Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has claimed that Iran is “using Lebanon as its bargaining chip." Not only is this blatantly false, but it also implies that Tehran has something material to gain from including Lebanon in its ceasefire agreement.

Several inflammatory statements have recently been issued by the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, blaming Iran for "Israel’s" mass murder of Lebanese civilians and its illegal invasion of southern Lebanese lands.

These allegations against Iran are not new. For decades, they have been fabricated by Israeli politicians and Zionist think-tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).  There is, however, a significant difference when such claims are echoed by a Lebanese president and whose government has been instructed to engage in direct talks with an enemy that, within a matter of months, has killed around 3,600 of his country’s citizens and continues to occupy Lebanese territory.

The mere concept of Lebanon's “bargaining chip” is factually incorrect in Iran’s case. A “bargaining chip” means that Tehran would use Lebanon to its own benefit, which is patently false. If anything, Iran’s demands that "Israel" withdraw from Lebanese territory and cease its bombing campaign are making the prospect of reaching any deal more difficult.

If we focus solely on what would materially benefit Iran, the other demands it has listed - namely guarantees against future aggression, the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the lifting of sanctions, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of assets, and compensation - are tangible gains. By contrast, the demand that any ceasefire apply across all fronts, especially the stipulation of a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, offers Iran no direct material benefit. This is a matter of principle rather than self-interest.

One could argue that by insisting on Lebanon's inclusion in the ceasefire agreement, Iran was seeking to strengthen its standing while demonstrating loyalty to its allies. Yet if this were primarily a strategic or symbolic demand, Tehran could simply have accepted a return to the status quo that "Israel" had imposed on southern Lebanon prior to March 2.

Related News

The blockade as global dictatorship: From contained extraterritoriality to worldwide extension

News from Nowhere: The President's Brain Is Missing

Instead, the demand is that "Israel" no longer be permitted to do what it did following the announcement of the November 27, 2024 ceasefire agreement, which, according to UNIFIL, it violated at least 15,400 times. Iran has been clear that it is not interested in a merely symbolic agreement; it wants credible assurances that "Israel" will cease its bombing and retreat from Lebanese territory.

In reality, there are two reasons these kinds of statements are made – The first being that in the event of an Iranian comprehensive deal that forces the Zionist regime to retreat fully, the Lebanese leadership will lose all its remaining legitimacy. The second reason is that this argument closely mirrors a talking point promoted by US officials.

In 2021, Hezbollah facilitated the transfer of Iranian fuel shipments to Lebanon at a time when the country was experiencing a severe energy crisis. The following year, Tehran also offered additional fuel supplies to Lebanon on a free-of-charge basis. More broadly, Iran has historically provided financial support for a range of Lebanese social initiatives, including welfare programs, assistance to low-income communities, and reconstruction efforts.

Despite the Lebanese leadership that took power in February 2025 adopting a generally adversarial stance toward Hezbollah and Iran, Tehran did not seek to obstruct the formation of the government. In fact, Nawaf Salam and Joseph Aoun came to power in a political context in which Hezbollah and the Amal Movement ultimately chose not to block the process, reportedly in the interest of preserving domestic stability.

Allegations that Iran is responsible for the war are simply outlandish. Iran’s ambassador was declared “persona non-grata”, yet the Lebanese government is now sitting down for direct negotiations with the Israelis. All of the accusations made against Iran are simply nonsensical. 

If Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam truly believed in Lebanese sovereignty, then they would also expel the US ambassador who represents a government that quite literally greenlights Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon. In this sense, the argument against Iran is not new; it draws on longstanding narratives that have circulated for decades and often lack substantive grounding.

It is often argued that a basic requirement of any ceasefire should be the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces from occupied territory. In this context, Iranian warnings that further Israeli strikes on Beirut would trigger retaliation came amid heightened tensions ahead of the third round of direct Lebanon–"Israel" negotiations, during which a planned Israeli escalation did not proceed.

For 15 months, diplomacy was given a chance. The result: Israelis are still occupying southern Lebanon, and they continue bombing Lebanese territory, while the US has developed a plan for disarming the Resistance instead.