Iran’s responsibility for compensation

Source: Nida Al Watan – Said Malik

It is established that the State of Lebanon is sovereign pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 of the Constitution. However, what “Hezbollah” carried out in the wars of “support for Gaza” and “in retaliation for Khamenei,” under the direct direction and management of the Iranian regime, removed Lebanon from the position of a sovereign state to that of a field exploited for the projects of others. It constituted the use of Lebanese territory as an advanced arena serving the Iranian regime in a regional conflict.

This indicates that the Iranian regime bears full international political and legal responsibility, while “Hezbollah” bears executive responsibility for the destruction and losses. Accordingly, reconstruction should not be borne by the Lebanese State or the Lebanese taxpayer, but rather by those who decided and managed the war; directly administered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and a hardline Iranian Islamic regime.

War, no matter how long it lasts, will end sooner or later. The door to reconstruction and compensation for losses and damages will then open. Will the Lebanese government be obliged to compensate for a war and losses in which it had neither involvement nor interest?

From here came the “Maarab 3 Conference.”

The idea of the conference and its final recommendations, in themselves, constitute a contribution to what may be termed “deterrent action,” or what is known in international law as:

“La contre-ingérence des forces,” aimed at confronting Iran’s subversive interventions.

It cannot be argued, in response to a demand that Iran pay compensation, that Lebanon is subject to Israeli aggression. The decision of war and peace rests solely with the Lebanese authorities, not with the Iranian regime or with units operating outside the state under Iranian command. Therefore, Israel’s responsibility and the historical conflict with it do not absolve the Iranian regime and “Hezbollah” of their responsibility.

Returning to international law, the responsibility of “Hezbollah,” and behind it Iran, arises under what is known as “subversive interference” or “ingérence subversive.” International law defines this as: “a set of operations or actions carried out by external actors with the aim of weakening and destabilizing, or overthrowing a political, social, or security system, often involving clandestine activities to turn citizens against their government.”

Subversive interference refers to hidden, hostile actions by foreign actors or entities designed to destabilize, weaken, or overthrow a state’s institutions, government, or social order. It involves clandestine operations, disinformation, and sabotage rather than direct military confrontation.

Methods include manipulating public opinion, infiltrating organizations, supporting illegal activities, and conducting cyber warfare, often aimed at creating internal chaos.

Such actions are generally considered a violation of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs.

(A study by lawyer Albert Yammine on this subject – unpublished).

Accordingly, the Lebanese state has the right to resort to bringing a case against Iran before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for condemnation, and before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to demand compensation for its subversive interference in Lebanon. This is the responsibility of the government.

It suffices to refer to the Nicaragua case against the United States of America (US).

The historic decision issued on 27/6/1986 by the ICJ obligated the US to provide compensation for its support of the Contras (armed groups opposed to the Nicaraguan government) after the Republic of Nicaragua accused the US of military intervention and of providing financial and military support to armed groups during the 1980s. The Court considered that the US had violated the provisions of international law. It should be noted that, despite the United States’ refusal to comply with the decision, the ruling marked a major shift in the jurisprudence of the ICJ and remains a fundamental reference in public international law.

In conclusion, the ball is in the government’s court, and tomorrow is near for those who await it.