Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has refused a ceasefire in Lebanon [1, 2].
The statement signals a deepening rift between the Lebanese government and its Iranian allies, suggesting that external geopolitical interests may be prolonging local conflict.
Salam said that the IRGC refused the ceasefire in Lebanon [1]. He said that the military wing of the Iranian government is utilizing the instability in the region to secure advantages in broader diplomatic discussions.
According to Salam, the IRGC is using southern Lebanon as a tool of pressure in its negotiations [1, 2]. He called for an end to this strategy, which he described as treating the region as a tactical asset rather than a sovereign territory.
"We demand that Tehran stop dealing with southern Lebanon as a 'card' in its negotiations," Salam said [2].
The Prime Minister's comments highlight the tension between Lebanon's need for internal stability and the strategic objectives of the IRGC. The accusations suggest that the ceasefire is not being blocked by local combatants alone, but by the strategic calculations of Tehran.
This public confrontation marks a significant shift in rhetoric, as the Lebanese leadership explicitly links the lack of peace in the south to Iranian interference. Salam's call for Tehran to cease its current approach emphasizes the humanitarian and political toll of the continued fighting in the southern region [1, 2].
“The IRGC refused the ceasefire in Lebanon”
This development suggests that ceasefire efforts in Lebanon are contingent upon Iranian strategic goals rather than local Lebanese priorities. By identifying the IRGC as the primary obstacle to peace, the Lebanese government is shifting the diplomatic burden onto Tehran, potentially complicating the relationship between the two nations while signaling to the international community that the conflict is being managed as a proxy negotiation.
