عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Lebanon: Divorce between Aoun, Hezbollah Is Final

Hezbollah is accused of stabbing the FPM several times in the back.

Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Lebanon: Divorce between Aoun, Hezbollah Is Final

Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)

A Lebanese official following the relations between former President Michel Aoun with Hezbollah said the “marriage” between them, which was held at a Maronite church in Beirut’s southern suburbs in 2006, is over.

All that is left is for them to announce the official divorce, marking an end to an alliance between two of the most opposite parties in Lebanon.

Many had believed that the understanding - signed at the Mar Mikhael church in February 2006 between then head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) Michel Aoun and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah - was doomed to fail.

Even though it brought two parties that could not be any more different, their understanding turned out to be a solid alliance wherein the personal relations between Aoun and Nasrallah played a big role in consolidating it, leading to a major change in Lebanon’s political identity.

However, Aoun’s political successor, his son-in-law and MP Gebran Bassil played a major role in ruining the understanding, leading to its collapse and now, divorce.

The FPM and Hezbollah achieved major gains from the alliance. Hezbollah gained sizeable Christian cover for its arsenal of weapons, while the FPM gained unlimited support in internal files that allowed it at first to control Christian shares in governments and then state institutions. The alliance also allowed Aoun to be elected president after two years of vacuum in the country’s top post.

Ironically, Aoun’s election as president marked the beginning of the end of the alliance. As soon as Aoun became head of state, he found himself at great odds with influential parliament Speaker Nabi Berri, a major ally of Hezbollah.

Aoun believed that Hezbollah’s support to him in domestic affairs must be unlimited, but the party chose to take the middle ground and avoid confronting Berri out of its keenness on the “unity of Shiite ranks.” Aoun was very disappointed, openly informing his guests that Berri was the greatest obstacle to his presidential achievements and Hezbollah did not intervene to rein in its ally.

Aoun believes that Berri was the major obstacle that hindered the success of his term as president – an argument that many agree with. Hezbollah chose to take a “hands off” approach in internal files, prioritizing its regional role.

Berri, however, did not take a “hands off” approach. He confronted Aoun’s ambitions in state institutions. The speaker is a main political player and refused to turn into an “affiliate” to Aoun, said one of the figures close to him. The lack of “political chemistry” between Aoun and Berri was obvious to them and others from the start.

Aoun’s term in office ended with a vacuum in the presidency with political parties failing to elect a successor. The way Hezbollah is approaching the vacuum has dealt a strong blow to the alliance with Aoun.

The party is clear in backing the candidacy of former minister Suleiman Franjieh, but Bassil, now head of the FPM, has strongly rejected this choice. He believes that he has made a great sacrifice by refraining from nominating himself, calling on Hezbollah to reach an understanding with him over a “third choice”.

Nasrallah and Bassil met, with the former frankly telling him that Franjieh was their choice. Bassil strongly opposed the suggestion. Nasrallah told him to think about it, but Bassil was adamant in rejecting Franjieh.

Other points of contention were related to the caretaker government. The FPM argued that the government, in its caretaker capacity, could not hold meetings amid the presidential vacuum. Hezbollah disagreed and granted the needed quorum for the cabinet meetings to be held. Bassil was furious, striking below the belt by speaking of “honest parties who renege on the agreement, vow and guarantee.” The party was forced to respond openly to the accusation, the first time it had done so since the 2006 understanding.

The relationship between Hezbollah and the FPM was based partially on the latter’s support of the party's conflict with Israel. In return, the party would support the FPM in domestic political affairs, leading to a “balanced partnership”, as Bassil has told his visitors. An imbalance in this equation will break the partnership. On whether Hezbollah’s latest positions were viewed as a stab in the back, Bassil’s visitors said: “There are many knives in the back this time.”

Hezbollah and Bassil’s ties were never completely rosy. Bassil never shied away from criticizing the party every now and then. His biggest reservation was that the party prioritized its relations with Shiites over all else. According to Bassil, this “encouraged corruption and prevented the rise of state institutions.” Bassil went so far as to tell his visitors that Hezbollah fought for Aoun to be elected president and when he finally became so, it did not support him in the battle to build the state, abandoning him before his rivals.

Bassil’s visitors said he was clear with Hezbollah over the need to agree on another presidential candidate besides Franjieh. “If they believe he is maneuvering or seeking something else in return, they are wrong and it would be a big problem if the party believes so,” they added.

Bassil has said that the relationship between the FPM and Hezbollah was perfect. “We were capable of reaching understandings with foreign parties, while in return, the resistance [Hezbollah] would perform its duty in protecting the nation,” he was quoted as saying.

In short, Bassil believed that the 2006 understanding with Hezbollah changed Lebanon's identity and if the relations with the party were to collapse, then Lebanon’s identity will again be changed.

Hezbollah’s view

In return, Hezbollah appears unconvinced of Bassil’s justifications. An official close to the party said the divorce has happened with the party and they are now awaiting the official announcement. He stressed, however, that the announcement will not be made by the party, leaving it up to Bassil.

The official disagrees with the Aounist camp’s claims that the FPM’s support for Hezbollah gave the former free reign in domestic affairs. “They are giving the party support it doesn’t need. It is already a regional power and recognized as so by the world,” he remarked.

Internally, he said the “weight” of the alliance with the FPM “cost Hezbollah several of its Christian friends and strained its relations with other parties because it was always siding with Bassil.”

Moreover, he added that the formation of governments was obstructed on numerous occasions “just so Bassil could get what he wanted. The parliament was also obstructed just so Aoun could be elected president.”

The party is clear in saying that Bassil takes issues personally. It holds him responsible for the failure to form a new government before Aoun’s term ended. At the time, Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati agreed to Bassil’s conditions, but at the very last minute, the FPM leader said he would not support the new lineup even though he was to be granted shares other than those of the president and the greatest number of seats as he demanded.

Even in rejecting Franjieh’s nomination, Hezbollah believes that Bassil is taking issues personally. The official said the MP constantly tries to undermine Franjieh’s image and influence, even calling him by his first name, without any of his titles.

The official added, however, that he has not ruled out the possibility that Bassil could take advantage of the political upheaval and possibility of the United States lifting sanctions on him to emerge as a leading candidate for the presidency. Hezbollah does not have a Plan B to deal with such a scenario, acknowledged the official.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

What Will the Next Leader of the UN Need to Get the Job Done in an Increasingly Complex World?

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
TT
TT

What Will the Next Leader of the UN Need to Get the Job Done in an Increasingly Complex World?

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)

On Jan. 1, the next United Nations secretary-general will take over an aging organization still controlled by World War II powers. What will the world need from that person?

Once a major player in solving conflicts and crises around the world, the 81-year-old institution has been sidelined from the top table in trying to end the wars in Iran, Ukraine and Gaza. And its precarious financial situation — caused mainly by the billions of dollars the United States owes — has forced major cuts to its humanitarian and development programs where it has remained a key player.

The annual global gathering of world leaders at the United Nations that ended last week shed some light on what the next UN chief needs to focus on and pursue.

In his farewell address to the General Assembly, outgoing Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told global leaders, “The world does not need a weaker United Nations.”

“It needs a UN strong enough to face the world as it is," he said, “and determined enough to build the world as it should.”

But is that even possible?

Much talk of a shared future with the UN at the center

After 10 years at the helm of the United Nations, Guterres said he is strongly convinced that its greatest power is to build a tomorrow that works for everyone. As he put it, “Our shared future will be forged by whether humanity can govern power wisely.”

Guterres then issued challenges to the United Nations that will be led by his successor, the 193 countries in the General Assembly “and humanity itself."

Will you “uphold the law before impunity becomes normalized?” Will you “end wars before they consume generations?” Will you tackle inequality “before societies fracture?” Will you accelerate climate action “before tipping points are crossed?” Will you govern artificial intelligence “before it governs us?" Guterres asked.

For the next secretary-general — the selection process is ongoing — the top priority will be reconfiguring the United Nations to reflect the 21st century rather than the post-World War II era when it was established.

The new UN chief “will have the most monumental task that the UN has faced in decades because you have a UN that’s going through this critical reform process that it has not gone through for a long time,” said Kizito Byenkya, the Open Society Institute’s advocacy director.

The UN's financial crisis has led to budget cuts and efforts to consolidate programs and agencies, and eliminate hundreds of mandates ordering the UN Secretariat to take a wide variety of actions and deliver reports, many that never get read. That's just to name a few.

At the same time, Byenkya told The Associated Press, “You have huge pressure on all sides for the new secretary-general to act like a general and really play a central role in mediation for world conflicts.” He cited the late secretary-general Kofi Annan, who became directly involved in some conflicts and was a skilled mediator and negotiator.

“If you look at the conflicts we've been facing in the last few years, let's say from Gaza to Sudan to Ukraine and more, you often have to ask yourself: Where has the role of the United Nations been with all of these?,” he said. “In the time of Kofi Annan, he was center to all.”

Reform sounds good but is a lot harder than one might think

During high-level week, leader after leader spoke of the need for reform. But when it comes to taking action, serious and sometimes impossible differences emerge, especially when it comes to reforming the Security Council, the UN’s most powerful body and still controlled by the World War II victors.

All UN member nations want to see the council reflect the 21st century world, but there are huge national differences on how it should be expanded. That has stymied progress for decades.

The five permanent members — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — hold veto power, which gives them ultimate control. Africa, home to 1.5 billion people, has no permanent seat. Neither does Latin America. Neither do the collection of island nations whose existence is threatened by climate change.

“Security Council reform is not a favor to Africa,” Ghana’s President John Mahama told world leaders last week. “It is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility, and survival of the United Nations.”

Mahama also raised perhaps the most difficult problem that will confront the next UN chief: the world’s “intense fragmentation, deepening inequality and eroded trust in our multilateral system.”

“We must address the alarming breakdown of global order today,” he said, pointing to “the dangerous drift toward unilateralism."

Mahama lauded the UN Charter, whose opening words say the organization was founded to prevent a repetition of the 20th century’s two world wars. That, he said, “must reign supreme over the cynical doctrine that `might makes right.’”

Features

Thousands of Young Sailors Adjust to Iran War Aboard USS George Washington

Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
TT
TT

Thousands of Young Sailors Adjust to Iran War Aboard USS George Washington

Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)

An emergency alert blares from a loudspeaker, and Damon Dennard and other sailors on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington are scrambling. Dennard, 23, is readying bombs for loading onto aircraft as his crewmates race to their positions.

“It has been eventful,” said Dennard, an aviation ordnanceman airman apprentice. Once the alert ends, he takes a breath, sits on one of the bombs and jokes that he probably expected an easier deployment.

“It’s crazy, but at the end of the day, it’s work. That’s all.”

Dennard was one of dozens of sailors Reuters spoke with in September on a rare visit to a US warship that is central to the Iran war.

The visit began at a particularly tense moment, just three days after the US military blew up five Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for Iran targeting a US Navy warship.

The George Washington’s mission near the Strait of Hormuz which has no defined end-date came as a surprise to the crew, who were deployed from Japan at the end of August to relieve another carrier.

The aircraft carrier is effectively a floating city of around 5,000 personnel, each with their own mission, from Majesta Ochoa, who operates a cash register, to Lieutenant Commander Brody Samaha, a “shooter” who helps oversee the launch of aircraft from the carrier’s catapults.
But there is a sense of synchronization as the sailors go about their jobs, crew say.

The aircraft carrier is effectively a floating city of around 5,000 personnel, each with their own mission, from Majesta Ochoa, who operates a cash register, to Brody Samaha, a “shooter” who helps oversee the launch of aircraft from the carrier’s catapults.

“It’s a dance, with lots of people checking each other,” Samaha said, before adding that the flight deck is also a “very dangerous place to be. It’s very unforgiving.”

Ouija Board

Breana Royston, the night aircraft handling officer, or ‘NACHO,’ has a unique perspective over the dangerous maneuvering on the flight deck.

Her job is to supervise aircraft movement, including bringing fighter jets up to the flight deck and back down to the hangar bay via massive elevators.

To do that, she uses what’s known in Navy parlance as a “ouija board” — a real-time model of the deck, with miniature aircraft all lined up in their current positions. It looks a little like a strategy board game.

“We’ve been on our toes the last week, maneuvering and everything — with everything that's going on,” Royston said, adding it’s been “kind of crazy, really busy.”

“It’s nerve-wracking, but it’s fun,” she said.

The Iranian government has repeatedly condemned US military actions in the Strait of Hormuz. On September 25, the Iranian foreign minister said the insecurity prevailing in the strait was the “direct result of the aggressive actions of the United States and the Israeli regime.”

The war began in February with joint strikes on Iranian targets by the US and Israel. US President Donald Trump has said many times the conflict would soon be over, but it persisted for longer than initially expected.

In August, in response to reports of deteriorating conditions, low morale and suicide attempts on the Lincoln, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the accounts “misrepresented” the reality, praising sailors who endure austere conditions.

Extended Deployments Pose Strain on Crew

Still, extended deployments can pose enormous strain on crews’ mental health, particularly in wartime, and are a challenge for any navy. Sailors must maintain a state of alert and readiness, heightened in the case of the George Washington due to the threat of drone and missile attack from Iran.

“Morale is really important to us,” said Rear Admiral Jeffrey Heames, the commander of Carrier Strike Group 5.

Heames talked about ensuring the ability of the crew to contact home and receive mail.

“Some of those things affect how sailors hold up out in this kind of environment,” Heames said. “They are huge focus areas for me.”

Reuters spoke with Seaman Deandre Cook as he checked in with his wife back home on a video call. She was holding one of their young daughters on her hip.

It was hard being away from his family, Cook said, but added: “The distance makes the relationship stronger.”

Growing Up

As jets thundered off the carrier’s deck above them, hundreds of members of the George Washington’s crew gathered for a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks — an event many of them were too young to remember.

Al Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington propelled the US into two decades of war that sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Many supporters of Trump had hoped Middle East wars were a thing of the past.

After a sailor sang the national anthem, the chaplain on board, Ben Garrett, delivered a prayer as the assembled crew bowed their heads.

“Help us honor those who have gone before us,” Garrett said.

Garrett later told Reuters that many of the crew members are still learning the basics of growing up, including skills like patience, managing relationships and career expectations.

“A huge percentage of this ship are between the ages of 19 and 24 years old,” said Garrett, a Roman Catholic priest. “So they’re trying to figure out being an adult while they’re out here.”
Sometimes sailors enlist to get away from a small town or a situation back home, Garrett added.

Lieutenant Commander Brian Lasley said there were more people on the George Washington than back in his hometown of Fredericktown, Missouri, whose population was 4,429 in the 2020 census.

Camren Pollard, 24, an interior communications electrician third class, said he joined the Navy on a spur-of-the-moment decision after seeing older coworkers unhappy in his previous job. “I wanted to change things in my life,” he said.

“My mom freaked out more than anything. My little brother thought it was kind of cool.” For Pollard, however, “I don’t think about it a whole lot. It’s work for me.”

Features

US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
TT
TT

US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)

With the US-led anti-extremist coalition leaving Iraq, Baghdad faces mounting pressure to rein in Tehran-backed armed groups, a difficult task in a country long caught between its allies, the US and Iran.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, who assumed power earlier this year with the United States' blessing, has pledged that after the coalition exits on Wednesday, pro-Iran groups would hand over their weapons to the state.

But the issue has proven far more complicated than simple announcements, said AFP.

Iraq has long been a proxy battleground for the US and Iran, with each interfering in major political decisions and government formation.

The ongoing Middle East war, during which Iran-backed groups in Iraq targeted US facilities there and around the region hundreds of times, has deepened Iraq's entanglement.

- 'Tricky' -

Several senior Iraqi officials told AFP that Iran will not accept that the factions hand over their weapons, especially amid the regional war, and its officials have clearly relayed the message.

"If there's a deal between the US and Iran, I think that this whole issue becomes very easy to deal with," Iraqi political analyst Sajad Jiyad said.

But Jiyad said "Iran has been very clear that while there is a conflict going on, they cannot give up their strategic capabilities", including the Iraqi groups and "their ability to attack US interests in Iraq and the region".

It is, however, a "tricky situation", because Iran doesn't want an "unstable Iraq", he added.

"Iran's agenda is to reach a deal with the US, so that these groups will naturally reduce their visibility and activity," without giving up capabilities.

The factions also want assurances that the US won't target them before they consider surrendering their weapons.

But if no progress is forthcoming in terms of disarming these groups, then "the US is not going to make a longer-term commitment of not targeting them", he said.

It will continue on its usual paths: diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions, and occasional strikes.

- 'Liability' -

The US-led coalition deployed to Iraq and Syria in 2014 to fight the ISIS group, which seized large swathes of both countries and committed atrocities.

Both the coalition and Tehran-backed groups fought ISIS, their common enemy.

After ISIS's defeat in Iraq in 2017, those groups demanded the withdrawal of US troops and began targeting them with drones and missiles, triggering US retaliatory strikes that killed several of their commanders over the years.

US pressure on successive Iraqi governments to disarm the factions mounted, especially after they intervened in support of Palestinians during the Gaza war in 2023, and later backed Tehran in the Middle East war.

Political analyst Jiyad said little should be expected after the coalition's pullout.

"We are not going to get disarmament... but there has to be some sort of progress and some plan," he said.

"What is probably going to happen is the process begins" towards a solution, but it will require time and "trust-building measures".

The Tehran-backed groups feel the government is unable to protect them from the US, and the government sees them as a "liability," he added.

- No plan -

While some groups said they would disarm, other powerful factions refuse to do so.

But the government "does not even have a plan" for how it is going to disarm them, a diplomatic source in Baghdad said.

Two senior politicians told AFP that Zaidi, a newcomer to politics, had repeatedly said he was ready to "confront" the groups if they don't disarm.

For weeks, tensions grew until an unannounced truce was reached, with the intervention of senior politicians who are now hoping to work out a deal.

An Iraqi official said that "the issue needs time to reassure the factions, and prevent any confrontation between Iraqi forces and the armed groups".

Kazem al-Fartoussi, spokesperson for the Kataeb Sayyid al-Shuhada armed group, said the factions don't want a confrontation with the state because "there will be no winners".

But "our weapons are precious, so we have said these weapons are in exchange for sovereignty," including the withdrawal of foreign troops and an end to American political and economic interference.

Fartoussi said the factions are in talks with the government about "regulating" their weapons, as well as their relationship with the state, but he doesn't trust the US.

For the Americans and Israelis, their objective is "nothing other than eliminating the factions, not the weapons," Fartoussi said.

If the issue is the factions' "existence", then "we reject any discussion".