delicate

This week’s visit to Lebanon of senior Iranian politician Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, is seen as an attempt to smooth any feathers ruffled by rhetoric from Tehran about Hezbollah’s disarmament.

In early August, the Lebanese government, under pressure from the United States, announced that it would seek to disarm Hezbollah, long considered a principal ally of Tehran, by the end of the year.

The group reacted angrily to the call to disarm with its secretary-general, Naim Qassem, denouncing the idea on Friday and saying the Lebanese government “does not have the right to question the resistance’s legitimacy”.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview last week: “We support any decision the group makes, but we do not intervene.”

“This is not the first time they’ve tried to strip Hezbollah of its weapons,” he said. “The reason is clear: The power of resistance has proven itself in the field.”

His comments were received angrily in Beirut. Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji – who is from the anti-Hezbollah, right-wing Lebanese Forces party – said Araghchi’s statement is “firmly rejected and condemned”.

“Such statements undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty, unity and stability and constitute an unacceptable interference in its internal matters and sovereign decisions,” Rajji said.

Hezbollah and Iran have emerged bruised from separate conflicts with Israel in November and June, respectively. Now, Beirut’s instruction for Hezbollah to disarm risks further undermining the relevance of the group at a critical time, analysts said.

Who decides?

Many analysts believe the decision on whether to retain or relinquish its arms may not be Hezbollah’s alone.

”Hezbollah does not have complete freedom of action in this regard,” HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute told Al Jazeera, referencing the group’s close ties with Iran.

“But it doesn’t act simply as a proxy for Tehran and is in the midst of a rather challenging period of its existence, especially given the surrounding geopolitics of the region,” he said of the regional upheavals since Israel began its war on Gaza in October 2023 and launched subsequent assaults on Lebanon and Syria.

Those assaults inflicted significant damage on Lebanon, principally in the southern Beirut suburbs and southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s support base is located.

Lebanon was already locked into an economic crisis before Israel’s war, and the World Bank estimated in May that it would now need $11bn to rebuild. The central government would be responsible for distributing that money, giving it some influence over Hezbollah.

“Tehran will be very opposed to Hezbollah disarming,” Hellyer said. “But if Hezbollah decides it needs to, to preserve its political position, Tehran can’t veto.”

He also suggested that Tehran may see some of its allied groups in Iraq, which Larijani visited before Beirut, more favourably now, especially since the fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in December severed its land supply routes to Lebanon.

“Hezbollah is, of course, very important to Iran, but I think the Iraqi militia groups are becoming more so, particularly after the loss of Assad,” Hellyer said.

A threat and a provocation

Hezbollah has long been considered the most powerful nonstate armed actor in the Middle East, a valuable ally for Iran and a nemesis for Israel.

“Hezbollah has always been a threat and a provocation, depending on where you’re standing,“ said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and an authority on Hezbollah.

“It’s still both, though to a much lesser degree,” he added, noting the damage the group sustained from Israel’s attacks and the assassinations of its leadership in the build-up to and during Israel’s war on Lebanon in October and November.

“It’s clear that Iran wants Hezbollah to remain as it is and, as far as we can tell, is helping it reorganise its ranks.

“It’s also clear from their statements that Hezbollah has no intention of giving up its arms. Even relatively moderate figures within the group are comparing doing so to suicide.”

In his speech on Friday, Qassem’s rejection was unequivocal: “The resistance will not disarm so long as the aggression continues and the occupation persists.

“If necessary, we will fight a Karbala’i battle to confront this Israeli-American project, no matter the costs, and we are certain we will win,” he said, referencing the Battle of Karbala, venerated by Shia Muslims as a foundational battle against tyranny and oppression.

Qassem seemed to exclude the Lebanese military from his ire, warning the government: “Do not embroil the national army in this conflict. … It has a spotless record and does not want [this].”

Inside the tent

Larijani’s visit on Wednesday was seen as a potential opportunity for Beirut to open up new lines of communication with one of the region’s most significant actors, Tehran, and potentially determine what Iran might be willing to consider in return for Hezbollah’s future disarmament.

“It’s not possible for Lebanon to break relations between the Shia community and Iran, any more than it could the Sunni community and Saudi Arabia,” Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said.

“Iran is a major regional actor. It has a strong relationship with one of [the two] largest communities in the country,” he said of Lebanon’s large Shia community.

“You can’t cut ties. It doesn’t make sense. You want Iranians inside the tent, not outside.”

Given the precarity of Lebanon’s position, balanced between the US support it relies upon and the regional alliances it needs, Young suggested that Lebanese lawmakers nevertheless seek an opportunity to secure some sort of middle ground while accepting that some in Beirut may not be willing to countenance any negotiations with Iran.

“It’s important for the Lebanese to see if there are openings in the Iranian position,” Young continued, casting Larijani’s visit as a potential opportunity for the Lebanese government to influence Iran’s position on Hezbollah’s future.

“And this is something Larijani’s visit, if well exploited, could provide,” he said, “It’s important for the Lebanese to see if the Iranians propose anything in the future or if they show a willingness to compromise on behalf of Hezbollah.”

NEW YORK — As National Guard troops deploy across her city as part of President Trump’s efforts to clamp down on crime, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is responding with relative restraint.

She’s called Trump’s takeover of the city’s police department and his decision to activate 800 members of the guard “unsettling and unprecedented” and gone as far as to cast his efforts as part of an “authoritarian push.”

But Bowser has so far avoided the kind of biting rhetoric and personal attacks typical of other high-profile Democratic leaders, despite the unprecedented incursion into her city.

“While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can’t say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we’re totally surprised,” Bowser told reporters at a news conference responding to the efforts. She even suggested the surge in resources might benefit the city and noted that limited home rule allows the federal government “to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.”

“My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the District,” said Bowser, who is in her third term as mayor. “And what’s important for the District is that we can take care of our citizens.”

The approach underscores the reality of Washington’s precarious position under the thumb of the federal government. Trump has repeatedly threatened an outright takeover of the overwhelmingly Democratic city, which is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 that could be repealed by Congress. Republicans, who control both chambers, have already frozen more than $1 billion in local spending, slashing the city’s budget.

That puts her in a very different position from figures such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Democrats whose states depend on the federal government for disaster relief and other funding, but who have nonetheless relentlessly attacked the current administration as they lay the groundwork for potential 2028 presidential runs. Those efforts come amid deep frustrations from Democratic voters that their party has not been nearly aggressive enough in its efforts to counter Trump’s actions.

“Unfortunately she is in a very vulnerable position,” said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. “This is the sort of thing that can happen when you don’t have the powers that come with being a state. So that’s what we’re seeing right now, the mayor trying to navigate a very tough administration. Because this administration has shown no restraint when it comes to any kind of constitutional barriers or norms.”

A change from Trump’s first term

Bowser’s approach marks a departure from Trump’s first term, when she was far more antagonistic toward the president.

Then she routinely clashed with the administration, including having city workers paint giant yellow letters spelling out “Black Lives Matter” on a street near the White House during the George Floyd protests in 2020.

This time around, Bowser took a different tact from the start. She flew to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he won the election and has worked to avoid conflict and downplay points of contention, including tearing up the “Black Lives Matter” letters after he returned to Washington in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress.

The change reflects the new political dynamics at play, with Republicans in control of Congress and an emboldened Trump who has made clear he is willing to exert maximum power and push boundaries in unprecedented ways.

D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson said she understands Bowser’s position, and largely agrees with her conclusion that a legal challenge to Trump’s moves would be a long shot. Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in his executive order, declaring a “crime emergency” so his administration could take over the city’s police force. The statute limits that control to 30 days unless he gets approval from Congress.

“The challenge would be on the question of ‘Is this actually an emergency?’” said Henderson, a former congressional staffer. “That’s really the only part you could challenge.”

Henderson believes the city would face dim prospects in a court fight, but thinks the D.C. government should challenge anyway, “just on the basis of precedent.”

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he believes he can extend the 30-day deadline by declaring a national emergency, but said “we expect to be before Congress very quickly.”

“We’re gonna be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can’t have 30 days,” he said. “We’re gonna do this very quickly. But we’re gonna want extensions. I don’t want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.”

Limited legal options

Bowser’s response is a reflection of the reality of the situation, according to a person familiar with her thinking. As mayor of the District of Columbia, Bowser has a very different relationship with the president and federal government than other mayors or governors. The city is home to thousands of federal workers, and the mass layoffs under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have already had a major impact on the city’s economy.

Her strategy has been to focus on finding areas where she and the new administration can work together on shared priorities.

For now, Bowser appears set to stick with her approach, saying Wednesday that she is focused on “making sure the federal surge is useful to us.”

During a morning interview with Fox 5, she and the city’s police chief argued an influx of federal agents linked to Trump’s takeover would improve public safety, with more officers on patrol.

Police Chief Pamela Smith said the city’s police department is short almost 800 officers, so the extra police presence “is clearly going to impact us in a positive way.”

But Nina Smith, the Democratic strategist, said she believes Bowser needs a course correction.

“How many times is it going to take before she realizes this is not someone who has got the best interests of the city at heart?” she asked. “I think there may need to be time for her to get tough and push back.”

Despite Trump’s rhetoric, statistics published by Washington’s Metropolitan Police show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, reaching its lowest rate in 30 years.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Ashraf Khalil and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.