Hezbollah leader responds to US's warning to not get involved in Israel-Iran conflict
In a statement, Qassem said Hezbollah was "not neutral" in the conflict between the two countries and that the Shia group "would act as it sees fit in the face of this brutal Israeli American aggression".
Tom Barrack visited Lebanon on Thursday and warned Hezbollah it would be "a very, very, very bad decision" to get involved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
With Gaza in the global spotlight, expect Israel to turn the heat on Hezbollah
Israel finds itself in need of diverting global attention away from its atrocities in Gaza. Enter Hezbollah. The Israeli government appears to see renewed war with the Lebanese group as a chance to further its interests, pretexting the latter's refusal to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese state as it previously pledged. The timing is driven by several factors. The administration of US President Donald Trump has grown weary of waiting for Beirut to fulfil its promise of exclusive state control over arms, and it might be ready to endorse any Israeli decision, regardless of its severity. Another factor is Iran's unwillingness to enter a direct war with Israel on Hezbollah's behalf. Indeed, Tehran is both preoccupied with the fallout from the recent US and Israeli strikes and worried about another wave of attacks in the near future. Still, it refuses to abandon its strategy of using armed regional proxies as bargaining chips in potential negotiations with Washington. Tensions between the US and Iran are thus escalating – manifested through American sanctions, Iranian threats and Israeli war preparations. Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Yemen are on high alert, and the wider Iranian 'Axis of Resistance' is watching events closely, from Iraq to Gaza. Israel has zero tolerance regarding Hezbollah's arsenal. It has convinced the Trump administration that if the Lebanese government fails to implement its disarmament pledge, Israel has no choice but to press ahead with its war on the group. Meanwhile, the international conference on the two-state solution – co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN – might have angered Iran. The Islamic Republic's ideology rejects the two-state solution, with its doctrine calling for Israel's destruction. Moreover, the conference's show of global support for the Palestinian Authority as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was also a collective cry against Hamas, a key player in Iran's axis. Just as Israel is indifferent to the civilian toll in Gaza, Iran appears unbothered by Palestinian suffering, particularly as long as Hamas remains faithful to the axis. Mr Trump was recently forced to acknowledge the human-made famine in Gaza, having previously denied this reality. While he didn't initially act against Israel, which is enacting a policy of starvation in the enclave, he spoke about it after parts of his Maga political base pressed him to intervene to end the humanitarian catastrophe. This was accompanied by a different kind of global political pressure as Mr Trump was challenged by European and non-European allies who participated in the two-state solution conference and endorsed its final communique charting a path towards a Palestinian state alongside Israel. There are concerns over possible vindictive responses from Mr Trump, particularly if he feels isolated on the international stage. There is unease over his administration sanctioning the PA's leadership, which the latter says is a form of punishment for seeking the establishment of a Palestinian state. It shouldn't surprise anyone if Israel seeks to crush everything that emerged from the UN conference. It views the PA as an obstacle to its ambitions of annexing the West Bank. It opposes the near-unanimous international view that Hamas should be dismantled, only because its policy is to fracture Palestinian unity and undermine the PA. The dilemma facing the US President over the current Israeli government's extremist policies is his growing global isolation on the Palestine issue. He may still choose to ignore increasing international momentum in favour of a Palestinian state, but it could come at a cost. Indeed, it was no small development for Saudi Arabia to insist to the international community that it won't normalise relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is established. Riyadh's support for Palestinian statehood gained greater significance when it co-chaired the conference with France. The event brought surprising developments, including the UK's readiness to recognise the state of Palestine at next month's UN General Assembly unless Israel changes course from its current approach in Gaza. Yet a Palestinian state cannot come into being without American backing and Israeli compliance. The UN Security Council has already enshrined the two-state solution in resolutions 1397 and 1515, both supported by Washington. But the roadmap they laid out for Palestinian statehood by 2005 was never implemented and the Trump administration walked back American commitments to those resolutions. The events in New York could push Mr Trump further into the arms of Israeli extremism and its rejection of the two-state solution. Or he might find himself cornered and unable to punish the broad coalition of states that have challenged him. If so, his policy could shift under pressure. This would require a deft diplomatic effort to present Mr Trump with ways to align with the emerging consensus without feeling provoked. Countries have bilateral interests and won't risk undermining relations with Washington solely for the sake of the two-state solution. Having been increasingly scrutinised by the international community, Israel appears intent on shifting global focus away from Gaza. This is precisely because it intends to continue its policies there. And as long as European states fail to impose tangible punitive measures on Israel, and as long as Mr Trump supports its project of 'voluntary displacement', Israel will continue with its agenda. Israel's posture towards Lebanon and Iran, however, is another matter. There is little international sympathy for Iran's insistence that Hezbollah retain its arms in defiance of Lebanese sovereignty. Nor is there sympathy for Tehran's reckless endangerment of the Lebanese people's safety, security and agency. There is, likewise, little global sympathy for the Islamic Republic's stubborn adherence to its triad of strategic doctrines – nuclear capability, ballistic missiles and proxy warfare – without modifications. Thus, should it once again face US or Israeli military strikes, it is unlikely to find many sympathisers. Tehran is now trapped by American sanctions and the threat of more air strikes. Hezbollah, too, will find no one rushing to its rescue if it falls prey to Israel's attempts to shift global attention away from Gaza. Both entities will have only themselves to blame.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Lebanon says four killed in Israeli strikes
Beirut: A series of Israeli air strikes killed four people in south and east Lebanon, the health ministry said Friday, referring to strikes that occurred the previous evening. 'The series of strikes launched by the Israeli enemy Thursday evening led to the death of four people,' the Lebanese health ministry said. The Israeli military said Thursday that it had targeted Hizbollah 'infrastructure that was used for producing and storing strategic weapons' in south Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz described one of the targets as Hizbollah's 'biggest precision missile manufacturing site'. More than a year of hostilities -- including two months of all-out war between Israel and Hizbollah which largely ended with a November ceasefire -- left the militant group badly weakened. Israel has nonetheless kept up near-daily air strikes in Lebanon despite the ceasefire, and has threatened to continue them until the group has been disarmed. 'Any attempt by the terrorist organisation to recover, re-establish or threaten will be met with relentless intensity,' Katz said on Thursday. Under the terms of the truce, Hizbollah was to withdraw its fighters north of the Litani river, about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from the Israeli border. Israel was meant to withdraw all its troops from Lebanon, but has kept them in five areas it deems strategic. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said Thursday that he was determined to disarm Hizbollah, a step it has come under heavy US pressure to take, despite the group's protests that doing so would serve Israeli goals. Hizbollah and Israel fought a two-month war last year that left the group badly weakened, though it retains part of its arsenal. Israel has kept up its air strikes on Hizbollah targets despite a November ceasefire, and has threatened to continue them until the group has been disarmed. In a speech on Thursday, Aoun said Beirut was demanding 'the extension of the Lebanese state's authority over all its territory, the removal of weapons from all armed groups including Hezbollah and their handover to the Lebanese army'. Agencies
The National
2 days 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.'
