Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: With Western Support, Hafez Assad Ended Aoun’s Mutiny 

Michel Aoun is seen at the presidential palace in 1989. (Getty Images)
Michel Aoun is seen at the presidential palace in 1989. (Getty Images)
TT

Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: With Western Support, Hafez Assad Ended Aoun’s Mutiny 

Michel Aoun is seen at the presidential palace in 1989. (Getty Images)
Michel Aoun is seen at the presidential palace in 1989. (Getty Images)

Lebanese former Foreign Minister Farez Boueiz recalled to Asharq Al-Awsat the hectic period towards the end of the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war over Elias Hrawi’s election as president and the ouster of Michel Aoun from the presidential palace and Syria’s role in both affairs.

Hrawi, like most Maronite politicians in Lebanon, dreamed of becoming president. Boueiz, Hrawi’s son-in-law, detailed to Asharq Al-Awsat the events that led up to his election.

During the civil war, Syria was entrusted by the whole world, including the United States, Vatican and Europe, to tackle the situation in Lebanon, said Boueiz. They had all acknowledged their inability to tackle the file. No one was willing to become involved militarily, so Syria was brought in to manage the situation, he explained.

Syria was still sore from the time when it was tasked in 1976 to rein in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, he went on to say. It chose Elias Sarkis to become president at the time and waged a real war in order to ensure his election.

“I believe that several Syrian soldiers were killed by Palestinian fighters during the ensuing battles,” Boueiz said.

Sarkis’ term was overshadowed by the rise of Bashir Gemayel in Lebanon and ended with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Gemayel was elected as his successor. Syria was also sore about this and didn’t want a repeat of that scenario, Boueiz added.

“So, it sought a Maronite president from beyond the Mount Lebanon region so that he wouldn’t be influenced by Maronites in that region,” he remarked. Damascus believed that the Maronites there were opposed to Syria.

Moreover, it sought a president who had no ties to the Lebanese Forces and would have preferred the election of a head of state who would confront it head-on if the need arose. Syria wanted a president who would not have yielded to the LF the way Sarkis did to Gemayel.

Boueiz believed that Syria had considered the election of Mikhael al-Daher, Rene Mouawad, Hrawi and Jean Obeid.

President or minister?

Ahead of the presidential elections, then minister Hrawi approached Boueiz for advice on how to handle an interview with LBC television that was then affiliated with the LF. Boueiz told him that if he harbored presidential ambitions, then he should make the message clear during the interview and add that an understanding with Syria was necessary to resolve the Lebanese crisis, which Hrawi did.

“I warned him that I would not be responsible for his security once he made such a declaration,” Boueiz recalled. “We were at war after all.” Hrawi, who had voted for Gemayel’s election as president and who had friends among the LF, believed that they would protect him from any harm.

When he finished his interview and returned home, he encountered some LF members, who told him that they wouldn’t be able to protect him. They advised him to take his family away to their house in the city of Zahle.

Hrawi had left his Zahle home eight years earlier, around the time Gemayel was elected president. Now, he was supposed to head to it without advance planning. His home had long since been occupied by local forces.

“It seemed that Syrian checkpoints had monitored his journey to Zahle. As soon as he arrived, he was greeted by [head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon] Ghazi Kanaan. Hrawi was uncertain that he would be allowed into his house, but Kanaan delivered a presidential salute to him with a greeting: ‘Welcome, Mr. President,’” revealed Boueiz.

“Hrawi replied: ‘What president? A president who doesn’t know where he will sleep the night?’ Kanaan responded: ‘Welcome to your house. If there is even an ashtray that is out of place, I will know what to do.’” Indeed, the Hrawis entered the house and found that everything appeared untouched.

It seemed that Kanaan was made aware of Hrawi’s journey to Zahle. He sent orders to the occupiers to clean the house immediately even as the Hrawis returned late at night.

Moreover, he informed Hrawi that Syrian President Hafez al-Assad was waiting for him at the late hour. Kanaan and Hrawi headed to Syria, and he was informed by Assad that he had Damascus’ support in his bid for the presidency.

Soon after his return to Lebanon, Hrawi telephoned Boueiz to inform him, without giving away too much information over line, that his visit to Damascus was “very positive”. Hrawi’s presidency was decided at that moment, but hit a setback after the emergence of a Saudi-Syrian settlement over the election of Mouawad as president.

Mouawad enjoyed strong ties with Lebanese businessmen in Saudi Arabia, which had favored his election. The Kingdom believed that the next president must be entrusted with Lebanon’s reconstruction and garnering aid and Mouawad had the necessary connections to do that.

So, he was elected president even though Assad had favored Hrawi. Mouawad’s tenure was short-lived. He was assassinated on November 22, 1989, days after his election. Hrawi was again the frontrunner in the race.

Election

Assad favored Hrawi’s election even though some powers in Syria were opposed to his choice, but in the end, he was elected president at the Park Hotel Chtaura. He then lived in a small modest apartment in a military barracks in Ablah in the eastern Bekaa region. The presidential palace at the time was controlled by army commander Michel Aoun, who was leading a mutiny.

Boueiz recalled that Hrawi felt ineffectual and weak as president during his time at the apartment because he was disconnected from the capital, telephone lines were not operational, and it was a four-hour journey for officials to visit him. At one point, Hrawi threatened to quit, declaring: “I am not a puppet.” He grew even more defeated when he saw footage on television of throngs of Aoun supporters at the presidential palace.

Deciding to assume control of the situation, Hrawi tasked Boueiz to visit Syria to find out what will happen in Lebanon. After much resistance, Boueiz, who had never been to Syria, relented. Effectively, he became Hrawi’s unofficial advisor. He assumed the role of responding to correspondence from the Pope and the French and American presidents.

“Lebanon was without a state. Hrawi had no one to help him. The presidential guard were made up of Jamil al-Sayyed's relatives. (...) Due to the circumstances, I was forced to do everything, especially when it came to diplomacy and foreign communication,” Boueiz revealed.

Meeting Assad

Boueiz informed Hrawi that he would agree to becoming his envoy to Syria on condition that he communicate directly with Assad, not his officers or any other official. So, he was tasked in an official capacity to visit Assad. Boueiz also demanded that his visits be made public, refusing to head to Damascus in secret.

Hrawi agreed and soon after, Boueiz was invited to visit Damascus to meet with Assad.

Boueiz described the meeting as “pivotal”. He explained that the Syrian leader was expecting to meet a traditional Maronite politician, who are normally opposed to or fearful of Arabism. Boueiz surprised Assad by embracing Arabism and highlighting Christian figures who championed that way of thought. He also surprised him with his criticism of the United States, whom he described as opportunistic.

Effectively, Boueiz passed Assad’s test and their relationship was formed from that point. He later confided in him that Hrawi was on the verge of resigning if the situation with Aoun was not resolved.

“Assad informed me that it was important to avert a military operation,” Boueiz said. He then returned to Beirut for consultations with French Ambassador Rene Ala and the Vatican’s Ambassador Pablo Puente. “I met with them regularly and they would meet with Aoun for negotiations,” he added.

At the same time, Syria feared the emergence of Samir Geagea as the most powerful Christian figure after Aoun’s ouster. They feared that he would hold sway over the president the same way Gemayel did over Sarkis. So, Assad sought guarantees from Geagea over this issue. He wanted Geagea to approve of the Taif Accord, which would help end the war. Geagea had yet to declare his support because he was worried it would impact his support among Christians. Assad also wanted Geagea to recognize Hrawi’s authority as president, take a clear stance from the dismantling of militias and the deployment of the army throughout Lebanon.

Boueiz recalled his shuttle diplomacy during that time between Paris, Washington and the Vatican. He also revealed how he would move by boat under cover of darkness from Beirut’s Saint Georges Bay to Jounieh Bay and from there to visit Geagea in Keserwan to avoid Aoun’s artillery fire. His visits to Geagea would stretch long into the night.

“Geagea would dispatch a boat to transport me from the Saint Georges area. This happened over a period of six or seven months, until the West finally informed Assad that it was time to put an end to Aoun’s munity, meaning it approved of Syria’s military operation,” Boueiz said.

Aoun's ouster

Aoun rejected all proposals for him to abandon his mutiny, even from the US and France.

France, said Boueiz, was invested in the issue because of Aoun’s ties with French intelligence. French Ambassador Ala tried to defend Aoun through all possible means and was genuinely concerned over his fate.

Boueiz met with the envoy prior to the military operation. He told Asharq Al-Awsat that he criticized Ala for allowing his emotions to influence his actions. He also believed that he was not sincere in the negotiations to persuade Aoun to end his mutiny, rather, he actually encouraged him to stay at the presidential palace.

“We began to discuss how Aoun would be removed safely from the palace and moved to the French embassy, where he would have immunity,” Boueiz said. He pledged that the army would escort him to a French vessel that would sail him to France.

After much concern over his safety, Aoun managed to leave the palace swiftly and without incident and headed to embassy. “I was shocked to learn that he had arrived alone without his family,” Boueiz revealed. In the midst of the battle, “we had to find a way to bring his family to safety,” he went on to say.

Elie Hobeika, a senior LF official with connections to Syria and a debt to Aoun, who had saved his life during a past battle, agreed to transport the family from the palace to the house of the French ambassador.



Hamas Hopes Pressure Will Amend Gaza Disarmament Plan

Gunmen from Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, February 2025 (EPA)
Gunmen from Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, February 2025 (EPA)
TT

Hamas Hopes Pressure Will Amend Gaza Disarmament Plan

Gunmen from Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, February 2025 (EPA)
Gunmen from Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza, February 2025 (EPA)

Hamas is pressing mediators to secure changes to a plan presented more than a week ago by Nikolay Mladenov, the High Representative of the “Board of Peace,” which calls for the full disarmament of Gaza without exception.

A Hamas delegation in Cairo is holding intensive talks with Palestinian factions and Egyptian officials, alongside meetings with representatives of the Board of Peace, including Mladenov, who has already met the group again, Asharq Al-Awsat has learned.

A senior Hamas official in Cairo said the movement has delivered a clear message to mediators: the proposal in its current form is unacceptable to Palestinians.

The official said amendments must bind Israel to complete the remaining terms of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement and commit to the second phase, particularly a full and immediate withdrawal, in line with the 20-point plan presented by US President Donald Trump during negotiations last September.

Hamas, they said, is still consulting internally and with other factions, with no final position yet on disarmament. Any response will depend on changes to the plan, especially guarantees of Israeli withdrawal and an end to what the official described as repeated ceasefire violations.

The official also accused Israel of restricting aid and goods, engineering shortages, tightening movement through the Rafah crossing, and using armed groups to search and humiliate travelers.

They said talks with mediators are focused on forcing revisions to the proposal.

A second Palestinian faction source said the plan is unjust and requires major changes, not only on weapons but also on withdrawal mechanisms, reconstruction, and governance, which he said must remain purely Palestinian without foreign oversight.

Linking disarmament to second-phase measures, including reconstruction limited to disarmed areas, amounts to blackmail, he said, adding that all Palestinian factions reject such conditions.

Reuters cited three sources, two Egyptian and one Palestinian, as saying Hamas has told mediators it will not discuss disarmament without guarantees of a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as outlined in the Board of Peace proposal.

Hamas has also demanded an end to Israeli violations, full implementation of all provisions, and clarification over Israel’s expanding control in the enclave.

Two Hamas officials declined to comment, while the Israeli government and Board of Peace representatives did not respond to requests for comment, Reuters reported.

Israel insists on full disarmament of Gaza, including light and heavy weapons. The Board of Peace plan calls for dismantling tunnel networks and surrendering weapons in stages over eight months, with a full Israeli withdrawal only after Gaza is verified to be free of weapons.

Trump’s top Board of Peace envoy in the Middle East, Mladenov, said on X that all mediators had endorsed the plan and helped shape it before presenting it to Hamas.

"(The) international community has supported it, now is the time to agree to the framework for its implementation. For the sake of both Palestinians and Israelis, there is not time to lose," he said in the post.

 


Baghdad Says Faction Attacks are ‘Individual Attempts’

Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces stand guard during a pro-Iran rally in Tahrir Square on April 2, 2026 (AFP)
Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces stand guard during a pro-Iran rally in Tahrir Square on April 2, 2026 (AFP)
TT

Baghdad Says Faction Attacks are ‘Individual Attempts’

Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces stand guard during a pro-Iran rally in Tahrir Square on April 2, 2026 (AFP)
Members of the Popular Mobilization Forces stand guard during a pro-Iran rally in Tahrir Square on April 2, 2026 (AFP)

The Iraqi government moved on Friday to contain the fallout from an escalating regional war, after the US issued sharp warnings of possible attacks on its interests inside Iraq.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani vowed to pursue those behind attacks and the kidnapping of foreigners, saying the law would be enforced “without red lines.”

The move comes as the confrontation between the US and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, spills further into Iraq, through rocket and drone attacks and mounting humanitarian and economic strains, including an extended closure of Iraqi airspace.

Iraq’s foreign ministry, responding to a US Embassy statement urging American citizens to leave immediately, said Iraq “is not a party to the conflict and does not wish to be part of it,” reaffirming a policy of distancing itself from the crisis.

The embassy warned that “Iran-aligned militias” could carry out attacks in the near term, underscoring fears that the conflict could spread into Iraq.

The foreign ministry said such incidents were “individual attempts” that do not reflect state policy, adding that some actors may take unilateral steps “contrary to the state’s direction.”

It described the actions as “illegal” and said holding the state responsible amounted to “unjustified generalization,” as Iraq faces growing pressure given its geography and ties with both Washington and Tehran.

Security push

Sudani chaired a security meeting at the Interior Ministry’s intelligence headquarters with senior officials to address threats to diplomatic missions, vital facilities, and the kidnapping of foreigners.

He called for “maximum measures” to pursue those responsible and stressed that enforcing the law would face “no red lines,” regardless of the party involved. He also ordered stronger intelligence efforts and higher readiness as regional tensions intensified.

This comes as uncertainty persists over the fate of American journalist Shelly Kittleson kidnapped in Baghdad, with no group claiming responsibility, highlighting ongoing challenges in securing foreign interests.

Observers say Baghdad’s description of the attacks as “individual” aims to avoid direct responsibility and preserve a delicate balance in relations with Washington and Tehran.

Unclear strike

A security source said an airstrike hit a gravel plant in al-Rutba district in western Anbar province. “Unknown” warplanes carried out the strike early Friday, with no casualties or significant damage reported. Authorities have opened an investigation.

Local data showed the Kurdistan region has been hit by 614 rockets and drones since Feb. 28 through midday Friday.

The attacks killed 14 people and wounded 93, with Erbil accounting for 484 projectiles, Sulaymaniyah 103, Duhok 25, and Halabja two.

The figures underscore mounting pressure on the region as it remains within the wider theater of confrontation.

Displacement rises

A report by the International Organization for Migration said regional tensions have begun to drive internal displacement.

It recorded 90 families displaced in Sulaymaniyah province by March 24 due to fears of drone strikes.

Baghdad and Erbil also saw limited displacement, with residents leaving affected areas to stay with relatives or in rented homes in rural areas.

Iraq’s civil aviation authority extended the suspension of air traffic for seven more days, from 12 p.m. Friday to the same time on April 10, describing the move as a temporary precaution based on ongoing security assessments.

The extension reflects fears of a wider escalation or the use of Iraqi airspace in further military action, leaving Baghdad to navigate a difficult balance: preventing the country from becoming an open conflict arena while maintaining ties with regional and international powers.

 


Israeli Army: Hezbollah Disarmament Needs Full Occupation of Lebanon

An Israeli military truck transports a tank in the Upper Galilee in northern Israel near the Lebanese border (AFP)
An Israeli military truck transports a tank in the Upper Galilee in northern Israel near the Lebanese border (AFP)
TT

Israeli Army: Hezbollah Disarmament Needs Full Occupation of Lebanon

An Israeli military truck transports a tank in the Upper Galilee in northern Israel near the Lebanese border (AFP)
An Israeli military truck transports a tank in the Upper Galilee in northern Israel near the Lebanese border (AFP)

A senior Israeli military commander said on Friday that disarming Hezbollah was not part of the current war objectives, and that the army’s plan instead focused on razing entire villages in southern Lebanon and forcibly displacing residents to create a buffer zone imposing a new border reality.

Defense Minister Israel Katz said the war aimed to achieve what he called the “top objective” of disarming Hezbollah and that the government remained committed to it.

The spokesperson for the Israeli army later walked back the commander’s remarks, saying the military remained committed to the long-term goal of disarming Hezbollah through a broad, gradual effort.

The current operation weakens Hezbollah and will contribute to its disarmament over time, the spokesperson noted.

A military source said Israel would act if the Lebanese government failed to disarm the group, adding that Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem was within the scope of Israeli assassination plans.

Former general Yom-Tov Samia said dismantling Hezbollah would require targeting the Lebanese state itself, including its infrastructure, to pressure the public against the group.

Despite the clarification, the initial remarks continued to reverberate. Military analysts and reserve generals said they reflected a blunt reality: the current war cannot destroy Hezbollah.

They said such a goal would require full occupation of Lebanon and sweeping searches across all towns and villages, which would exceed the scope of the current operation.

Amid the visible rift, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postponed a cabinet meeting scheduled for Friday, replacing it with limited consultations before rescheduling it for Saturday evening.

A military source said the army would present a plan to the cabinet to completely destroy Lebanese border villages and establish a depopulated security zone, barring residents from returning to areas along what Israel calls the “contact line,” with 20 Christian villages exempted.

The army says Hezbollah has tried over the past year to rebuild its infrastructure along the border. It proposes turning a 3-4 km strip into a forward defensive zone.

The plan calls for the total destruction of dozens of villages near Israeli towns, from Kfarkela opposite Metula to Naqoura opposite Shlomi, including the demolition of all infrastructure and a permanent ban on residents returning.

The military says the plan has received legal approvals, arguing that villages used by Hezbollah constitute “incriminated” infrastructure and that their existence would enable the group to rebuild in the future.

It added that after a November 2024 ceasefire, Hezbollah fighters returned to border villages and attempted to rebuild underground infrastructure and deploy weapons not previously detected.

The army said it would be impossible after the current operation to revert to the existing border, as Hezbollah would return, requiring a new line.

The proposed model mirrors what the army calls the “yellow line” in the Gaza Strip, a 2-4 km strip cleared of locals and controlled by Israeli forces with forward positions.

A senior Israeli officer said the plan differs from Israel’s past security zone in southern Lebanon, stressing that civilians would not be allowed to return.

The officer acknowledged that setting Hezbollah’s disarmament as a war goal had been “overly ambitious,” saying current constraints, including a prolonged war and the need to focus on Iran, prevent making it an immediate objective.