Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Differed with Hariri, But We Were United over Calamitous Emile Lahoud

Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
TT

Lebanese Ex-FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: I Differed with Hariri, But We Were United over Calamitous Emile Lahoud

Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)
Lebanese lawmakers are seen at parliament during a session to extend the term of then President Emile Lahoud in 2004. (Getty Images)

In 1998, then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri turned to his Syrian and French allies to prevent the election of staunch Syria ally Emile Lahoud as president. He found out that the decision to elect him was taken and not up for discussion.

He tried coexisting with the new president, but realized that Lahoud had only one agenda: weakening Hariri and ensuring his failure.

Hariri refused to surrender. Parliamentary elections in 2000 were held according to a law that was tailored to defeat Hariri, but the PM came out victorious, turning the table on Lahoud. Hariri was again appointed prime minister and Lahoud had no choice but to “booby-trap” his governments with ministers who would obstruct his agenda.

Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanese former Foreign Minister Farez Boueiz to discuss Lahoud’s two tumultuous terms in 1998 and 2004 and the president’s strained relations with Hariri.

Boueiz said he differed with Hairiri on political affairs, but they were united over a “calamity called Emile Lahoud.” At the time, Syria had enjoyed political and security hegemony over its smaller neighbor, Lebanon.

In 1998, Lebanese and Syrian officials began to float Lahoud’s name to late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad as a successor to Elias Hrawi. They explained that Lahoud, then army commander, was not interested in politics, but was rather more invested in other pursuits, such as swimming and other sports, allowing Syrian intelligence free reign to assume the role of president should he be elected.

These factors favored Lahoud’s election and led to Boueiz’s opposition to him. He declared that he would not have allowed Syrian intelligence to play the role of president.

Ultimately, pro-Syrian Lebanese parties and Syria itself succeeded in securing Lahoud’s election in 1998, paving the way for Damascus to have complete control over Lebanon. Boueiz believed that someone in Lebanon actually headed to Damascus on a daily basis to received the “order of the day.” Lahoud was not opposed to this. He did not argue, ask questions or object to any of this.

Assad died in 2000 and was succeeded by his son, Bashar, with whom Lahoud saw eye-to-eye. “Lahoud was content to do what he was told by Syria, believing that it knew more than us what to do. He was a very disciplined officer,” Boueiz said.

Minister in Hariri’s government

Boueiz said he did not expect to be appointed as a minister during Lahoud’s term in office, saying he was part of the opposition. Days before the formation of a government headed by Hariri, he learned from the media that he would be named minister of environment, rather than foreign affairs.

“Truthfully, I didn’t want to become a minister. I believe that being named minister of environment was a step down from minister of foreign affairs,” he stated, adding, however, that he had no real objections to the environment portfolio. “I soon arranged for a press conference so that I would declare my resignation as soon as a government is formed,” he revealed.

Moreover, he said Hariri had not even consulted him about being named a minister.

“One night, Hariri telephoned me. At the point, with Lahoud in office, the strained relations I had with Hariri were no more. We were united in our calamity,” Boueiz continued. He said the PM telephoned him to persuade him to be a minister in his government.

He explained that he needed a minister who would be loyal to him, expressing his confidence in Boueiz, whom he described as bold figure who could stand against Lahoud.

“Without you, I would be alone in the confrontation. I need Maronites by my side,” Boueiz recalled Hariri as saying.

Boueiz told Asharq Al-Awsat that he initially refused to be a “hired” or “mercenary” minister who would “wage Hariri’s wars.” “Hariri told me that he was certain that if I were part of the government, I would confront Lahoud. ‘I appeal to you and hope that you would consider this as a permanent understanding between us,’ the PM told me,” Boueiz added.

After much insistence, Boueiz relented and agreed to become minister despite knowing that he would be at odds with Lahoud.

Tussles at cabinet

“And so it was, I became a minister and disputes erupted over the smallest details. As minister of environment, I believed in environment work and I wanted to work,” stressed Boueiz. He recalled that he had drafted a project on “national planning for crushers.” “The ministry had poured all its energies into the project, while Lahoud avoided addressing it whenever I brought it up at cabinet. He did not want to approve it. He did not want to acknowledge that Fares Boueiz had made an accomplishment,” he recalled, saying he had proposed the draft no less than five times at cabinet.

“One day I received a telephone call from [head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon] Rustom Ghazale,” said Boueiz. “I had served as foreign minister for nine years and not once did a Syrian security official telephone me. Now they were calling me even though I was just an environment minister with no real power.”

“For nine years no Syrian had contacted me and now Ghazale wanted to talk to me about crushers?! Syria only ever talked to you about politics,” remarked Boueiz.

“I told Ghazale that my project was ready, but I have no idea why Lahoud was not allowing it to be approved by the government. The next time the cabinet met, Lahoud told me, ‘We are still waiting on your crusher project.’ I smiled and knew that Ghazale had spoken to him. ‘It’s good that you have finally woken up to it. I have raised the issue at cabinet five times already and you have been avoiding it. I don’t know what happened to make you change your mind. Perhaps something unexpected has taken place,’” Boueiz added.

“Of course, the Syrians had their interests, and some political parties were perhaps benefitting from the crushers,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Liaison between Lahoud and Syrians

Asharq Al-Awsat asked Boueiz about Jamil al-Sayyed, Lebanon’s head of General Security during Lahoud’s term. “Al-Sayyed was the liaison between Lahoud and the Syrians. In effect, he was the one bringing the ‘order of the day’ to Lebanon. He was Lahoud’s godfather and the official responsible for his behavior. He was the figure who had initially promoted Lahoud to Bashar al-Assad.”

As Lahoud’s time in office drew to an end, heated discussions started to emerge over the contentious issue of extending his term. Boueiz expressed his objection to the extension at cabinet. “Of course, I was unsuccessful. I also expressed my objection at parliament and was unsuccessful there as well.”

“Hariri, who was on a visit to Damascus, came back to inform us that the decision to extend Lahoud’s term had been taken by Syria. I informed him that I would resign as a result,” continued Boueiz. The next day, instead of submitting his resignation to Lahoud, he made the announcement to the media.

Lahoud’s extension and Syria’s threat

Boueiz vividly remembers the infamous visit Hariri paid to Damascus, which had demanded that he support the extension.

The PM traveled to the Syrian capital a week before the extension came into effect in 2004. He recalled that it was a Saturday and that Hariri had headed to Damascus at around 2 pm and was back in Lebanon two hours later.

“I headed to his mountain residence. I noticed that there were no guards around,” he added. He recalled seeing a defeated Hariri seated alone at the home. “‘There is nothing we can do. They want the extension,’ he told me. I asked him if he had fought against it, and he replied: ‘Do you insult me? What do you think?’ With tears in his eyes, he added: ‘They said they would destroy Lebanon on my head and on the head of [former French President and Hariri’s personal friend] Jacques Chirac.’”

Hariri’s assassination

Boueiz recalled to Asharq Al-Awsat the fateful day when Hariri was assassinated on February 14, 2005. The minister and PM were at parliament in downtown Beirut. Boueiz revealed that Hariri had invited him to his house for lunch, but he had to turn down the offer because he was scheduled to attend a parliamentary committee meeting on the electoral law.

“He told me ‘Why are you wasting your time? The law has already been prepared,’ nodding his head in Damascus’ direction. I told him, ‘I know that, but I will simply express my objection to it.’ He told me: ‘Listen to me, let’s go have lunch together. It will be more useful than this and we will prepare for what is to come.’ I again respectfully declined because I had commitments at the committee. ‘I will speak for five minutes and then catch up with you,’ I told him.”

“Of course, if I had agreed to the lunch invitation, I would have joined him in his car and would have died with him,” Boueiz said. Hariri was killed in a massive explosion in Beirut minutes later.

The minister completed his work at parliament and was speaking to the media when the explosion happened. He headed outside and saw a plume of black smoke in the near distance.

“I immediately got into a car. I sensed that Hariri was the target. I contacted his residence at Qoreitem and asked about him. The employee on the line asked if I wanted the call to be transferred to him. His answer led me to believe that Hariri was at his residence, so I declined and ended the call. Soon after, MP Farid Makari approached me and asked me who I thought was targeted in the attack. He too had contacted Qoreitem and believed Hariri was safe,” Boueiz said.

Boueiz and his entourage headed to the scene of the blast and were astounded by the devastation. “We didn’t linger and couldn’t make out anything from the scene. We turned back and I wanted to go to Hariri’s residence, still assuming that he was expecting me for lunch.”

“On my way, I came across journalist Faisal Salman. I stopped to talk to him, and he said: ‘My condolences and may he rest in peace.’ I asked him who he was talking about, and he told me: ‘Hariri’. I replied: ‘How? I am on my way to have lunch with him’. He told me that he had just come back from the hospital where he had seen his corpse. I couldn't believe it. I made my way to Qoreitem and saw the angry and mournful crowd and found out the truth.”

Boueiz then headed to the nearby residence of MP Walid Jumblatt who said a meeting would be held at Hariri’s house in hours to declare a united front and revolt against Emile Lahoud. The movement would become known as March 14.



The Afghan Women Farmers Keeping Their Village Alive

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
TT

The Afghan Women Farmers Keeping Their Village Alive

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

In a remote province of northeastern Afghanistan, women farmers are playing a vital role in their community's survival among the snow-capped mountains.

The fields of Eshtiwi show only the first faint signs of growth in June, with small green sprouts emerging around the village.

Habiba, who spoke to AFP while busy weeding, is proud to have been farming in Nuristan province for decades.

"Since I was eight years old, I've been going to the field with my mother," said the 46-year-old, who only has one name.

"When we harvest wheat, beans, potatoes and corn in the fields in autumn and bring them back home, we feel happy," she added.

In Afghanistan, women are generally allowed to farm despite being banned by the Taliban government from most employment.

Mohammad Yahya Faizi, a 34-year-old agriculture graduate, said he respects the women's work.

"We would not have food anymore in the middle of the winter" without their work, he said.

Eshtiwi in summertime is only reachable by a dirt track and, before AFP's visit, it had been years since international media had reached the village.

Faizi said "tasks have been divided between men and women" for generations in the Parun Valley, where residents speak their own dialect.

"Women are busy with agriculture, planting, watering and cooking at home," said Faizi, a village farmer who volunteers with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Men help with animal-drawn ploughs, handle livestock, and gather firewood for winter, when snow cuts the village off from the outside world for almost six months.

Habiba's day starts at around 4:00 am, when she gets up to pray before preparing breakfast with her daughters on a wood-fired stove.

She makes bread using flour from her wheat, together with red beans from her fields, to eat alongside butter and dried yoghurt made by her husband.

The room, which doubles as a kitchen and bedroom, was decorated with flowers drawn by Habiba's 11-year-old daughter, Nahida, who was practicing English that she had learnt at the village school.

While her mother never had the chance to go to school, Nahida's education will soon stop as girls nationwide are banned from education beyond the age of 12.

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows a river flowing past houses at the Eshtiwi village in Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

- 'Unrecognized' -

FAO has declared 2026 the International Year of the Woman Farmer, with the agency highlighting how "unrecognized" their vital role is in supporting food security.

This is particularly true in Afghanistan, where almost a third of the population needs emergency food aid according to the UN.

Bibi Jan, a 70-year-old who grows beans and potatoes, said farming can be grueling.

"We have to work hard, our hands peel... but there are children to feed," she said.

Habiba dreams of having a tractor, but it is too expensive; there is only one in the village that a family rents out to those who can afford it.

"I'm not that strong; my back and my legs hurt," she said.

Najia, who requested her surname not be used for privacy reasons, agreed local farmers need more tools as well as opportunities to trade.

"Farming is a great profession; it's not just for men," said the 28-year-old, who went to university in Pakistan.

The farmers often have surplus crops, she said, but "there is no structured market to sell our produce."

Being in such a remote area makes it impossible to sell direct to customers, and there are only limited options to meet traders who pass through.

"I sell my potatoes for 70 afghanis ($1.10) for seven kilos (15 pounds), but I would need 150 afghanis" to earn a decent income, Najia said.

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows an Afghan woman farmer working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

- 'Help each other' -

Storage units have been financed by the UN, to allow harvests to be kept and sold when the market improves, and some of the women have received better seeds.

FAO has also introduced agroforestry -- the combination of trees and crops on the same plot -- to diversify their income.

Faizi said that the village, which once produced only apples and walnuts, now has cherry, pear, and peach trees, among others.

But climate change is a big concern, with less predictable snow and rain, or bringing floods that destroy the crops.

The UN Development Program has found that Afghanistan is among a group of countries that "have contributed the least to global warming yet bear its heaviest costs".

For Najia, the weather was a further challenge: "We can't predict it; it just hits us."

But despite the difficulties, she said women love working outdoors together.

"We can help each other," she said, while also providing the village with nutritious food.

"What we grow with our own hands is very healthy."


What Do We Know About the 1968 Pact on ‘Hormuz’ Shipping Routes that Iran is Rejecting?

A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
TT

What Do We Know About the 1968 Pact on ‘Hormuz’ Shipping Routes that Iran is Rejecting?

A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 

By John Yoon

One of Iran’s negotiators in talks with the United States, Kazem Gharibabadi, reasserted claims this week of permanent Iranian control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and rejected internationally recognized shipping routes established in 1968.

Tensions over the strait, a crucial path for oil and gas shipments, have threatened a fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran. Iran has insisted it has authority over the strait and threatened ships that don’t travel on its mandated routes.

Here’s a closer look at the decades-old agreement that established the shipping routes and why Iran is opposed to it.

What was the agreement?

Nearly six decades ago, Omani and Iranian officials negotiated an agreement, ratified by the UN International Maritime Organization, that established the official way to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for global energy supplies.

The framework, called the Traffic Separation Scheme, was largely a technical solution to prevent collisions between supertankers passing through the waterway, which is just 24 miles wide. It was also a legal solution to the fact that there are no neutral international waters in the middle of the strait where ships transit because the sovereign waters of Iran and Oman overlap.

Why is Iran rejecting it?

At the time, Iran was a dominant military power in the region and did not need to use its geography as leverage, Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said.

Today, in Iranian officials’ view, the traditional transit routes have allowed warships to pass through the strait, threatening Iran’s security, Vaez said.

Gharibabadi, the deputy foreign minister, noted on Monday that the agreement predated the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the shah and brought an authoritarian clerical regime to power.

“Today we told the Omani side that those routes must definitely change,” he said. “We decided that we would also begin expert and technical talks on changing the routes.”

What does Iran want?

Gharibabadi’s remarks solidified Iran’s intention to move away from that framework in favor of negotiating a new system that gives them more control over the waters. Iran has already placed naval mines in the strait, effectively blocking those established 1968 routes.

“They are refining their argument to sound more legalistic,” said Jennifer Parker, a former naval officer now at the University of Western Australia’s Defense and Security Institute. She said the argument was designed to maximize Tehran’s leverage at the negotiating table.

To bypass Iran’s territorial waters, the United States and Oman recently attempted to establish an alternative corridor along the strait’s southern side in Omani waters under a US military escort mission. Gharibabadi reiterated on Monday that Iran would refuse to recognize any such parallel routes.

*The New York Times


Lebanon-Israel Deal May Entrench Stalemate Rather Than End War, Analysts Say

An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
TT

Lebanon-Israel Deal May Entrench Stalemate Rather Than End War, Analysts Say

An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)

A security deal between Lebanon and Israel risks entrenching a stalemate rather than resolving Israel's underlying conflict with Hezbollah by tying Israel's pullout from southern Lebanon to the Iran-aligned group's disarmament, a condition regional analysts and politicians say is unattainable.

At its core is a bargain few see as workable: Hezbollah has flatly rejected disarmament, and no Lebanese government has the power to enforce it.

With Hezbollah unlikely to disarm, analysts say Israel has political cover to keep an open-ended military presence in southern Lebanon, which it invaded after Hezbollah fired at Israel on March 2 in solidarity with Tehran over the war in Iran.

The deal leaves the Lebanese state trapped between obligations it cannot meet and sovereignty it cannot fully reclaim, the analysts say.

The framework deal also collides with Lebanon’s political realities, asking a fragile sectarian state to confront the most powerful armed faction in the country despite a post–civil war system built on power-sharing rather than coercion.

"This is not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement," said a senior Lebanese politician who ‌declined to be ‌named, according to Reuters.

The Lebanese army, he said, was neither structured nor equipped to disarm Hezbollah, and expecting it ‌to do ⁠so ignored both the ⁠group’s entrenched military capacity and the fragile sectarian balance on which Lebanon's stability rests.

'BURDEN' PLACED ON LEBANON

Political analysts say the imbalance is built into the agreement’s design, with sweeping obligations placed on Lebanon but no reciprocal guarantee of Israeli withdrawal.

"This agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon," said Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, adding that it "creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain (in southern Lebanon) indefinitely."

Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the deal was "born dead" and is structurally flawed, hinging on a condition that is impossible to meet in practice.

Gerges said Israel had already occupied a buffer zone in southern Lebanon about eight to 10 km (five to six miles) deep while tying any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s ⁠disarmament.

The terms of the deal risk the buffer zone becoming long-term and giving it diplomatic legitimacy, he ‌said, describing it as a political "gift" to Israel.

The conflict in Lebanon has been a ‌central part of diplomacy towards ending the wider US-Iran war.

Gerges said Washington’s deliberate decoupling of the conflicts gave Israel greater freedom of action in Lebanon.

FEAR OF ‌CIVIL CONFLICT

The framework agreement signed in Washington affirms that Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and makes Lebanese army authority in the ‌south contingent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu portrays the deal as a historic achievement that could lead to broader peace, while Israeli troops remain deployed in a so-called security zone which Israel says is designed to protect its north from potential attack.

"We will continue to hold it (territory in the security zone) until Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon," Netanyahu said on Saturday.

Three senior Israeli ‌officials said Israel has little faith in Lebanon's ability to disarm Hezbollah but sees the deal as a vital diplomatic step towards building peace with Lebanon in the long run.

About 4,000 people have been ⁠killed in Lebanon and a ⁠million displaced during Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as a first step towards restoring Lebanon's sovereignty, saying it should allow Lebanese people to return to fully liberated land.

Parliament Speaker and key Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri said it amounted to an "agreement of dictates, not one that preserves Lebanon's rights" and said it would not be implemented.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the deal "null and void" and a "surrender" and said his group would keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned of "internal conflict" in Lebanon.

Any attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah would risk deepening sectarian tensions.

Young said the deal "won't lead us anywhere except to civil conflict, and maybe an insurrection by the Shiite community."

DEAL'S IMPLEMENTATION IN QUESTION

Danny Citrinowicz, a regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, said Hezbollah's dismantlement was "something that would never happen" and the deal in effect legitimized an open-ended Israeli military presence.

"Nothing will happen. Israel won't withdraw, and Hezbollah won't dismantle," he said.

Citrinowicz said no Israeli prime minister has the domestic political space to withdraw while Hezbollah is still armed and northern Israeli communities remain displaced.

A narrower pact focused on Hezbollah's pullout from south of the Litani River, an expanded Lebanese army deployment and an extension of state authority, would have stood a better chance of success, he said.

Pro-Hezbollah analyst Mohammed Obeid also said the deal was unlikely to be implemented, adding that its provisions were "like explosives", capable of detonating Lebanon's internal stability, as they hinge on state action to disarm Hezbollah.