Naïm Qassem calls on Lebanese citizens to overthrow the government of Nawaf Salam
The Secretary-General of Hezbollah urged the Lebanese government to step down if it is unable to ensure national sovereignty, reiterating the party’s rejection of negotiations with Israel.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem launched a sharp verbal attack on the Lebanese government on Sunday evening, declaring his rejection of ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, calling on the government to resign “if it is unable to ensure sovereignty,” and urging Lebanese citizens to take to the streets to overthrow Nawaf Salam’s government. This represents a dangerous escalation in rhetoric that could inflame the internal crisis and deepen divisions between the executive authority and the party, which is considered one of Iran’s key regional proxies.
This escalation comes at a time when Lebanese–Israeli negotiations are gaining momentum, amid US-led efforts to organize new rounds of political and security talks between the two sides, alongside growing domestic and international calls to place all weapons under state authority. This issue weighs heavily on Lebanon’s situation, fuels tensions, and places the country—already suffering from one of the worst political, security, and economic crises in its history—on the brink of confrontation.
In a televised speech marking the “Resistance and Liberation Day,” Naim Qassem stated that the Lebanese government bears responsibility for protecting national sovereignty, questioning whether it is complying with constitutional provisions in this regard. He added: “If the government is unable to ensure sovereignty, it should resign,” arguing that the people have the right to take to the streets to overthrow it and confront the “US–Israeli project.”
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General stressed that the party is not calling on the Lebanese state to directly confront this project, but insisted that it must not become “a tool facilitating it,” referring to direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv under US mediation. He described these talks as “rejected because they represent a net gain for Israel and will bring nothing to Lebanon,” adding that the Israeli project is based on “eliminating the resistance and gradually occupying Lebanon.”
He further emphasized that “the resistance, alongside the army and the people, formed a triad that achieved liberation,” adding that resistance strikes “forced the Israeli occupation to withdraw from the border area in 2000.”
As of Sunday evening, no official response had been issued by the Lebanese government regarding Naim Qassem’s remarks, which reflect rising internal tensions over negotiations and relations with Israel, amid ongoing clashes and Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon.
These statements, marked by incitement and mobilization rhetoric, open the door to a new phase of political escalation in Lebanon, at a time when a security meeting is scheduled at the Pentagon at the end of May between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations, in preparation for a new round of negotiations expected in early June, following three previous rounds hosted in Washington in recent weeks.
Qassem’s remarks clearly reflect Hezbollah’s concern that these negotiations could become a gateway for increased international pressure aimed at reducing its military and political influence in Lebanon, especially amid growing Western and Arab calls to restrict weapons to the Lebanese state and implement international resolutions concerning southern Lebanon.
His statements also reaffirm the party’s traditional narrative linking “resistance” to national sovereignty, stressing that Hezbollah’s weapons forced Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and that any attempt to weaken the resistance serves the Israeli agenda.
They also reveal the party’s internal anxieties amid rising political and economic pressure on Lebanon, and increasing criticism related to the cost of prolonged confrontation with Israel, especially after the recent war that left thousands dead and wounded and over one million displaced, according to official Lebanese figures.
Qassem’s attack on the government also came after controversial decisions taken by Nawaf Salam’s cabinet in early March, when it announced a ban on the party’s military and security activities and limited its role to the political sphere, while tasking the army with implementing a plan to monopolize weapons north of the Litani River. The Shiite armed group viewed this as a direct response to US and Israeli pressure.
These developments coincide with new US sanctions imposed on Lebanese political and security figures linked to the party, including former MPs, ministers, and security officers, as part of a strategy aimed at tightening financial and political pressure on Hezbollah and reducing its influence within state institutions.
Observers argue that Qassem’s speech carries multiple messages: it is both an internal warning to the Lebanese government not to cross “red lines” related to the party’s weapons, and a signal to Washington and Tel Aviv that Hezbollah remains capable of imposing military and security equations despite pressure and sanctions.
His confirmation that Hezbollah drones continue to track Israeli soldiers reflects the party’s adherence to a “mutual deterrence” strategy, at a time when drones have become one of Israel’s key security concerns, with Israel often avoiding full disclosure of its military losses.
However, the real danger of these statements lies in their deepening of Lebanon’s internal divide over the very concept of sovereignty: while Hezbollah sees resistance as part of national defense, other political forces argue that the existence of weapons outside state control weakens institutions, isolates Lebanon internationally, and turns it into a permanent arena for regional conflicts.
The current situation shows that Lebanon is entering a highly sensitive phase, where negotiations with Israel, US pressure, and internal divisions over Hezbollah’s role intersect, amid a severe economic crisis and fragile political institutions. Any further escalation—verbal or military—could intensify tensions and reopen the issue of weapons and sovereignty in an even more contentious manner in the coming period.
