Just days after Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji revoked the accreditation of Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani and declared him “persona non grata,” the repercussions of the move have not subsided. Instead, they have entered a more complex phase, with political, diplomatic, and security tracks intersecting, and with widening internal divisions—highlighted by the boycott of Thursday’s cabinet session by ministers from Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.
What initially appeared to be a striking diplomatic escalation has, over time, turned into a real test of the Lebanese state’s ability to uphold the decision in the face of political pressure—especially as the deadline for the ambassador to leave the country, set for next Sunday, approaches.
Internal Divisions
Raji’s decision (who is aligned with the Lebanese Forces party) has ignited sharp political divisions in the country. Positions have split between supporters who see it as a sovereign step, and opponents who view it as an ill-considered escalation.
In this context, several political forces welcomed the move, including the Kataeb Party. Its leader, Sami Gemayel, reposted a video on X in which he had declared on March 3 that the time had come to sever diplomatic relations with Iran and expel its ambassador, adding the comment: “The Iranian ambassador has taken off.”
Similarly, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that “the decision should have been taken long ago due to Iran’s interference in Lebanon,” noting that “recent events in Lebanon have proven, beyond any doubt, that the Revolutionary Guard is present in Lebanon—at least in the hundreds—and is directly managing operations.”
Justice Minister Adel Nassar, for his part, described the boycott of the cabinet session by Hezbollah and Amal amid the current crisis as “unjustified.”
On the other hand, the decision was firmly rejected by Hezbollah, which described it as “a reckless step and a major national and strategic mistake, a submission to foreign dictates lacking any legal justification.” The group warned of its repercussions on national unity and called for it to be reversed.
The Amal Movement also described the move in a statement as “reckless and irresponsible on the part of those entrusted with safeguarding sovereignty,” urging its reversal and stressing that it “will not tolerate the passage of this step under any circumstances.”
Warnings have also expanded domestically. Environment Minister Tamara El Zein cautioned that ministers from the “Shiite duo” might withdraw from the government over the decision. Observers have also warned of potential security repercussions, amid talk of possible responses from Tehran’s allies inside the country.
Consensus or Unilateral Move?
The decision to withdraw approval of the Iranian ambassador-designate Mohammad Reza Shibani and declare him persona non grata was formally communicated by Lebanese Foreign Ministry Secretary-General Ambassador Abdel Sattar Issa to Iran’s chargé d’affaires, Tawfiq Samadi Khoshkhah.
The move has sparked differing interpretations, particularly regarding whether Lebanon’s leadership was unified behind it, especially given the absence of clear statements or direct comments from both the president and the prime minister—deepening uncertainty over the level of political backing for the decision.
In this context, Charles Jabbour, head of the media department of the Lebanese Forces, told Alhurra that the decision “was taken collectively and in coordination between the president, the prime minister, and the foreign minister,” even though it falls within the foreign ministry’s authority.
Former Foreign Minister Fares Boueiz also considers that while the move technically came from the foreign ministry, it essentially reflects the orientation of the executive authority as a whole and “cannot be separated from the positions of the president and the prime minister.”
Boueiz explained to Alhurra that “the decision does not require a cabinet vote unless it reaches the level of severing diplomatic relations—which has not happened.”
Motives and Messages Behind the Decision
Raji’s decision was based on accusations that Shibani violated diplomatic norms and interfered in internal affairs, in breach of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. The ministry stated that the Iranian ambassador had made statements addressing Lebanese domestic affairs, evaluated government decisions, and held meetings with Lebanese parties without going through the foreign ministry.
Although Beirut stressed that the move does not mean severing relations with Tehran, its political reading goes beyond the diplomatic framework. Jabbour described it as “a sovereign decision par excellence and a clear message to Iran to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty,” noting that Tehran has dragged the country into regional conflicts and that elements linked to the Revolutionary Guard remain present on Lebanese territory. He added that “Iran has supported and armed a party on Lebanese soil and pushed it to carry out military actions outside the framework of the constitution and government decisions.”
For his part, Boueiz sees the step as part of a cumulative trajectory of tension “both at the level of the relationship between the ambassador and the Lebanese foreign minister, and between the Lebanese state and the Iranian state.” He also notes that this direction aligns with broader government orientations.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had previously confirmed the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements in Lebanon participating directly in managing military operations.
At the same time, Israel has reported targeting figures linked to the Quds Force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard inside Lebanon. This is compounded by earlier reports about the injury of Iran’s former ambassador to Beirut, Mojtaba Amani, in pager explosion incidents—an episode that highlighted the non-diplomatic roles of some Iranian figures in Lebanon and the overlap between political activity and security-related operations.
A Sovereignty Test
The current tension is not unprecedented in the history of Lebanon–Iran relations. Political analyst Dr. Khaled Al-Hajj noted in a post on X that in 1966, Lebanon expelled Iranian Ambassador Ali Fattouhi after statements deemed offensive to Arabs—particularly Kuwait. A similar episode occurred in 1983 during the Lebanese civil war following the entry of Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements, but the decision was never fully implemented after popular groups (the nucleus of Hezbollah) intercepted the ambassador’s convoy and prevented him from leaving.
As the issue shifts from announcement to implementation, questions arise about whether the Iranian ambassador will comply with the departure deadline—and what measures the state may take if he does not.
In this context, Hezbollah MP Amin Sherri stressed on Thursday that Shibani “will not leave,” arguing that March 29—the deadline—“does not exist on the party’s calendar.”
Conversely, MP Fouad Makhzoumi said the decision has moved beyond politics to become a “sovereign and legal matter,” calling on the government, in a post on X, to take enforcement measures if the ambassador fails to comply.
Boueiz explained that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows the host state to declare any diplomat persona non grata, obliging them to leave within a specified timeframe. If they fail to comply, “their diplomatic immunity is lifted, allowing for their detention outside embassy premises, while the immunity of the embassy and mission staff remains intact unless diplomatic relations are severed.”
Jabbour added that the Iranian ambassador “has become illegitimate and will not be received at official premises,” and that failure to leave would require the government to take action regarding the embassy.
A Final Decision?
On whether the government might reverse the decision under pressure, Jabbour stressed that a government that did not backtrack on previous decisions—particularly those related to disarming Hezbollah, including the March 2 decision banning its military and security activities and preventing it from using Lebanese territory as a base—will not reverse this one. He affirmed that what has been decided “will be implemented” and that “the decision is final and irreversible.”
Makhzoumi likewise argued that any reconsideration would constitute “an unjustified retreat that undermines the state’s credibility and authority,” stressing that “state sovereignty is a red line and there is no turning back.”
Ahead of the cabinet session boycotted by Hezbollah and Amal ministers, Industry Minister Joe Issa El Khoury affirmed that “there will be no retreat from the decision.” Meanwhile, Agriculture Minister Nizar Hani noted that several proposals are being discussed for a possible “way out,” adding that “we have dealt with more complex matters before.”
In conclusion, the decision to revoke the Iranian ambassador’s accreditation places Lebanon before a delicate sovereignty test. Between the departure deadline and internal and external reactions, the coming days will determine whether the state can enforce this decision—or whether political pressures will once again reshuffle the cards.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
