TAHARROR FOR LEBANON 

LEBANON AFTER THE DECLINE OF THE MULLAHS’ HEGEMONY ON THE COUNTRY

Saturday September 20^th, 2025, Smallville Hotel, Beirut, Lebanon

From my personal experience as chair of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq from 2009-2014, I have seen firsthand how the Iranian regime systematically blocked the path to democracy and national sovereignty. In Iraq, just as in Lebanon, Iran’s pattern was always clear. It pursued control over every facet of internal affairs, leaving the country fragmented and helpless. Iran almost turned Iraq into a client state.

The creation of Hezbollah was significantly influenced by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran aimed to export its revolutionary ideals, which included establishing Islamic governance based on the principles of Shi’ia Islam. Hezbollah’s formation resonated with these principles, promoting Islamic unity and resistance against Western influence and perceived oppression.

For years, Iran has employed proxies like Hezbollah to paralyze Lebanon’s political process, preventing the formation of effective governments and sowing chaos amid internal divisions. Every schism within Lebanon has been exploited as an opportunity for Iran to extend its influence further, deepening instability and undermining sovereignty.

Iran’s support for groups fighting Israel began during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon in the early 1980s when Hezbollah, Iran’s closest partner, became the first of many non-state actors to receive Iranian funding, training, capacity-building and weapons. But over time, Hezbollah ­also became a political player in Lebanon, a move that would give it greater power, but also required some degree of accountability.

The 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of southern Lebanon galvanized Lebanese Shi’ia communities and militias to resist the Israeli presence. Iran and its ally, Syria, saw an opportunity to cultivate a significant proxy force. Iran aimed to counter Western influence, particularly American and Israeli, in the Middle East. Supporting Hezbollah served as both a means of extending Iran’s strategic reach and creating a deterrence against American and Israeli actions.

The Iranian regime’s whole-heated support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, its Shi’ia terrorist proxy groups in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen, enabled it to undermine peace and stability in the Middle East and destabilize the Palestinian cause. Iran’s IRGC, specifically the Quds Force led by Qassem Soleimani, played a crucial role in creating and arming Hezbollah. The IRGC trained Hezbollah militias in guerrilla warfare, intelligence, and tactical skills. Iran supplied Hezbollah with arms, including rockets and missiles, enhancing its military capability. Iran also provided significant financial support, establishing a steady flow of resources that even allowed Hezbollah to build social services, media outlets, and a political apparatus alongside its military wing.

The lesson is unmistakable; without cutting Iran’s influence, no country in the region can achieve genuine stability or progress. For that reason, I very much support Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in his bid to keep Iran at arms-length. His direct criticism of Ali Larijani and Abbas Araghchi for breaking the rules of diplomacy and disrespecting Lebanon’s independence was a timely reminder to the mullahs that their hegemony no longer holds sway in Lebanon. I also support his bid to disarm Hezbollah.

Iran itself is in a state of deep crisis. Having lost its key ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, while its’ so called ‘axis of resistance’ of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen were effectively decapitated, its influence across the Middle East collapsed. Internally, Iran is on the brink of social and economic disintegration. Its society is simmering with discontent, ready to ignite at any moment, potentially unleashing a wave of change that could reshape the entire region.

The clear path to lasting change lies in the complete overthrow of the decrepit theocracy, an outcome that can best be achieved by the Iranian people themselves, not by military intervention or by Western appeasement. Western policy has overlooked the Iranian people and their courageous organized resistance for far too long. That policy must now change. And here is the bottom line: firmness is the only feasible approach. The solution to Lebanon’s crisis does not lie solely within Lebanon’s borders but hinges on stopping Iran’s meddling. To this end, no action should be more urgent than closing Iran’s embassy in Beirut. As long as that embassy stands, Hezbollah remains tied to Tehran’s grip. Disarming Hezbollah, which is essential, will only be effective if the regime’s influence, its “umbilical cord”, is severed.