Photo illustration – When General Security overrules the Foreign Ministry, it does not merely extend one man’s residency—it fractures the authority of the Lebanese state.
If Major General Hassan Choucair independently granted residency to an Iranian envoy declared persona non grata, he should be dismissed. If political leaders authorized the decision, they must accept responsibility and reverse it.
By : The Editorial Board, Opinion
Lebanon cannot claim to be rebuilding the authority of the state while one government institution quietly overturns the sovereign decision of another.
Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji declared Iran’s ambassador-designate, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, persona non grata, rejected his diplomatic credentials and made clear that he was required to leave Lebanon. Rajji later stated unequivocally that Sheibani’s continued presence would violate a final and binding sovereign decision that permitted no exception, interpretation or administrative settlement.
Yet when Sheibani’s existing authorization expired on August 24, the director-general of General Security, Major General Hassan Choucair, granted him a six-month residency permit.
The administrative explanation was that Sheibani would remain in Lebanon as an ordinary Iranian citizen rather than as a diplomat.
But changing the description on a residency permit does not change the identity of the person holding it.
Sheibani is still the same Iranian representative whom Lebanon declared persona non grata. He is still the man Tehran appointed as its ambassador and refused to replace after Lebanon rejected his credentials. Allowing him to remain as a “private citizen” is not an enforcement of the Foreign Ministry’s decision. It is a way of circumventing it.
One State Cannot Issue Two Opposing Decisions
This controversy is not primarily about immigration procedures. Nor is the central question whether President Joseph Aoun knew about or authorized the extension.
The fundamental issue is the authority of the Lebanese state.
The Foreign Ministry determines Lebanon’s diplomatic relations and whether a foreign representative is acceptable to the country. Once it declared Sheibani persona non grata and required him to leave, General Security should have implemented that sovereign decision—not searched for an administrative formula allowing him to stay.
General Security may possess legal authority to issue ordinary residency permits. But no administrative power should be exercised in a manner that defeats a higher and previously issued sovereign decision.
A government cannot tell a foreign representative to leave through its Foreign Ministry and then tell him he may stay through General Security. That is not institutional coordination. It is institutional disorder.
It tells Iran that Lebanon’s sovereign decisions can be negotiated, bypassed or neutralized by finding another door inside the state.
It also tells every Lebanese minister and public official that a security chief may contradict their decisions without even consulting them.
If Choucair Acted Independently, He Should Be Dismissed
The government must now establish precisely how this decision was made.
Did Major General Choucair act independently? Did he merely inform political leaders after deciding what he intended to do? Or was he instructed to grant Sheibani residency?
If Choucair independently issued a permit that directly contradicted the Foreign Ministry’s decision, the Council of Ministers should dismiss him.
This is not a minor administrative disagreement for which an apology or clarification would suffice. It concerns Lebanon’s foreign policy, diplomatic credibility and sovereignty.
Security agencies exist to execute the policies and laws of the state. They cannot establish a separate foreign policy, negotiate unofficial compromises or provide escape routes from decisions they dislike.
No general—regardless of his position—should be permitted to overrule Lebanon’s foreign minister.
If Political Leaders Authorized It, They Must Answer
Media reports have alleged that President Aoun or other senior political leaders approved or were informed of the arrangement. These reports remain unconfirmed publicly.
But even if political authorization was given, the central problem would remain.
Those responsible must explain why Foreign Minister Rajji was bypassed and why a sovereign decision issued through his ministry was undermined. Political approval cannot transform an institutional contradiction into a legitimate act.
If the president or other political leaders authorized the permit, they must accept responsibility, explain their reasoning publicly and reverse the decision.
Lebanon cannot restore confidence in its institutions through secret understandings and anonymous reports. The Lebanese people deserve to know who made this decision and why.
The Lebanese Forces Cannot Remain Silent
The Lebanese Forces, of which Rajji is a key member, has correctly warned that the incident undermined the state’s prestige and squandered an important opportunity to assert Lebanese sovereignty.
The party has been one of President Aoun’s strongest supporters, particularly in his efforts to restore state authority, strengthen the Lebanese Army, advance direct talks with Israel and end the ability of Hezbollah or any other armed organization to decide Lebanon’s wars.
That support, however, should never become unconditional.
The Lebanese Forces supports Aoun because it supports the state—not because it must defend every decision attributed to his presidency. If a decision contradicts the sovereignty program that brought them together, the LF has a responsibility to oppose it.
Defending Foreign Minister Rajji’s authority would not constitute a break with the president. It would be a defense of the principles that the LF and Aoun claim to share.
The party should demand that Sheibani’s residency permit be revoked, that the circumstances surrounding its issuance be investigated and that responsibility be assigned wherever it belongs.
Lebanon Must Decide Whether Its Decisions Mean Anything
Iran refused to accept Lebanon’s rejection of its chosen ambassador. Sheibani refused to leave. Now an administrative maneuver allows Tehran to preserve his presence in Beirut for another six months.
That is not a victory for Lebanese sovereignty.
Lebanon had a valuable opportunity to demonstrate that it—not Iran, Hezbollah or any security official—decides who may represent a foreign government on Lebanese territory. That opportunity was missed.
But the damage can still be repaired.
The Council of Ministers should revoke Sheibani’s residency permit and enforce the Foreign Ministry’s original decision. It should investigate whether Choucair acted independently or under instructions. If he acted independently, he should be dismissed. If political leaders directed him, they must accept responsibility and correct their decision.
Lebanon will never become a genuine state if every sovereign decision can be undone through an administrative loophole.
A man does not cease to be persona non grata merely because General Security changes the description written on his residency permit.
Either the decisions of the Lebanese state are final and enforceable—or Lebanon does not yet have a state.
