Hezbollah's Raad says Iran 'regional deterrent force, like it or not'
Hundreds of people rallied outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut Wednesday, responding to a call from Hezbollah to celebrate "the culmination of the struggle and sacrifices" of the Iranian people "who triumphed over the Israeli-American aggression".
Ahmed Mohebbi, 42, who was among the crowd, said: "We are very happy about this victory that Iran achieved, despite the hits it took and attacks by America and Israel to prevent it from continuing its nuclear program.
"Our steadfastness is a victory," he told AFP.
The head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc Mohammad Raad said in a speech that Iran is today "a regional deterrent force, like it or not."
"It proved this with its steadfastness" and by standing up against "a tyrannical enemy who sought to impose its hegemony on the whole region," he said.
Iran has backed Hezbollah since the group's founding in the 1980s, providing it with financial and military support.
The group was severely weakened in its latest confrontation with Israel, which killed most of its top leadership and destroyed much of its arsenal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tayyar.org
41 minutes ago
- Tayyar.org
Bassil: Hezbollah's Weapons Must Be Handed to the State, and the Government Is Failing on Refugees and Reforms
The President of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, stressed that 'Hezbollah's weapons can no longer serve as a deterrent to Israel after recent developments, as the circumstances have fundamentally changed.' He affirmed that the defense of Lebanon must be the exclusive responsibility of the state and that Lebanon must establish a legitimate means of defending itself. 'A serious process of handing over the weapons has yet to begin,' he said. Bassil acknowledged the ongoing Israeli occupation and attempts to resettle Palestinians, stating: 'We cannot simply submit to Israel. The weapons must come at a price and their handover must be based on mutual understanding.' He emphasized that these weapons belong to Lebanon and the Lebanese state, and insisted that dialogue must not be used as a stalling tactic. 'No Lebanese has claimed victory over Hezbollah to ridicule it, but Hezbollah must recognize the need to place its military power under the custody of the state. We say this with goodwill and concern.' He added: 'We must honor the martyrs who sacrificed their lives to liberate Lebanon from Israeli occupation. The resistance weapon fulfilled its duty, but missiles alone can no longer confront the age of artificial intelligence.' In an interview on the LBC program 'Jadal' with journalist Mario Abboud, Bassil described recent events in Nabatieh as an 'insult' reminiscent of Israeli violations. He pointed out that while Iran lost its nuclear program but preserved its regime, Israel, on the other hand, lost its prestige. 'The biggest winner in the region is the United States,' he said. 'What has become clear is that without American support, Israel cannot protect itself.' Bassil reiterated: 'Weapons should not be tied to political privileges. Hezbollah itself has not said otherwise. Lebanon cannot function without any of its components, including the Shiites—just as it cannot without any other sect.' ⸻ On Government Performance, Reforms, and Displacement Regarding the current Lebanese government, Bassil remarked that he sees no meaningful difference between it and a caretaker government, except for some appointments. He criticized the newly proposed judicial independence law, saying it is worse than previous drafts, and lamented the lack of seriousness in addressing key national files. 'Where is the financial and economic reform plan? Where is the depositors' money?' he asked, noting that 'the government only responded to one of ten questions we submitted.' He questioned the fate of the forensic audit and laws concerning subsidy fund audits: 'What has the government done with the Alvarez plan which was accomplished by the government of Hassan Diab in a short time? What message is it sending to depositors?' Bassil criticized what he called a double standard in appointments: 'Those who fought quotas violated that very logic. Security appointments remain governed by sectarian balance—nothing is passed without the Shiite duo's approval.' He noted that two Christian officers in the Internal Security Forces Command Council were dismissed, while the Shiite officer was retained: 'And yet they tell us there is no quota?' On Syrian displacement, Bassil accused the government of ignoring Syria's changing reality: 'The regime has changed, the war has ended, and sanctions have been eased—yet the government clings to outdated narratives.' He condemned the shift from voluntary to 'sustainable' return, explaining that the plan allows those who return to Syria to come back to Lebanon if they feel unsafe. 'The UNHCR wants to organize 'exploration trips' for Syrians at a cost of $200 million. This is complicity. Why are there still two million Syrians in Lebanon?' he asked. The current plan, he explained, allows only 24% to return under certain conditions, while 76% remain unaddressed. 'This is an abandonment of our identity. The displacement file is the most dangerous issue Lebanon faces today. What are we afraid of—the Trump administration that opposes illegal immigration?' He concluded: 'I accuse the government of appeasing the international community in this file. What is the foreign minister doing? Where are those who claim to oppose Syrian displacement?' ⸻ On the Damascus Church Bombing Commenting on the bombing of St. Elias Church in Damascus, Bassil said it represents an attack on Syria's diversity and freedom of belief. 'The Syrian government is responsible for preventing such crimes. This isn't just about a bombing—these are systematic violations of human dignity and Christian presence in Syria.' He added: 'I do not understand the logic behind international policy in the region, but Christians continue to pay the price. It is unacceptable for Lebanon to live next to factions like Daesh and feel secure. What we want is a humane and open Islam like that of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, Prince Tamim, the Emir of Bahrain, the Emir of Kuwait, and the Sultan of Oman.' He stressed that the Syrian regime is caught between external expectations and internal ideological commitments: 'This dual pressure is what fuels the current crisis.' ⸻ On Peace and Regional Stability Regarding peace between Syria and Israel, Bassil said: 'Lebanon is awaiting a just and comprehensive peace—we cannot remain outside such a framework.' He emphasized: 'We don't want Israeli arrogance or fragmentation among Arab states. Ahmad al-Sharaa was chosen to lead Syria because of his willingness to pursue peace.' Asked about Syria joining the Abraham Accords, he responded: 'Syria must align with Saudi Arabia's position. Lebanon seeks an end to aggression—not resettlement. We must stand in solidarity with the broader Arab consensus.' He emphasized that the Saudi-proposed two-state solution is now a binding Arab position: 'No Arab state can ignore it, and no one should tolerate what's happening to the Palestinians.' ⸻ On Municipal Elections Bassil said the FPM approached the municipal elections from a community-service angle, while the Lebanese Forces treated it as a political contest. 'Our results in this round are better than in 2016,' he said. He noted that out of Lebanon's 30 municipal unions, the FPM was involved in 20 and supported 15. 'The Lebanese Forces only won the Bsharre union outright. Their so-called 'Christian tsunami' turned out to be a mere breeze.' He added that the Forces did not win any unions in Chouf, Aley, Akkar, or the Bekaa. 'They launched a media war of elimination and failed. In Keserwan, five parties won the union, and in Jezzine, the results are under appeal due to the unjust exclusion of a detained deputy mayor of Haidab.' ⸻ On the Casino and Electoral Law Bassil responded to questions about the casino controversy: 'The attacks began when revenues increased. No one is trying to draw us into that.' On the forestry decree, he criticized the geographical imbalance: 'You can't send someone from Nabatieh to Zgharta and call that fair. We're not asking for a 50-50 split, but not 90-10 either.' He reaffirmed the importance of the 2017 electoral law: 'It corrected diaspora representation with six MPs. If Lebanese abroad can vote, why strip them of representation?' He warned: 'They're trying to cancel the six diaspora seats—this would be a major crime against expatriates.' ⸻ On His Political Future Asked about his candidacy in constituencies outside Batroun, Bassil said: 'That's a lie.' Regarding alliances with Hezbollah, he stated: 'We will determine our allies based on national interest and the political landscape. No one imposes anything on us.' He questioned: 'Why is it acceptable for the Lebanese Forces to ally with Hezbollah in the Beirut municipality without criticism?'
LBCI
3 hours ago
- LBCI
Lebanese officials discuss US proposal ahead of envoy's return
The U.S. mediation file led by envoy Tom Barrack was front and center during a meeting in Ain el-Tineh between Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Sources familiar with the talks said the discussion focused heavily on the issue of limiting weapons possession as Lebanese officials work to finalize an official response ahead of Barrack's expected second visit to Beirut. Hezbollah has yet to take a definitive position on the U.S. proposal. Army Commander General Rodolph Haykal also joined the discussions in Ain el-Tineh, where he and Berri reviewed the latest developments, particularly in southern Lebanon.
MTV Lebanon
7 hours ago
- MTV Lebanon
Trump Wins Supreme Court Case but Faces Birthright Citizenship Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
