Berri rejects Qassem’s call to topple government

Lebanon’s already fragile political landscape was shaken further after Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem called for the overthrow of the Lebanese government, accusing it of implementing an “American-Israeli project” and failing to protect national sovereignty.

However, the most significant reaction did not come from Hezbollah’s traditional political opponents, but rather from its closest ally, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. In unusually direct remarks, Berri openly distanced himself from Qassem’s statements, revealing internal efforts within the Shiite political alliance to contain the escalation and prevent tensions from spiraling further.

Divergence within the Shiite duo

Berri’s comments marked one of the clearest public indications of disagreement between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement in recent years. While both parties remain strategic allies under the umbrella of the so-called “Shiite duo,” Berri made it clear that he did not support Qassem’s call to topple the government.

The Speaker disclosed that Qassem’s remarks “did not reassure” him and confirmed that meetings were rapidly held between the leaderships of Amal and Hezbollah to contain the issue. “We in Amal do not use such language,” Berri stated, stressing that he was “certainly not with him on this.”

His comments reflected concern that escalating rhetoric against the government could deepen political instability and further weaken already fragile state institutions. Amal officials and members of Berri’s parliamentary bloc later reinforced this approach by emphasizing the importance of preserving institutions and maintaining internal unity.

Despite his rejection of Qassem’s statements, Berri maintained his opposition to direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations. However, his criticism was based on political pragmatism rather than revolutionary escalation. He argued that Lebanon lacks the leverage necessary to negotiate directly with Israel from a position of strength.

Berri instead defended indirect negotiations mediated by international actors, citing his experience during the 2022 maritime border agreement and the 2024 ceasefire negotiations. According to him, mediation allows weaker parties to secure concessions without entering direct talks from a disadvantaged position.

The contrast between the two leaders became increasingly evident. While Hezbollah adopted a confrontational tone centered on mobilization and resistance, Berri appeared focused on containing tensions, preserving political stability, and protecting institutional continuity during a particularly dangerous phase for Lebanon.

American support for the Lebanese government

Qassem’s statements also prompted swift international reactions, particularly from the United States (U.S.). U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had strongly condemned Hezbollah’s threats against the Lebanese government, describing the call to overthrow the cabinet as “reckless.”

Rubio accused Hezbollah of attempting to drag Lebanon back into chaos and instability, while reaffirming Washington’s full support for the Lebanese government and its recovery efforts. He stressed that the U.S. stands firmly behind Lebanon’s legitimate institutions and supports efforts aimed at restoring state authority and rebuilding the country.

The American response underscored the broader geopolitical stakes surrounding Lebanon’s internal crisis. Washington has increasingly positioned itself as a supporter of Lebanese state institutions, particularly the presidency, the army, and the government, amid growing regional tensions and ongoing negotiations involving Iran and the U.S.

President Joseph Aoun also indirectly responded to Hezbollah’s escalation by reaffirming that Lebanon’s sovereignty would be defended through state institutions, negotiations, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) alone. His remarks reflected the government’s effort to present itself as the sole legitimate authority responsible for national security and diplomacy.

At the same time, critics argued that Hezbollah cannot simultaneously participate in the government while threatening to overthrow it, especially when the party remains represented through ministers in the cabinet.

The strong domestic and international support for the Lebanese government suggested that Hezbollah’s escalation failed to generate significant political momentum outside its own support base.

Naim Qassem’s statement and its significance

Qassem’s speech represented one of Hezbollah’s most aggressive political escalations since the formation of the current government. In addition to rejecting direct negotiations with Israel, he firmly opposed any attempt to disarm Hezbollah or restrict weapons to state control.

According to Qassem, removing Hezbollah’s weapons would effectively strip Lebanon of its defensive capabilities and expose the country to Israeli aggression. He accused the Lebanese state of making continuous concessions and aligning itself with American pressure aimed at weakening the “resistance.”

Most controversially, he declared that the Lebanese people had the right to “take to the streets and topple the government,” arguing that the state had failed to protect Lebanese sovereignty and had become subject to American influence.

Politically, the speech appeared designed to raise pressure on the Lebanese authorities amid ongoing negotiations and mounting regional uncertainty. Yet despite the sharp rhetoric, Hezbollah has shown no practical intention of withdrawing its ministers from the cabinet or initiating concrete steps toward bringing down the government.

Many observers therefore interpreted the remarks as part of a broader strategy aimed at mobilizing Hezbollah’s support base, maintaining political pressure, and reaffirming the party’s rejection of negotiations and disarmament discussions.

Ultimately, these developments reflected a deeper struggle over Lebanon’s future direction: whether the country will continue moving toward institutional authority and negotiated solutions, or remain trapped in cycles of escalation, regional confrontation, and internal division.