The visit of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Beirut may have appeared, on the surface, to embody a tone of diplomatic courtesy, wrapped in rhetoric about “turning a new page” and respecting the principle of non-interference. But beneath the warm slogans was a far more layered and calculated message: a strategic negotiation designed to reinforce Iran’s influence in the region through softer, more nuanced diplomatic tactics. This shift in approach follows repeated failures by Iran’s traditional power channels to achieve their objectives through conventional, force-based methods.

According to several regional observers, Araghchi's visit to Lebanon was anything but a routine stop on a regional tour. Rather, it was seen as a critical political moment, reflecting Tehran’s deep anxiety over what it perceives as the looming burden of having to accept the bitter terms of a “cursed” nuclear deal; one tarnished by the weight of both past miscalculations and current regional entanglements, and offering no clear foundation for the future.

Meanwhile, it is evident that Iran has long ensured protection and material support for its armed proxies across the region, particularly those advancing its strategic objectives. Lebanon stands out as one of the nations most affected by this policy. According to multiple sources, Tehran remains determined to keep Hezbollah’s arsenal under its sphere of control, fearing that disarming the group could seriously weaken its regional strategy and jeopardize efforts to reclaim political leverage across the Middle East.

By contrast, sovereign-minded parliamentary sources speaking to kataeb.org stressed that the Lebanese state must hold firm in its demand for the disarmament of both Hezbollah and the various Palestinian factions operating within its borders. These sources view such disarmament as a critical test of Lebanese sovereignty. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is reportedly aligned with this position, particularly following his recent remarks declaring the end of the Iranian revolutionary export project and his stated refusal to remain silent in the face of mounting stockpiles of weapons held by non-state actors.

It is also worth noting that since 1983, Iran has funneled over $80 billion into Hezbollah’s military development, a staggering investment Tehran regards as a cornerstone of its strategic ascendancy in the region. The same sources suggest that Iran is unlikely to offer meaningful concessions on any issue it considers central to its power projection, especially when it comes to the disarmament of the Palestinian group Hamas. The file is currently being handled by two newly appointed senior military operatives within the movement, Abu Ali Haidar and Haitham al-Tabataba’i, both of whom reportedly share Tehran’s conviction that dismantling Palestinian armed capabilities could pave the way for a broader campaign to strip Hezbollah of its weapons as well.

According to Palestinian sources, even if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas succeeds in persuading Fatah to accept a unified disarmament strategy, Hamas remains the most uncompromising faction, and is almost certain to defy such orders. That, they warn, presents a critical challenge for the Lebanese state as it seeks to reassert full national sovereignty amid a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.