Beirut – Iran’s bid to reaffirm its influence in Lebanon faced pushback this week as senior Iranian envoy Ali Larijani’s visit to Beirut underscored tensions over sovereignty and the role of armed groups outside state control.
Larijani, the former speaker of Iran’s parliament and special envoy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, arrived at a politically sensitive moment. Lebanon is in the midst of an internal debate on placing all weapons under state authority, while also facing international pressure and regional shifts following Tehran’s waning influence in Syria.
Lebanese leaders used Larijani’s trip to send a clear message. President Jozef Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam both stressed that sovereignty was non-negotiable and that weapons outside the control of the state could not be tolerated. Their remarks were seen as an effort to set new rules for Lebanon’s relationship with Iran.
Political analyst Ridwan Aqil argued that the visit carried two underlying messages from Tehran: Iran wanted to show it remains a regional player despite setbacks in Syria, and it sought to reaffirm support for Hezbollah and Lebanon’s Shiite community. Aqil noted that Lebanon’s firm response was expected, especially as officials increasingly back the idea of consolidating arms under the state.
During his meeting with Larijani, President Aoun said recent Iranian rhetoric on Lebanon had not been helpful. He emphasized that Beirut was open to friendly relations with Tehran but strictly within the framework of respecting sovereignty. Prime Minister Salam went further, rejecting statements by Iranian figures such as Abbas Araghchi and Ali Akbar Velayati defending Hezbollah’s weapons. Even some Hezbollah allies, including Free Patriotic Movement leader Gebran Bassil, voiced criticism, declaring that the legitimacy of Hezbollah’s arsenal had collapsed.
Observers also noted the muted reception for Larijani compared with previous visits by Iranian officials, with Hezbollah refraining from organizing mass displays of support. Several former allies of the group issued sharp criticism of armed factions operating outside state control. Nonetheless, Larijani met with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, where the two discussed domestic and regional issues despite diverging views on the weapons debate.
The backdrop of U.S. pressure loomed large. Some in Lebanon believe Washington influenced the government’s decision to mandate a weapons-collection plan, a charge Larijani reportedly dismissed in closed-door meetings. He insisted Iran was not offering proposals on the issue and said it was up to Lebanon to reach an internal consensus.
The government has tasked the military with presenting a plan for consolidating weapons by September 1. Analysts warn the initiative could spark confrontation if Hezbollah refuses to comply. Aqil described the situation as a “time bomb” that could only be defused through dialogue rather than direct clashes.
Larijani’s visit highlighted Iran’s dual role: maintaining official ties with the Lebanese state while simultaneously backing Hezbollah, a heavily armed non-state actor opposed to disarmament. This duality, observers say, complicates Lebanon’s efforts to balance external alliances with internal stability.
While some voices have called for severing diplomatic ties with Tehran or expelling the Iranian ambassador, such moves remain unlikely given Lebanon’s fragile political dynamics and the strength of the Shiite community. President Aoun’s firm but pragmatic stance—rejecting interference yet keeping channels of communication open—was seen as an attempt to maintain equilibrium.
Ultimately, Larijani’s trip neither reshaped Lebanon’s political landscape nor shifted entrenched positions. Instead, it reinforced existing divides: opponents of Iranian influence held firm, while Hezbollah and its supporters stood by their position. The looming September deadline on disarmament will be the true test of Lebanon’s ability to manage these tensions without destabilizing an already fragile state.
