Lebanon summons Iranian ambassador over Hezbollah disarmament comments
Ambassador Mojtaba Amani was told not to interfere in Lebanon 's internal affairs at the meeting on Thursday, as Beirut seeks to bring all weapons in the country under state control.
Ministry Secretary General Hani Chmeitli met Mr Amani and emphasised 'the necessity of adhering to the diplomatic principles outlined in international agreements concerning the sovereignty of states and non-interference in their internal affairs, foremost among them the Vienna Convention', Lebanon 's National News Agency reported.
This incident marks a rare public rebuke of Iran by Lebanese officials, highlighting the shifting dynamics within Lebanese politics.
The election of President Joseph Aoun and appointment of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in January ended more than two years of political impasse, raising hopes that the country can finally tackle its financial and political crises. A new government was formed in February.
Previously, Tehran had held sway over Lebanese affairs for years.
Lebanon's government is facing mounting international pressure to disarm Hezbollah and place all weapons under state authority. The group, once a dominant force in Lebanese politics and security, has been weakened by its war with Israel.
This month, Mr Aoun said 'the decision has been taken' to grant the state exclusive control over weapons in the country − a goal he said would be pursued through dialogue, not force.
On April 19, Mr Amani posted on X that 'the disarmament project is a clear conspiracy'.
'We in the Islamic Republic of Iran are aware of the danger of this conspiracy … we warn others not to fall into the trap of enemies,' wrote the Iranian ambassador.
In an interview with local broadcaster Al Jadeed on Wednesday, Mr Amani acknowledged that he was being summoned by the Foreign Ministry over the post. He said he missed the initial appointment, prompting a second summons on Thursday.
Earlier this month, following a visit to Lebanon, US deputy special envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus said that Hezbollah and other armed groups should be disarmed 'as soon as possible', and that Lebanese troops were expected to do the job.
Updated: April 25, 2025, 10:40 AM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Lebanese cabinet expected to pass executive order asserting sole state control over weapons
Lebanon's Cabinet is expected to pass an executive order next week that enshrines the state's commitment to maintaining exclusive control of weapons nationwide, political sources told The National on Friday. An executive order would formalise into policy what Lebanese leaders have been trying to achieve since a November ceasefire officially put an end to fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah party and paramilitary organisation. The expected move follows reports that the US has ramped up pressure on Lebanon's leaders to issue a formal cabinet decision committing to disarm Hezbollah – a position also taken by the US-backed Lebanese Forces party, a rival of Hezbollah. The LF has accused the state's top leadership – the President, Prime Minister and Parliament Speaker – of negotiating on behalf of Lebanon without the collective input of the government. 'Our position has been very clear since the beginning,' said Ghassan Hasbani, an LF member of parliament. 'We're demanding from the government, which we're part of, to take a collective decision to put a timeline for the implementation of removal of arms, and the dismantling of militant armed groups by the end of this year.' But a Lebanese political source, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed scepticism that the executive order would amount to a major political decision. 'The order will probably condition disarmament on Israel's withdrawal,' said the source. Another political source close to the LF told The National that they were lobbying for a majority vote at the cabinet meeting. 'We're not observers or spectators. We are part of this government and we're going to push for a decision.' The November ceasefire, which ended 14 months of war, required Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon, Hezbollah's disarmament starting with the area south of Lebanon's Litani river, and the eventual deployment of the Lebanese army throughout the entirety of the state. But Israel has refused to withdraw from five Lebanese points of territory it occupied during the war and continues to attack Lebanon almost daily, while Hezbollah has conditioned its disarmament on Israel's withdrawal – putting Lebanon's leaders in a difficult position. Next week's cabinet meeting to enshrine the state's monopoly on arms follows a forceful speech from President Joseph Aoun, the former army chief, in which he made explicit mention of Hezbollah's arsenal for the first time. Mr Aoun reiterated Lebanon's commitment to reclaiming weapons from all paramilitary groups, 'including those of Hezbollah'. The President's speech was also an indirect response to Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem, who earlier this week accused the US and Israel of employing 'intimidation and threats', and said the November ceasefire was meant 'exclusively for the south Litani area' and not the whole of Lebanon. 'Anyone calling today for the surrender of weapons, whether internally or externally, on the Arab or the international stage, is serving the Israeli project,' Mr Qassem said on Wednesday. Hezbollah is believed to still have a superior military capability to the Lebanese army, despite suffering major losses in its leadership and arsenal during its war with Israel, which began on October 8, 2023, in support of its ally Hamas in the Gaza strip. The group – along with its allies – also form a political bloc that wields the power to paralyse parliamentary endeavours. 'We're hoping that after what we heard from the President, this can be translated into a government decision to give clear orders to the Lebanese Armed Forces to put out a plan with a timeline to start its execution,' Mr Hasbani told The National. 'There will be some kind of executive order coming out on Tuesday, but it's one thing to say we want it to happen as a prerequisite, and another for it to actually be implemented. 'This way it becomes an official government position rather than the political views of the political leaders.' Hezbollah has publicly remained staunch in its demand that Israel withdraw from Lebanese territory and cease its attacks before it will disarm, but it has thus far refrained from responding to Israeli attacks. Another political source close to the Lebanese Forces said that passing executive order would be 'just another attempt to move forward on paper'. 'Israel's presence in Lebanon suits both Hezbollah and Israel. Israel won't leave unless Hezbollah disarms and Hezbollah won't disarm unless Israel withdraws. They're both buying and selling time.'
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
The Khor Abdullah waterway: Navigation deal or border surrender?
A 2012 agreement between Iraq and Kuwait regulating navigation in the shared Khor Abdullah waterway has triggered intense debate inside Iraq ever since, with critics warning it blurs maritime boundaries and threatens national sovereignty. Some opponents are calling to annul the deal, while others support renegotiation to safeguard Iraq's rights. Meanwhile, Kuwait maintains that its maritime boundary with Iraq, including navigation rights in Khor Abdullah, is firmly grounded in international law. Kuwaiti officials have repeatedly stressed that any attempt to revoke this agreement unilaterally is invalid and unacceptable. The Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs has lodged formal protests and called on Iraq to honour its commitments under binding international treaties, reaffirming Kuwait's sovereignty over its territorial waters and its right to shared navigation in Khor Abdullah. The issue of land and maritime borders between Iraq and Kuwait is highly sensitive among Iraqis with many viewing the border demarcation unfairly imposed by the US Security Council after driving Saddam Hussein 's army out of its neighbour in 1991 and say the country's weakened state at the time was exploited. It is equally sensitive from the Kuwaiti point of view due to the 1990 invasion, with concerns about Iraqi over-reach. The controversy has pitted Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani against the public, with critics accusing him of compromising the country's rights to Kuwait to secure regional support as he eyes a second term in office in November's national election. Some have gone as far as accusing Iraqi officials involved in the border negotiations of receiving bribes from Kuwait, without providing substantial evidence. Both Iraq and Kuwait claim exclusive ownership of the narrow canal, which curves around Kuwait's Bubiyan and Warba islands on one side and Iraq's Al Faw Peninsula on the other. Iraqis say it is named after a famous Basra fisherman, Abdullah Al Timimi, while Kuwaitis say its name derives from the second ruler of Kuwait, Abdullah bin Sabah, who ruled from 1762 to 1814. In early 2022, Iraq closed off the chapter of Kuwait compensation, paying its final war reparations, settling the $52.4 billion of claims made for damage inflicted during the 1990 invasion. What is the agreement and its purpose? Three years after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 833, which determined the land border between the two. However, the delineation of the maritime border was left to the countries themselves. In 2012, Baghdad and Kuwait signed the agreement and it was ratified in 2013 by the parliament in Baghdad. It aimed to regulate maritime traffic, environmental protection and safety within the estuary that forms Iraq's only gateway to the Arabian Gulf. The deal gives each country the right to control navigation and safety enforcement. It stipulates that the agreement 'shall remain in effect indefinitely' but can be mutually terminated with six months' notice. This also applies to amending it. Critics' arguments Critics – mainly legislators, independent politician and experts – argue that the terms of the accord implicitly draw a boundary, warning it could prejudice future maritime border negotiations and impose access controls on Iraqi ships, requiring Kuwaiti approval and fees. Amir Abdul Jabar, who served as transport minister from 2008 to 2010 and is one of the strongest opponents of the agreement, argues it is meant to delineate a maritime border rather than regulate navigation. Although the accord states that the agreement 'shall have no effect upon the boundary' between Iraq and Kuwait as demarcated pursuant to the UN Security Council Resolution 833 in 1993 at the creek, it gives Kuwait more control beyond that deep in the Gulf, Mr Abdul Jabar said. Article 2 of the agreement explains the term 'waterway' as the area from the point where the maritime channel at Khor Abdullah meets the international boundary between the points 156 and 157 heading south to the point 162 set by the Resolution 833 'thence to the beginning of the maritime channel at the entrance to Khor Abdullah'. 'So, the definition of the waterway in the agreement didn't stop at the 162 point – the one set by the UN Security General resolution,' Mr Abdul Jabar said. Article 4 stipulates that 'each party shall exercise its sovereignty over that part of the waterway which lies within its territorial water'. The essence of the objection, Mr Abdul Jabar said, is that it must not be applied on the area beyond the point 162 as Article 2 stipulates. 'How is it possible to divide the area beyond the point 162?' Mr Abdul Jabar said. 'We are not objecting to the [833] resolution even though it's unfair, but the government and parliament of 2012-2013 brought a new disaster [in signing this deal],' he added, warning that Iraq could lose future maritime entitlement to deeper Gulf waters and its natural resources known as the Exclusive Economic Zone. Mr Abdul Jabar had filed a lawsuit against Mr Al Sudani for 'blocking the court's ruling', by refusing to have copies of it deposited to the UN and the International Maritime Organisation. Ruling and controversy In September 2023, Iraq's Federal Supreme Court invalidated the law ratifying the agreement, ruling that it violated the Iraqi Constitution by lacking the required two thirds parliamentary majority for international treaties. Parliament had passed it by simple majority only. Shortly after the ruling, the GCC and US issued a joint statement in which they called on the Iraqi government to 'ensure that the agreement remains in force'. The Iraqi government has assured Kuwait that Iraq is committed to all its international agreements. Afterwards, Mr Al Sudani and President Abdul Latif Rashid have independently sought to reverse the ruling. These requests were withdrawn early this month and the agreement was sent back to parliament to approve in a two-thirds majority. It was a sigh of relief for the opponents. Many of them are now asking to annul the agreement by rejecting it inside parliament, while others are seeking to renegotiate it with an Iraqi team including experts, not only politicians. Protests across Iraq have continued, to reject the agreement in its current form. A public campaign is also set to be launched to collect signatures for a petition for the UN Security Council. Fadi Al Shammari, a political adviser to Mr Al Sudani, confirmed the Khor Abdullah agreement aims to regulate navigation and has nothing to do with border demarcation. 'Iraqi land is sacred, and there will be no leniency or compromise over any inch of it under any pretext,' Mr Al Shammari said, claiming that campaigns opposing the agreement are 'driven by political and electoral agendas'. Iraqis are divided about the agreement, although many of the Iran-backed political parties and armed groups are echoing the government stance. In an interview with a local satellite channel in May, the leader of the Asaib Ahl Al Haq group, Qais Al Khazali, blamed Saddam Hussein's banned Baath party for seeking to discredit the agreement by portraying it as 'giving up Iraq's borders with Kuwait'. 'Saddam was the one who sold it [the border] when he recognised resolution 833", a UN motion which set the land and maritime borders, he said. It is still unclear if the parliament will ratify the agreement or whether it will be left to the next parliament after national elections in November national elections. Kuwait is also in dispute with Iran over their maritime border and Al Durra offshore gasfield in the Arabian Gulf. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia say they have 'exclusive rights' to Al Durra and called on Iran to validate its claim by demarcating its maritime borders. Iran previously claimed a stake in the field and said a Kuwaiti-Saudi agreement signed last year to develop the field was illegal.
