran could negotiate for sanctions relief with the U.S. Today, the situation has changed. Iran's proxies (except for the Houthis) have been decimated and its missile and drone capabilities found wanting. The threshold state is no longer a safe place. Therefore, a nuclear deterrent assumes greater importance, even if there is a change of regime. Questions remain about the extent of damage to the underground centrifuge sites as well as the fate of the 400 kg of the 60% enriched uranium stockpile. While the scale of the attacks makes resumption of Iran-U.S. talks tricky, Iran has raised the stakes by terminating the IAEA inspector's access to its nuclear sites. Mr. Trump would like to conclude a deal with Iran to build on his success with the ceasefire. He would do well to remember the U.S. scholar Thomas Schelling's advice that successful coercion requires both a credible threat as well as credible reassurance, if Iran is to be 'persuaded' during any future talks. There has always been a difference between the U.S. and Israeli positions. While both agree that Iran cannot be allowed to have a bomb, Mr. Netanyahu goes one step forward to deny Iran any nuclear capabilities. However, since Mr. Trump has obliged him with the June 22 strikes, he may find it difficult to deny Mr. Trump his Iran deal provided the Iranians play the game. Rakesh Sood is a former diplomat and is currently Distinguished Fellow at the Council For Strategic and Defence Research.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Defense manufacturing can drive India's rise as global power: Ram Madhav
Ram Madhav (File photo) In a wide-ranging conversation with the Times of India, Ram Madhav , senior RSS member, outlines the strategic reorientation India must undertake to navigate a changing global order. From foreign policy to technology, economic growth to ideological values, and the Northeast to dharmocracy, Madhav, who also heads the think tank India Foundation, reflects on India's opportunities and challenges in the coming decades. In your new book, 'The New World: 21st Century Global Order and Bharat', you speak about a global churn. What is the biggest priority for India in this new world order? Ram Madhav: There is a big churn happening globally. The world is heading towards a completely different order after seven decades of a certain kind of geopolitical atmosphere. When you're confronted with a new order, you must shed some of the old habits and practices. I often cite Mao's infamous Cultural Revolution — not to endorse it, but as a metaphor. You need to think afresh. Historically, Indians have been very comfortable looking West — towards Europe and America. We do have strong ties with them. But a shift began with Narasimha Rao and taken further by Vajpayee through the Look East policy, which Modi upgraded to Act East. However, we still remain predominantly westward-facing. Meanwhile, the entire Eurasian region is in turmoil — the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Gaza-Israel tensions, and the Iran-Israel-US confrontation. These conflicts may end, but their impact will last for decades. In such a scenario, India must turn to its immediate and extended neighbourhood — Southeast Asia, ASEAN, and then the Global South, including Africa and Latin America. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo What will drive national growth in this new environment? Madhav: In the past, trade — especially in goods — powered national growth. Now, it will be technology. Prime Minister Modi has rightly focused on this with initiatives like the National Research Foundation and an emphasis on areas like quantum technology. But we still have a lot of ground to cover. Domestically, we must prioritise the economy over the next 20 years — something like what Bill Clinton famously said: 'It's the economy, stupid. ' Take China — between 1980 and 2000, it focused solely on economic growth. Deng Xiaoping even put communism on hold to prioritise economic development. India must aim for sustained 9–10% growth. The current 8% is good, but we must aspire for more. What about defense manufacturing? Madhav: That's a massive opportunity. Everyone talks about India's weakness in manufacturing, and it's true. But manufacturing has saturated globally, defense manufacturing has huge potential. India itself is a major consumer of defense equipment. Given the current global war-like environment, every nation is ramping up its defense. This is a golden opportunity not just for 'Make in India' but 'Make for the World'. That's where we can become a manufacturing powerhouse. You spoke of building 'Brand Bharat.' What does that entail? Madhav: In the outgoing world order — post-World War II — Western powers created institutions aligned with their interests and were able to set their agenda. But today, the West is no longer in a position to dictate the global agenda. If India doesn't take a proactive role, others like China will. India must assert itself not just as an economic and technological power, but also ideologically. Democracy is one such idea. The Chinese model offers economic freedom but not political freedom. Ours is different — full freedoms, rooted in pluralism, respect for sovereignty, patriotism, and sustainability. These are values India must articulate. Take yoga — that's one idea we gave to the world. The last profound political idea from India was Gandhi's non-violence. We must now think of the next idea. That's what I mean by Brand Bharat. You've also used the term 'dharmocracy'. Can you explain that? Madhav: Democracy, in its Western sense, often equates to majoritarianism — majority wins, period. In a dharmocracy, the majority may form a government, but governance must be through consensus. Gandhi's idea of Ram Rajya was not a theocracy — it was a model where the weakest had as much power as the strongest. Deendayal Upadhyaya also said that elections are majoritarian, but governance must be consensus-driven. That's the Indian model — dharmocracy. Can foreign universities in India help promote Brand Bharat? Madhav: Absolutely. Earlier, foreign dignitaries visiting India were taken to Qutub Minar or Red Fort — symbols of our subjugation. Today, they also visit temples, attend Ganga Aarti. That's our civilizational identity. But we can build up on that. With nearly 100 foreign institutions now allowed to open campuses in India, they will engage with India from the inside. However, they will mostly teach Indian students. So our education system must consciously integrate Brand Bharat thinking. RSS is entering its 100th year. What is the vision going forward? Madhav: Formal centenary celebrations begin in October. The Sarsanghchalak will share the vision then. But as someone associated with RSS for decades, I can say this: it's a unique organisation. In 100 years, there has been no split, no dissidence, no weakening — only growth. It's entirely voluntary. No one is paid. It's run by those who see it as a duty. Its openness, adaptability, and relevance in every era are its strengths. Whether during the 1962 war, the Emergency, or the Ram Janmabhoomi movement — RSS remained central to India's national life. It is an organisation that deserves academic study in itself. You have worked extensively in the Northeast. What explains the political shift there? Madhav: I don't believe in right-left binaries. But yes, the rise of BJP and nationalist sentiments in the Northeast, especially in the last 10 years, has brought emotional integration with the rest of India. Earlier, people there felt Delhi was another country. That has changed. Under PM Modi, every week a minister visited some state. This continuous engagement built a sense of belonging. When we contested in Nagaland in 2017, even in remote villages, BJP flags were seen. We won 12 out of 20 seats we contested. Such change signals, besides representing BJP's appeal, a deep emotional integration. And RSS's role there? Madhav: RSS has worked there under extremely difficult conditions. Cadres were kidnapped, tortured, even killed. Yet they went from across India — from Kerala, Maharashtra — to serve those areas, often with no knowledge of local languages or familiarity of food habits. Organisations like Vivekananda Kendra and Ramakrishna Mission played vital roles in tribal education and cultural pride. Today, Arunachal Pradesh, for instance, communicates in Hindi. That wasn't imposed — it evolved naturally due to years of engagement. That silent foundational work held the region together in its most fragile times.
