SOUTH LEBANON — One might assume, from the noise, theatrics, and selective outrage, that the Lebanese Foreign Minister’s desk is buried under one file and that is Iran. Everything else, it seems, can wait.

Youssef Rajji stated earlier on Friday that he sees “no taboo” when it comes to the interests of the Lebanese people and called on his Iranian counterpart to hold negotiations in a third, neutral country to address issues between Iran and Lebanon.

Lebanon’s collapsing economy, displaced citizens, daily Israeli air violations, and the regional fires encircling the country—all pale next to the fervor Rajji reserves for Tehran.

But then came Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s latest remarks, delivered with diplomatic restraint so smooth it bordered on satire. Iran, he said, does not interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs. He added Iran welcomes dialogue and Iran needs no “third country.” A gentle reminder wrapped in protocol, yet pointed enough to slice through Rajji’s theatrics like a razor.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson doubled down with equal courtesy, saying, “Iran respects Lebanon’s sovereignty and is ready for cooperation whenever Beirut decides it actually wants some.”

In his words there were no accusations, no drama, just the kind of calm professionalism that puts chaos to shame.

And here lies the irony: negotiations in neutral capitals are typically reserved for rivals at war or states trapped in diplomatic deadlock. Lebanon and Iran are in neither category.

Tehran has neither animosity with Lebanon nor imposed sanctions on the country. Yet Rajji insists on “neutral ground,” as though he’s mediating between warring sides rather than speaking with a country that has, for decades, offered Lebanon reconstruction aid, military support during the Resistance, and lifelines during its economic collapse—all without a single political condition.

At this point, one must ask: whose anxieties is the minister really negotiating?

Rajji’s conduct increasingly resembles the political reflexes of the Lebanese Forces (LF), not the sovereign posture of a foreign minister. And this is not incidental. 

Rajji is openly affiliated with the LF, the same militia that abducted four Iranian diplomats in 1982, a crime still unresolved, still denied, and still haunting Lebanon’s diplomatic credibility today. 

With that history in mind, his obsession with Iran begins to look less like policy and more like inherited hostility dressed up as diplomacy.

Rajji’s swift denunciations of Iran stand in sharp contrast to his deafening silence on over 6,000 Israeli ceasefire violations since November 2024. 

Evidently, genuine unconditional support offends him only when they come from countries his political camp disapproves of. But, when it comes to the Israeli deadly violation of the Lebanese territory, a “balanced” diplomacy is needed.

This selective indignation might be amusing if not embarrassing. Rajji’s résumé offers plenty of that: shouting “I am a goat” at ministry employees (March); conducting official business at the U.S. Embassy instead of his own ministry; leaking inflated accounts of meetings with Iranian officials; and violating protocol with remarkable confidence for someone who stumbles through basic diplomatic etiquette.

Such imprudent behavior would be comical were it not destructive. Lebanon is drowning under security threats, economic catastrophe, and diplomatic fragility. The last thing it needs is a foreign minister performing partisan monologues disguised as statecraft.

Iran is not the enemy. When Lebanon cried out for help — from the rubble of Israeli wars to the ashes of economic collapse — Tehran did not lecture; it acted.
Meanwhile, the Israeli enemy continues its incursions, violations, and collective punishment with impunity and Rajji responds with a shrug, a whisper, or yet another press briefing about Iran. 

So, the real question is not whether Iran dominates the foreign minister’s desk. The real question is far more troubling: Does Lebanon still have a foreign minister capable of telling the difference between partisan grudges and national interests, or is the ministry itself now stage décor for someone else’s political theatre?

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Tehran Times’ editorial stance.