Latest news with #RafikHariri
Ya Libnan
2 days ago
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Disarm Hezbollah now, before it destroys Lebanon completely
File : Masked Hezbollah fighters as they march through a suburb of Beirut in May 2008 , when the party occupied a large section of Beirut but unsuccessfully tried to occupy The Druze and Christian stronghold of Mount Lebanon. The majority of the Lebanese now consider the heavily armed and Iran backed militia as the biggest threat to Lebanon's sovereignty Hezbollah continues to claim that its vast arsenal exists solely to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression and to support resistance. But nearly two decades of evidence tell a different story—one of regional entanglements, internal repression, and national devastation. Today, Hezbollah's arms are less a shield and more a sword hanging over Lebanon's sovereignty, its people, and its very survival. Twice, Hezbollah's weapons failed in their core mission of defending Lebanon. In the 2006 war with Israel, the group's so-called 'divine victory' resulted in massive destruction across the south and Beirut's southern suburbs. Instead of repelling Israel, it brought ruin to Lebanese towns. More recently, its last confrontation with Israel ended in the loss of several strategic hills in southern Lebanon—hardly the sign of a victorious resistance. Rather than defending the homeland, Hezbollah has repeatedly turned its guns inward. After the 2006 war, it occupied downtown Beirut—an area rebuilt over 12 years by the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri—paralyzing Lebanon's economic and political life. Then, in May 2008, it launched an armed assault on West Beirut and attempted, unsuccessfully, to overrun the Druze and Christian strongholds of Mount Lebanon. These were not acts of national defense, but internal intimidation and political blackmail. The group's violence has not stopped at the battlefield. In the wake of Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, a wave of political assassinations began, targeting those who opposed Syria's and Hezbollah's domination. Among the most prominent was the assassination of Rafik Hariri himself. Journalists, lawmakers, and security officials who dared speak out met similar fates. The message was clear: dissent would be punished by death. Even more devastating was Hezbollah's role in the 2020 Beirut Port explosion. In 2013, the group facilitated the illegal storage of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate—reportedly to aid the Assad regime's barrel bomb campaign after Syria surrendered its chemical weapons to the OPCW. When that stockpile ignited, it wiped out entire neighborhoods, killed over 220 people, wounded more than 6,000, and left 300,000 homeless. This was not collateral damage. This was criminal negligence rooted in Hezbollah's obsession with weapons and war. Hezbollah's arms are not just a danger to the Lebanese people—they now leave Lebanon dangerously isolated. To the south, Israel openly targets Hezbollah operatives. To the east, even Syria—once an ally—is increasingly wary, as Hezbollah's unchecked actions jeopardize Assad's own fragile grip on power. Lebanon now finds itself surrounded by neighbors that view Hezbollah as an enemy, not a partner. And it is Lebanon that pays the price. Meanwhile, Hezbollah's own Shiite base has suffered the most. In every war, it is their homes that are destroyed, their families displaced, and their towns left in rubble. And yet, no country in the world is willing to help rebuild as long as Hezbollah remains armed and unaccountable. Their suffering has become the currency Hezbollah uses to justify its next confrontation. Let us be clear: Hezbollah's weapons have not liberated a single inch of Palestine. Instead, they have brought destruction to Lebanon. They have not defended the nation—they have dismantled it. Their continued existence violates both UN Resolution 1559 , which calls for the disbandment of all militias in Lebanon, and the Taif Agreement , which mandates one army under one state. It is time for President Joseph Aoun—and all Lebanese leaders—to show courage. The Lebanese Army must be empowered to take control of all weapons on Lebanese soil. Sovereignty cannot coexist with a private army loyal to a foreign power. Lebanon must no longer be held hostage to Hezbollah's decisions, wars, and weapons. This is not a sectarian demand. This is a national survival imperative. Hezbollah's arms have become a burden not just for Lebanon—but for Hezbollah itself. The choice is no longer between war and peace. The choice is between a free, sovereign Lebanon—and no Lebanon at all. Mr Aoun. The time to act is now.
Sydney Morning Herald
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Here's the smart way for Trump to end the Israel-Iran war
Behind the strikes and counterstrikes in the current Israel-Iran war stands the clash of two strategic doctrines, one animating Iran and the other animating Israel, that are both deeply flawed. President Donald Trump has a chance to correct both of them and to create the best opportunity for stabilising the Middle East in decades — if he is up to it. Iran's flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practised by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad result, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure. You name it – assassinate the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri; blow up the US embassy in Beirut; help Bashar Assad murder thousands of his own people to stay in power – the imprints of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy are behind them all, together or separately. They are telling the world in effect: 'No one will out-crazy us, so beware if you get in a fight with us, you will lose. Because we go all the way — and you moderates just go away.' That Iranian doctrine did help Hezbollah drive Israel out of southern Lebanon. But where it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard – Hamas too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium. But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what 'anticolonial' nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you. Former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, both thought that Israel would never try to kill them personally, that Israel was, as Nasrallah liked to say, a 'spider web' that would just unravel one day under pressure. He paid with his life with that miscalculation last year, and the supreme leader probably would have as well if Trump had not intervened, reportedly, last week to stop Israel from killing him. These Israeli Jews will not be out-crazied. That is how they still have a state in a very tough neighbourhood. That said, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of extremists running the Israeli government today are in the grip of their own strategic fallacy, which I call the doctrine of 'once and for all'. I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force 'once and for all'.
The Age
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Here's the smart way for Trump to end the Israel-Iran war
Behind the strikes and counterstrikes in the current Israel-Iran war stands the clash of two strategic doctrines, one animating Iran and the other animating Israel, that are both deeply flawed. President Donald Trump has a chance to correct both of them and to create the best opportunity for stabilising the Middle East in decades — if he is up to it. Iran's flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practised by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad result, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure. You name it – assassinate the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri; blow up the US embassy in Beirut; help Bashar Assad murder thousands of his own people to stay in power – the imprints of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy are behind them all, together or separately. They are telling the world in effect: 'No one will out-crazy us, so beware if you get in a fight with us, you will lose. Because we go all the way — and you moderates just go away.' That Iranian doctrine did help Hezbollah drive Israel out of southern Lebanon. But where it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard – Hamas too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium. But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what 'anticolonial' nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you. Former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, both thought that Israel would never try to kill them personally, that Israel was, as Nasrallah liked to say, a 'spider web' that would just unravel one day under pressure. He paid with his life with that miscalculation last year, and the supreme leader probably would have as well if Trump had not intervened, reportedly, last week to stop Israel from killing him. These Israeli Jews will not be out-crazied. That is how they still have a state in a very tough neighbourhood. That said, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of extremists running the Israeli government today are in the grip of their own strategic fallacy, which I call the doctrine of 'once and for all'. I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force 'once and for all'.
Asharq Al-Awsat
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
A Country Between Two Funerals
It is not fair to compare two absences, just as two presences cannot be compared. Our inclination to draw comparisons seems intuitive, and indeed it is, as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's postponed funeral coincides with the twentieth anniversary of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination. However, it overlooks the fact that no matter how measured it appears, this comparison assumes symmetry where none exists. It also erases the nuances that distinguish each of the two experiences that may seem similar on the surface, but which have almost nothing in common. This flaw is exacerbated when comparison quickly turns into a framework for reductive analysis rather than a means for shedding light on phenomena, turning this analysis into nothing more than projection. However, fate can be cruel, and coincidences have their own way of shaping meaning. They often escape direct analysis, as in the case of these two funerals being held in the same month. This coincidence raises an inevitable question. How did Hariri's absence become an extension of his political and symbolic presence over the past two decades, while Nasrallah, who had spent his life inflating his presence in the daily lives of the Lebanese, has all but disappeared from the public discourse about Lebanon and his party's future? The assassination of Rafik Hariri was not merely a point that changed the trajectory of Lebanese politics; it was a moment that opened his project to possibilities that granted him a presence in his absence. He was not only present as a memory recalled each year but through an approach that imposes itself at every juncture, shaping the choices the country grapples with. The state-building project he represented- despite all attempts to thwart or distort it- remained a reference point in every national discussion of the economy, power, and the future, making his name the most enduring fixture of Lebanon's political lexicon. In contrast, the assassination of Nasrallah seemed to announce the historical moment defined by his function, his project, his wars, and his choices had come to an end: whether in terms of his party's momentary setbacks and desperate attempts at repositioning, or in the more profound sense, Hezbollah's transformation from an ascending force into a relic of an increasingly small past. When Nasrallah's experience is revisited in discussions of major conflicts, it will not be seen as a compelling model but as an example of an era- one that ought not to be repeated- reaching its conclusion. It is no coincidence that the Syrian regime, which survived a struggle to overthrow for over a decade, could not survive the void left by Nasrallah's assassination. Just seventy days later, Hezbollah's loss translated into Assad's collapse, seemingly marking the logical end of a chapter in the region's history. The assassination of Nasrallah, the linchpin of Iran's strategic vision and the man through whom Tehran redrew the balance of power in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, was not a mundane event. It was the driving force behind a chain reaction. The Axis lost its compass, and Iran found itself in an unfamiliar defensive position after having long dictated the terms. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, which had been renowned for its adaptability, lacks the tools needed to deal with this new equation: an absent leader, faltering command, an exhausted popular base, and regional alliances that turned out to be more fragile than they had appeared. For years, it had been widely believed that Lebanon's fate was shaped solely by major shifts in Tehran. That assumption had been that only seeds planted beyond its borders could sprout on its soil. However, recent events are the clearest indication we have had to date that this assumption must be reconsidered. The upheaval that shook the region was neither the result of a global decision nor an extension of a regional deal. Rather, the ripples came from within, beginning in Beirut's southern suburbs before broadening outward. The axis did not fall because of global power dynamics, but because the figure who had glued it together was killed. His death exposed that what had once seemed like a solid bloc was, at its core, built on an illusion of sustainability. Following the speeches of Syrian President Ahmad Sharaa or the political discourse in Lebanon (whether in President Joseph Aoun's inaugural address or Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's statements), it is impossible not to notice the salience of terms like sovereignty, independence, economy, and development- the unmistakable echo of Rafik Hariri's voice. It is as though his funeral in February 2005 was, in fact, a public announcement that his absence would be destined to mark the beginning of a new presence- a deeper and more enduring presence. In contrast, Nasrallah's funeral seems like the last stop on the course of a decline that had begun years ago. His departure will serve as an acknowledgment that the era he represented has come to an end. The question does not revolve around the future of this era, but the very survival of Hezbollah as an idea and an entity. History is not merely a chronology of its protagonists' actions; it is the conclusions we draw from events once the noise fades. It is not difficult to predict which of the two men's names will be etched into Lebanon's memory and which will be reduced to nothing more than a footnote in the archives of forgotten conflicts.
National News
14-02-2025
- Politics
- National News
Russian Foreign Ministry on Hariri's Anniversary: An irreplaceable loss for Lebanon and its fiends around the world
NNA - The Russian Foreign Ministry on Friday commemorated the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on the 20th anniversary of his assassination. In an issued statement, the Ministry said: "February 14 marks the 20th anniversary of the tragic death of the Lebanese statesman, prominent public figure and friend of Russia, Rafik Hariri, and a number of his comrades, as a result of a terrorist attack in downtown Beirut. Hariri played an important role in reaching the Taif Agreement, which ended the bloody and destructive civil war in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990." The statement added, "As a true patriot, he devoted all his strength and energy to the cause of rebuilding his country in the post-war period. Prime Minister Hariri had sincere sympathy for Russia and made a significant contribution to strengthening Russian-Lebanese relations and developing multifaceted partnerships between our countries.' 'The passing of one of the most prominent Lebanese leaders in modern history was an irreplaceable loss for Lebanon and its friends around the world," the statement concluded.
