In a new development in Lebanese–Iranian relations, Lebanon finds itself facing an unusual situation: a foreign ambassador declared “persona non grata” by the state refuses to leave, while his country insists he continues to carry out his duties as usual.
Thus, Beirut’s decision to withdraw accreditation from Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Sheibani has turned into an open crisis, after Tehran announced its insistence on keeping him in Lebanon—a move that puts Lebanese authorities to a practical test of their ability to enforce their own decisions.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei stated that the ambassador “will continue his work,” emphasizing that the embassy “is still operating,” in a position that reflects an explicit rejection of the Lebanese decision and transforms the issue from a diplomatic procedure into a political confrontation.
Iranian “Defiance”
The decision by Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji to revoke the Iranian ambassador’s accreditation and grant him a deadline to leave the country was based on accusations of breaching diplomatic norms and interfering in internal affairs, in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
According to the Foreign Ministry, the ambassador made statements addressing government decisions and held meetings with local actors without coordinating with the ministry, which was considered a departure from established diplomatic frameworks.
However, what was expected to remain a legal measure quickly turned into a sovereignty test, following Iran’s public rejection of the decision.
An official source at the ministry told Alhurra that the ambassador “no longer holds diplomatic status and is not entitled to perform the duties previously assigned to him,” describing the Iranian stance as “defiance of the state’s decision,” and noting that “the implementation of the decision falls on the security agencies, while respecting the immunity of the embassy premises, with any additional steps remaining within the authority of the executive branch and subject to gradual escalation.”
The crisis comes within the context of broader tensions beyond bilateral relations. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had previously confirmed the presence of elements affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps inside Lebanese territory, participating directly in managing military operations.
The crisis also coincides with repeated Israeli targeting of figures linked to the Quds Force and the IRGC in Lebanon. Additionally, there were earlier reports of injuries sustained by Iran’s former ambassador in Beirut, Mojtaba Amani, in the pager explosion incident—an event that shed light on the non-diplomatic roles of some Iranian figures in Lebanon.
Weakness or Signals of Strength?
Iran’s refusal to withdraw its ambassador in Beirut reflects, according to writer and political analyst Elias Al-Zoghbi, weakness on multiple levels—not only militarily and economically, but also politically and diplomatically. He added that Iran “cannot bear the consequences of its ambassador’s mistake, nor can it override Hezbollah’s position rejecting his departure, considering that expelling him would represent a setback added to its field losses, which it seeks to avoid recording.”
Al-Zoghbi told Alhurra that Iran “did not deal with the matter with respect for international law and diplomatic agreements, just as it does in its nuclear file contrary to the will of relevant international authorities, as well as in arming its proxies in the region to destabilize several Arab capitals. In these areas, it is increasingly regarded as a rogue state.”
For his part, political analyst and lawyer Amin Bashir presented three explanations for Sheibani’s delayed departure: first, allowing time for ongoing contacts to contain the crisis; second, viewing the delay as a political message expressing Iran’s disregard for the Lebanese decision; and third, waiting for the outcome of regional developments before taking any step.
Escalation and Criticism
Domestically, Iran’s stance triggered sharp political reactions. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea wrote on X that keeping the ambassador represents “the height of contempt for international law and the norms governing relations between states,” adding, “We have spent the past four decades confronting this reality, and we will certainly do everything in our power to exit it as quickly as possible.”
MP Fouad Makhzoumi described the refusal to comply as a “blatant violation of the Vienna Convention, specifically Article 9,” calling on the government to take decisive measures, including suspending diplomatic relations if the challenge continues.
MP Mark Daou also described the move as a “flagrant challenge to Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
In a related context, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated that “Lebanon is a virtual state effectively under Iranian occupation.” He added, “The Iranian ambassador is still drinking coffee in Beirut and mocking the ‘host’ state, while Hezbollah ministers continue to hold positions in the Lebanese government.”
In his reading of Iran’s position, Bashir believes Tehran treated the Lebanese decision as “part of a broader internal power struggle and viewed it as alignment with the American side.” According to this assessment, the response was swift and direct, through the launch of a missile that reached the Keserwan area, as a clear message reflecting rejection of this positioning—and signaling that Lebanon will be exposed to its consequences and potential targeting.
Open Scenarios
According to Bashir, the implementation of the decision to expel Sheibani is influenced by “internal balances and Lebanon’s complex political structure,” making strict measures—such as arrest—unlikely, as any escalation would provoke sensitivities within the Shiite community.
He also rules out the option of replacing the ambassador with another, considering that such a move would be seen as “a victory for the Lebanese government,” while Iran is unlikely to reciprocate, “as it considers itself the dominant power in Lebanon.” He expects the trajectory to move toward “an undeclared de-escalation, through freezing the implementation of the decision and avoiding media spotlight.”
He described the crisis as a “media sound bomb,” stressing that “the real test for the state lies in its ability to hold Hezbollah officials accountable when they declare positions about dragging Lebanon into war, despite some of them holding parliamentary and ministerial positions—especially since the state has so far been unable to arrest even a single member of the party.”
In contrast, Al-Zoghbi points to the options available to the Lebanese state, ranging from monitoring the ambassador’s movements and arresting him if he leaves the embassy premises, to severing diplomatic relations. He stated, “The ambassador has now become effectively a wanted individual, like any foreign resident staying illegally without valid residency documents.”
Nevertheless, Al-Zoghbi noted that “there are efforts to quietly resolve the crisis so that the expelled ambassador leaves and is replaced by another, but Iran’s blatant intervention in managing Hezbollah’s war and supporting it means Lebanese–Iranian relations will remain governed by escalation until Tehran withdraws its military, political, and diplomatic hand from Lebanese affairs.”
Between Beirut’s insistence on asserting its sovereignty and Tehran’s reliance on time and mediation, relations between the two countries stand at a crossroads that will shape the next phase.
