ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 18, 2026

"Lebanon regrets taking sides in the U.S.-Iran war": Lebanon’s Ambassador Hadi Jaber to India Today

Summary

"Lebanon regrets taking sides in the U.S.-Iran war": Lebanon's Ambassador Hadi Jaber to India Today As the U.S.-Israel-Iran war expands across the region, Lebanon's Ambassador to India tells India Today Global's Geeta Mohan that Beirut was dragged into a conflict it never chose—now paying the price in lives, displacement, and devastation, while urgently pushing for a ceasefire and direct negotiations under international sponsorship. The widening U.S.-Israel–Iran conflict has engulfed Lebanon in ways its government insists it neither intended nor approved. As Israeli strikes intensify and Hezbollah’s actions pull the country deeper into hostilities, Lebanon is facing one of its gravest humanitarian crises in recent history. In an exclusive conversation with India Today Global’s Senior Executive Editor Geeta Mohan, Lebanese Ambassador Hadi Jaber offers a candid and sobering assessment: Lebanon has been “dragged” into a war not its own, suffering massive civilian casualties, large-scale displacement, and widespread destruction. With over a million people displaced and entire villages in southern Lebanon reduced to rubble, Beirut is now scrambling for an exit. Jaber outlines a four-point peace proposal, calls for international intervention, and admits that Lebanon’s past decisions—including Hezbollah’s actions—have come at a heavy cost. Q: We are seeing buildings destroyed and civilians impacted. How is Lebanon assessing the situation right now? I would like to say that no war is good. Always wars are very bad. However, unfortunately, the war has started without even the will of the Lebanese government. We didn't decide to go into it. We were dragged into it, as you said. Unfortunately, we're suffering. As you know, the Israeli aggression and the destruction that they are doing to Lebanon is very huge. It's taking its... It's tall on the number of martyrs and injuries. You said above 800. Now it has reached 912 martyrs, more than 2,200 injuries. We have more than one million displaced Lebanese. They are leaving their homes, their houses, their lands in the south, because they are going to safer places, to shelters. The destruction is very vast. There are so many villages in the south. They have been destroyed, destructed, and demolished. Many, many houses, buildings demolished completely. We hope that this will come to an end very soon, with the help of the international community. Hopefully, we'll see it very soon. And India, of course, is one of the friendly countries to Lebanon. Q: Lebanon recently moved to ban Hezbollah’s armed wing. How does the government balance this with Hezbollah’s political presence? Actually, Hezbollah had a very important, crucial role in liberating the south of Lebanon until the year 2000. Unfortunately, after that period, Hezbollah still has their independent entity, regardless of the country, of the government. On the eve of March 2nd, Hezbollah has launched six rockets against Israel, without the willing or even informing anybody. And we all know that the effects of a few rockets against Israel will do nothing. It will only entail a huge destruction to Lebanon, knowing that Israel is a very brutal... They have a very brutal arsenal, and we have previous examples, and we have very bad experiences with them. So, we didn't want to go into this war. The government, the cabinet meeting, presided by His Excellency, President of Lebanon. They convened, and they had the decision to outlaw the security and military branch of Hezbollah, because they cannot go on like this decision of gauging a war. The decision of having peace or war should be exclusively done by the state. So, they are not... They consider them illegal. They cannot go on like this. Now, how to came to have this balance? The government was clear. Hezbollah, they are not allowed anymore to perform their operations freely. The Lebanese army tried very, very keenly for the last few months, in order to stop the war. In order to take control of all the storages, the facilities of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. But, unfortunately, what happened now, the war has raged now between Hezbollah and Israel, and the Lebanese government cannot do anything for the time being. All what we can do is calling upon the international community to put restraints also, to put some pressure on Israel, to stop their aggression, and to help us to deal with the issue. The Lebanese army should be supported by the international community so that it will undertake their duties as well. Q: There is concern about a growing refugee crisis. What are the numbers and where are people moving? The vast majority of the people now displaced are, as I told you, over one million. We're talking about 20% of the population of the country. Imagine 20% of the Indian population. Imagine this number. So they're being forced to flee their villages. So far, we cannot see a considerable number of Lebanese crossing the borders. They are being displaced over the territory of Lebanon. The people from the south Lebanon, let's say, and the Dahiyeh, the suburbs of Beirut, they're trying to flee to Beirut, the capital, and other areas in Lebanon, other cities in the north, in the middle of Lebanon. But we don't have a considerable number of Lebanese who are crossing the borders so far. Q: Lebanon has proposed negotiations. What is the status of outreach to Israel and what does the plan include? Actually, His Excellency, the president of Lebanon, he had a virtual meeting with the leaders of the EU and the leaders of Israel. The leaders of the Arab world. Also Turkey and other countries. And they had the... Our president, he put through a plan of four points plan, which is very, very important if it can be implemented. It had actually four points. I may read it so that you may see. Yes, absolutely. The first point is establishing a complete ceasefire, including the cessation of all Israeli land, air, and naval attacks on Lebanon. Point two, rapidly providing necessary logistical support to the Lebanese armed forces. The third, the Lebanese armed forces would immediately take control of the areas of recent tensions, seize all weapons present there, and dismantle Hezbollah's weapons depots and stockpiles, based on the information available to them. The fourth point, which is also very important, simultaneously Lebanon and Israel would begin direct negotiations under international sponsorship to implement the details of these arrangements. Q: Does this proposal open the door for diplomatic ties with Israel? Yes, under international sponsorship. Q: Would this also mean diplomatic ties with Israel? Not for the time being. We don't know. Now we're talking about direct negotiations to see what it takes for the safety of Lebanon. What we care about now is the safety and security of our people, of our land. And we can deem that this is the most important way how to go through this. Because we experienced so many things in the past. We came to a conclusion and to a belief that war will not be good to anybody. But any tango needs to be... If you want to dance a tango, you need two tangos, as they say. So Israel also should understand and should reach a conclusion that maybe at least ceasefire would start a step towards a peaceful end for this conflict. But they need to come to a conclusion, Israel, to stop their attacks against Lebanon, to start these direct talks, as we said, under international sponsorship. Q: Has Hezbollah’s involvement compromised Lebanon’s security and stability? As I said, according to what happened on March 2nd, it was quite very bad, because Lebanon was dragged into this war. And we all know that balance of power is not against us. And we tried this war before many times. And we did not succeed. And we came to a real conclusion that we should not go through wars again, one. And second, especially this war, it has nothing to do with us. Why should we interfere with the war between the US, Israel against Iran? So this is very bad. We feel that it was very negative to interfere in this war. Q: What is Lebanon’s broader reading of the ongoing war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran? As I told you in the beginning, no war is good. Wars are very bad. Now, once you are inside, when you are within this war, you cannot say who is right and who is wrong. Because once the war is on, you cannot tell anymore. The fighting is going on, the sufferings of the people, the civilians. So you cannot just say who is right, who is wrong. Q: Has Lebanese territory been used as a proxy battleground in the Iran-Israel conflict? As I said in the beginning, we should not have been dragged into the war. It's not in the interest of Lebanon to go through this war. Now, you name it whatever you want. But we should not have, it's not in the interest of my country. To be into this war. We should not start any war, we shouldn't have launched any rocket, anything at least. It's not our war. Q: How does Lebanon view Iran’s attacks on Gulf countries amid this conflict? Actually, historically, we have very good relations with the Gulf countries. The GCC, they have been doing very good things. They have been supporting Lebanon tens and ten years ago. We have very excellent relations with them. GCC, they used to help, and they are still helping Lebanon. We have excellent relations. We have tourism from the Gulf areas. We have the investments. We have labour. Lebanese, like around half a million or less, working in the GCC. So there is no agenda between Lebanon and the GCC. We have only brotherly relations. So what we've seen is really surprising. It's not accepted at all what the Iranian regime has done for the harm that's been inflicted on the Gulf areas, Gulf countries. Targeting the Gulf countries' lands is not acceptable by any means, under any pretext. Q: With oil routes disrupted and prices rising, how sustainable is this war economically? It should not stay for too long, certainly. We are longing to have a peace again. It's not in the interest of anybody. The people of all countries are suffering. We hope that this war will end very soon. Now, the economic impact is huge. You can see now the barrel, the oil barrel now, it has reached more than 110, 110, and may go higher. But hopefully it will end very soon. Because if it goes even higher and higher, it will have a huge effect on the economies and India, as you said, the LPG issue and concern is very bad. Q: Has Lebanon received any response from the U.S. or Israel to its outreach and peace proposal? Regarding the our outreach with the Israelis and the U.S., the president, our president, His Excellency has put this initiative, the four points initiative. We're waiting for a certain feedback from Israel and the U.S. So far, we don't have a clear feedback whether they will work on it or not. Hopefully, we'll see it very soon because it's in the interest of all countries, I think, for this. As for the government of India, the as you know, we've been we have had and still hopefully will have this historically brotherly relations are very good relations with India. And we rely on friends like India. They call always for the cessation of the ceasefire and peace. Hopefully they will continue like this and put pressure on all parties as well.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyEU

Sources

  • Geeta MohanBy Geeta Mohan

    "Lebanon regrets taking sides in the U.S.-Iran war": Lebanon's Ambassador Hadi Jaber to India Today As the U.S.-Israel-Iran war expands across the region, Lebanon's Ambassador to India tells India Today Global's Geeta Mohan that Beirut was dragged into a conflict it never chose—n

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran