Ibrahim Mrad: if Hezbollah is dissatisfied with the Lebanese formula, let it hold a referendum within its Shiite community on secession

BEIRUT – In an interview with the “al-Siyasa” platform, Ibrahim Mrad, President of the Universal Syriac Union Party (USUP), positioned himself as a distinct voice in Lebanon’s turbulent political scene. Speaking bluntly, he declared: “The army remains the only legitimate institution, while Hezbollah rules Lebanon as Iran’s supreme authority.” 

Mrad’s remarks come at a critical moment. Only on 29 August did the UN Security Council extend the mandate for the UN security forces (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon until the end of 2026, for a last time. Mrad cautioned that any withdrawal of the international forces would serve as a decisive test of Lebanon’s sovereignty. “We are at a historic crossroad: either the Lebanese army asserts control and extends state authority, or the country falls into unchecked chaos dictated by the militias,” He warned.  

Mrad referred to Hezbollah leader sheikh Naim Qassem as “the supreme guide of the Lebanese Republic on behalf of Iran,” denouncing what he called a “betrayal of the state, the presidency, and the army,” stressing that Lebanon could never function as a normal state so long as militia weapons prevail over the rule of law. Pushing the boundaries further, Mrad advanced a provocative proposal: “If they [Hezbollah] are dissatisfied with the Lebanese formula, let them hold a referendum within their own [Shiite] community on secession and the creation of their own entity. That is their right to self-determination. But enough with intimidating the Lebanese people and branding advocates of a normal state as traitors.” 

Mrad stressed that the international community still presents Lebanon with a chance to return to the path of a modern state, but he tied this possibility directly to a domestic commitment to disarming militias. Reaffirming the weight of international resolutions—particularly 1559 and 1701—he suggested their enforcement “may this time take place under Chapter VII of the UN Charter” hinting at possible international intervention in support of the Lebanese army. 

He added: “The Iranian axis can no longer dictate terms as it once did. The international position is clear: Lebanon must either emerge as an independent state or be abandoned to collapse.” 

Yet, despite his uncompromising criticism, Mrad took care to reaffirm trust in Lebanon’s military and security institutions: “Our army is equipped, loyal, and embodies honor and sacrifice. We stand fully behind it. Claims of the army’s weakness are nothing but lies intended to shackle the state.” 

Mrad underscored that the Council of Ministers, in its upcoming session, must endorse the army’s plan without delay, warning that any alternative would only entrench what he called a “militia culture”—one that has brought “killings, displacement, and endless economic and social tragedies.” 

Mrad’s rhetoric has found traction among sovereigntist circles and segments of the youth eager for an alternative voice. He casts himself as a leader rising above sectarian divides, openly challenging Hezbollah’s arsenal and Iran’s sway, while placing his confidence in the army—and the backing of the international community—to reassert the rule of law. 

Mrad summed up his position with a refrain often repeated in his speeches: “We do not want war. We want peace and to live with dignity, “But we will no longer tolerate a militia acting in place of the state.”