Nournews: With a new round of negotiations between Iran and the United States on the agenda, the longstanding debate over the Islamic Republic of Iran’s support for Lebanon and its relationship to the country’s national interests has once again become prominent in political and media circles. For years, critics of Iran’s regional policy have asked why Tehran should bear costs for Lebanon and how such a policy serves the interests of the Iranian people. However, recent regional developments, the military aggression of the United States and Israel against Iran, and the exposure of existing security linkages across West Asia provide an opportunity to revisit this issue from a strategic perspective.
In reality, the Lebanon question is less a matter of foreign policy than one of how national security is defined. If security is viewed solely within the confines of geographical borders, any expenditure beyond those borders may appear unnecessary. In today’s world, however, security is a networked and multilayered concept. Major powers and regional actors alike seek to contain threats before they reach their borders and to increase the costs of potential aggression by establishing strategic depth.
A clear example of this approach can be found in U.S. policy toward Israel. For decades, Washington has regarded comprehensive political, military, and financial support for Israel as an integral component of its national security. This support extends beyond financial assistance; the United States has also accepted the substantial political, diplomatic, and reputational costs associated with it. Particularly following the Gaza war and growing international criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza, Washington’s unconditional support for Tel Aviv faced mounting domestic and international opposition. Nevertheless, no U.S. administration has fundamentally questioned this support, because the American power structure considers it a national security imperative.
What is noteworthy is that few people in the United States frame support for Israel as being in conflict with American national interests. Disagreements generally concern the method and extent of support, not its underlying principle. Over the decades, American media and political institutions have successfully embedded this support in public consciousness as part of the country’s national interest and strategic security.
In contrast, a different narrative has developed regarding Iran. For years, efforts have been made to question any connection between Iran’s national security and its support for regional allies. Within this framework, the costs of such policies are consistently highlighted, while far less attention is paid to the costs of lacking strategic depth, increased security vulnerability, and the transfer of threats into the country’s borders. In other words, a false dichotomy has been created between “Iran” and “Lebanon,” as though the interests of the two are inherently in conflict.
This context also helps explain slogans such as “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran,” which have appeared over the years. Such slogans sought to create a conceptual divide between Iran’s national security and developments in its surrounding environment. From a strategic standpoint, however, the very rationale behind Iran’s support for Lebanon is based on rejecting this dichotomy. For Tehran, Lebanon is not merely a friendly country or a foreign-policy file; it is considered part of Iran’s broader security and strategic environment.
Recent regional developments have made this reality clearer than ever. When Iran faced direct threats and aggression from the United States and Israel, the importance of possessing strategic depth, a network of allies, and regional deterrent capabilities became more tangible than before. Under such circumstances, the central question is no longer why resources were spent on Lebanon, but rather how much greater the security costs imposed on Iran would have been had such capabilities not existed.
The reality is that the costs associated with Lebanon cannot be measured solely in financial terms. Just as a country’s defense budget cannot be viewed as an expenditure without return, investments aimed at building deterrence and strategic depth must be evaluated within the framework of safeguarding national security. Security is the most important foundation for economic development, political stability, and social cohesion.
Without sustainable security, investment does not materialize, economic growth cannot be sustained, and development plans cannot be successfully implemented.
From this perspective, the importance of a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal within the context of Iran–U.S. negotiations becomes evident. If Lebanon’s security and the stability of Iran’s surrounding environment are part of the country’s national security equation, it is only natural that Tehran cannot remain indifferent to the continuation of war and Israeli military actions. Iran’s insistence on a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal is not merely a tactical demand; it reflects a specific understanding of national security—one that does not separate Iran’s security from developments in its broader strategic environment.
Therefore, support for Lebanon should be viewed not as an external expense but as part of Iran’s security investment. Just as the United States considers support for Israel—despite its significant financial, political, and reputational costs—to be essential for protecting its national interests, the Islamic Republic likewise defines support for Lebanon within the framework of deterrence and the protection of national security. Recent regional developments have demonstrated more clearly than ever that Iran’s security is not secured solely within its geographical borders; it also depends on how effectively it manages its surrounding strategic environment.