The recent remarks by Lebanon’s foreign minister about “Iranian interference” have triggered a wave of reactions across the region’s political landscape.

Before accepting such claims, a fundamental question must be answered: How did Lebanon fall from its zenith as the "Bride of the Middle East" to its nadir as a war-torn, indebted, and fragmented nation? Who bears responsibility for this collapse? And amidst this devastation, who has truly stood as the guardian of Lebanon's independence, and who has schemed to seize its southern lands?

What is now labeled as "Iranian interference" is, in truth, a battle of narratives—a calculated effort to invert the identities of friend and foe in the Lebanese consciousness. Yet the unyielding record of history, the enduring memory of the people, and the undeniable facts on the ground in the south paint a starkly different portrait: Iran is not an interloper; it is a steadfast partner in Lebanon's pursuit of stability.

The true aggressors are Israel and the United States – architects of decades of destruction, relentless aggression, and a sustained campaign to dismantle Lebanese sovereignty.

Israel’s ambitions and Washington’s destabilization project

For decades, Lebanon has endured the front lines of an existential struggle – a conflict waged not merely over land, but over the nation's very soul and sovereignty.

Since 1948, Israel has launched repeated invasions, occupied the south, razed villages, and—in recent years—unleashed a relentless barrage of near-daily air and land assaults.

Israel’s ambition to annex the south to the Litani River has never been concealed. To Tel Aviv, Lebanon is territory to be perpetually dominated, "for Israel’s security," whether by direct force, orchestrated chaos, or the systematic erosion of its state institutions.

The United States has been an unwavering accomplice, supplying the arsenal of war: military, intelligence, political, and media support. Much of Lebanon’s political paralysis is engineered by Washington’s pressure to cripple the resistance and shackle Lebanon’s sovereign will.

Consider the evidence of the past two years alone:

- Relentless, overwhelmingly unreciprocated Israeli aggression against the south

- The wholesale ruin of border towns and the forced exodus of thousands

- Bombardments cynically branded as "preemptive" strikes

- Daily bellicose threats from Israeli officials to escalate the war

These are not matters of debate. They are the scorched-earth reality of modern Lebanon. No diplomatic language can whitewash them. Lebanon's enemy is the power that bombs its soil into submission—not the nation that has stood as a bulwark in its most desperate hours.

The Iranian solidarity painted as interference

Amidst the media clamor, Iran’s role in Lebanon must be judged by its record, not its detractors.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran's policy has been consistent and principled. It has evolved around respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, non-interference in its domestic political choices, and unwavering support for the people against foreign aggression.

Iran has never imposed a president, dictated to a government, or manipulated Lebanon’s internal power structure. Even during profound crises—from presidential vacuums to political deadlocks—Tehran has maintained a single, clear stance: Lebanon must decide for itself.

Had other powers adhered to this basic principle, Lebanon might not be buckling under external pressure today.

Unlike some, Iran does not draft political roadmaps from afar, impose security timetables, or offer aid shackled by political conditions. The very actors accusing Tehran of interference are those who leverage every diplomatic and financial package to extract dozens of political concessions.

Iran’s counsel is born of four decades witnessing Israeli aggression—it is a warning of tangible dangers, not an attempt to dictate Lebanese policy.

A central accusation against Iran focuses on its support for the Resistance. This critique willfully ignores two truths.

First, the fact that the Resistance is a Lebanese creation, born of necessity in 1982, five years before the Islamic Revolution had even taken place. It emerged when Israel occupied the south, when the state could not defend its borders, and when villages faced relentless attack. The Lebanese people chose to reclaim their land; Iran merely supported that sovereign decision.

The second deliberately ignored truth is the fact that the Resistance is a pillar of national security, not a threat to it. That the south stands today, that Israel has not dared to reoccupy it, and that a credible regional deterrence exists, is due to this defensive shield. It has prevented Lebanon from becoming a permanent theater for Israeli expansion.

Therefore, Iran’s support is not interference—it is solidarity with a nation’s legitimate right to self-defense. Tehran did not supply the weapons of occupation; it provided the means for liberation and protection.

Every form of Iranian assistance—from fuel, energy, and reconstruction to defense and security—has been delivered without a single political condition. Unlike those who tie their aid to changes in Lebanon’s power structure or demands to weaken the Resistance, Iran has never dictated who should govern Lebanon or what policy it should adopt.

During the 2006 war, when Israel was ruthlessly bombing Lebanon and many Arab states remained silent, Iran was among the few countries that supported both the Lebanese government and the Resistance. After the war, Iran contributed significantly to rebuilding the south and the Dahieh suburbs—without asking for political favors.

In recent years, when Lebanon faced an energy crisis, Iran proposed building affordable power plants and supplying fuel—again without conditions. Western proposals, by contrast, were tied to broad political restructuring.

This is not interference; it is a historical example of Iran’s respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty.

What interference really looks like

If a precise definition of "interference" is applied, Iran’s actions do not qualify. True interference is the practice of those who impose comprehensive sanctions on Lebanon, condition all economic aid on political restructuring, coerce internal factions into adopting predetermined positions, and draft "security plans" and "timelines" from thousands of miles away.

This is interference—not Iran's support for a nation that has endured decades of aggression.

Iran has only ever articulated one fundamental truth: Disarming the Resistance while Israel issues daily threats is an invitation for invasion. Stating this reality is not interference; it is a counsel forged by historical experience.

But why is Iran getting blamed?

The motive is transparent: Iran has emerged as a regional power capable of obstructing U.S. and Israeli ambitions. Its solidarity with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Palestine has effectively checked Israeli expansionism. Consequently, under external pressure, certain political voices in Lebanon parrot the narrative of "Iranian interference" to undermine the Resistance and reshape Lebanon’s security doctrine.

Yet, unlike Lebanon's adversaries, Iran seeks no territory, no economic domination, and no political control. Iran desires a single outcome: a sovereign and secure Lebanon, capable of standing on its own.

Lebanon now stands at a historic crossroads. The decision—and the living with it—will, in the end, be a Lebanese affair alone.