In recent months, Michel Fayad, a prominent energy and finance professional with an educational background in public administration, diplomacy and politics as well as in law, economics and management, has been the target of a series of unsubstantiated accusations from Nadine Barakat on the social media platform X. These claims, ranging from alleged ties to money laundering networks, Iranian oil companies, and George Soros, to involvement in purportedly destructive economic plans like the Lazard Plan, paint Fayad as part of a corrupt web aligned with Hezbollah and controversial figures. However, a close examination of public records and Fayad’s own statements reveals these allegations to be baseless, often rooted in misinformation or selective interpretation. Drawing from Fayad’s documented contributions, his professional background—including a certification in Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation (AML/CFT) in Banks—and a private WhatsApp conversation with Nadine Barakat herself, this article systematically refutes the charges, highlighting Fayad’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and Lebanon’s recovery.
No Evidence of Money Laundering or Corruption Ties
One of Nadine Barakat’s core accusations in her account links Fayad to money laundering associated with Najib Mikati, OFAC-listed individuals, and Hezbollah networks. She also claims he collaborated with Raoul Nehme on subsidies that allegedly benefited Assad’s Syrian regime, and that he was part of a team that fabricated charges against Riad Salameh to enable laundering.
These claims crumble under scrutiny. Fayad served as an advisor to Raoul Nehme, Minister of Economy & Trade in the Diab government (2020–2021), the first technocratic government since the end of the Syrian occupation, but the Ministry of Economy & Trade had no direct control over subsidies for fuel, electricity (EDL), medicine, or wheat—these were managed by the Council of Ministers, the Finance Ministry, Banque du Liban (BDL), and sectoral ministers. Public records and analyses show the ministry only proposed essential goods for subsidies and regulated prices, pushing for reforms like subsidizing families directly via World Bank support to curb smuggling to Syria, which could have saved $3.5 billion in reserves. Fayad’s role emphasized accountability, including advocating for a Public Asset Management Company (PAMC) in articles published in An-Nahar, and supporting forensic audits initiated by Nehme.
Riad Salameh misused $35–40 billion in deposits to defend the Lebanese pound peg, fueling inefficient subsidies that benefited smugglers—not the Economy Ministry. Fayad has publicly criticized corruption, including in a 2020 An-Nahar piece where he accused banks of committing a « crime against the Lebanese » through financial engineering schemes under Salameh, Siniora, Berri, Hariri, and Jumblatt. In his WhatsApp exchange with Nadine Barakat (disclosed publicly by her), Fayad stresses that the Lazard Plan demanded accountability via forensic audits, countering her narrative that it facilitated laundering.
No credible evidence ties Fayad to OFAC-listed persons or Hezbollah. His criticisms of Mikati’s corruption in interviews (e.g., on LCI, a French TV news channel) and articles further undermine collusion claims. Calls for U.S. Treasury investigations into such diagrams are ironic, given their lack of substantiation—companies mentioned are transparent entities like those listed on Euronext or tied to Barrick Gold, with no Iran or Lebanon operations. Fayad’s AML/CFT certification underscores his expertise and opposition to financial crimes, directly contradicting any laundering involvement.
Fabricated Ties to Iran and Oil Shell Companies
Nadine Barakat repeatedly alleges in her account that Fayad has « ties to oil and petroleum companies in Iran, » citing diagrams of supposed shell companies linked to the IRGC and Pager Act warnings.
This is demonstrably false. The companies referenced, such as Bluegreen Holdings, are majority-owned by Bucherer (the world’s largest luxury watch seller) and operate in places like Mozambique since 2012 (long before Fayad joined them), with no investments in Iran or Lebanon. One entity was a UK company listed on Euronext, operating transparently without illicit ties. A French citizen’s « Iranian-sounding » name is no proof of IRGC involvement. Fayad’s professional background in energy focuses on geopolitical analysis and lecturing at IFP EN (the French Petroleum Institute and New Energies) on « Geopolitics of Oil & Gas » and « Geopolitics of Metals and Rare Earths, » not Iranian dealings. His experience includes creating and leading energy projects for companies like Bluegreen in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and Jindal Drilling & Industries in the Middle East—all transparent and unrelated to sanctioned entities. Bluegreen (then named Seagas) used to be a shareholder of Barrick Gold through Horsham. Bluegreen is an investor in oil and gas as well as in the mining sectors. His public stance against Hezbollah-IRGC networks, including a 2006 article warning that the FPM-Hezbollah accord would institutionalize state weakness, aligns him firmly against Iranian influence. In that article, published in Libnanews on February 9, 2006, titled « A Critic of the Mar Mikhael Agreement, » Fayad argued that the accord between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) risked institutionalizing Lebanon’s weakness by legitimizing Hezbollah’s autonomous military apparatus, which operates as a state within a state under Khomeinist ideology and the vilayet-e faqih principle, subordinated to Iranian authority. He highlighted the asymmetry between a fragile Lebanese state and Hezbollah’s disciplined, ideologically coherent structure, warning that it contradicted UN Resolution 1559’s call for disarming militias and undermined true sovereignty. in his articles, Fayad always says: The Khomeinist ideology of Hezbollah, backed by the principle of vilayet-e faqih, translates in Lebanon by the arms escaping the legitimate monopoly of the State and the army, while emptying of its substance the Mar Mikhael agreement with the FPM, which it respects neither in spirit nor in practice. His ongoing PhD at Sciences Po Grenoble-UGA examines how Lebanon lost sovereignty after Bachir Gemayel’s assassination and the unfortunate collapse of the Israel-Lebanon agreement, further emphasizing his anti-Iranian proxy views.
The Lazard Plan: A Reform Tool, Not a « Satanic » Conspiracy
Nadine Barakat brands the Lazard Plan as « satanic » in her account, accusing Fayad of drafting it with Gebran Bassil, Ghada Aoun, Wadih Akl, Henri Chaoul, and others to destroy Lebanon’s economy, push a « hard default, » and empower money laundering while aligning with Aoun and Hezbollah.
Facts show otherwise. The Lazard Plan, developed in 2020 under the Diab government, estimated $77 billion in losses, proposing recovery through diverted funds, unexplained bank profits from BDL engineering, and a minimal bail-in affecting only 963 large accounts (13% haircut on deposits over $10 million). It was approved by the IMF and World Bank, emphasizing reforms like audits, bank restructuring, and judicial independence. Fayad advocated for a Sovereign Wealth Fund/PAMC to manage public assets transparently—ideas he published in An-Nahar since 2019. His executive education from HEC Paris, the LSE, and NYU Stern in global management and finance equipped him for such reforms.
The default was inevitable by 2019 due to lost market access, not caused by the plan. Saboteurs like Salameh, Kanaan (with Nahas), Berri, Ferzli, and the Association of Banks (ABL) blocked capital controls, secrecy lifts, and audits, prolonging the crisis. Fayad’s chat with Nadine Barakat reveals he was a key proponent: « I was one of the drafters… Lazard asked for accountability… Forensic audit is accountability. » He notes opposition from Berri, Nahas, Ferzli, Kanaan, and Adwan—figures Nadine Barakat often defends indirectly. Aoun and Bassil are not central to the plan; Ghada Aoun and Wadih Akl were never involved in drafting the plan; alliances with Hezbollah since 2005, including blocking UN Resolution 1559 on disarmament, have been made by various parties including the Lebanese Forces Party. The plan’s IMF endorsement refutes « destruction » claims—it’s a credible path to aid, derailed by vested interests.
No Soros Network or Leftist Affiliations
Nadine Barakat insists in her account that Fayad is in the « Soros network, » funded by « colored revolutions, » linked to Kulluna Irada via Diana Menhem (whom she calls « Aounist », i.e. FPMer), and incompatible with Bachir Gemayel’s right-wing values.
Diana Menhem joined Kulluna Irada in 2021, after Diab’s resignation with his government. Diana Menhem has collaborated with the Lebanese Forces Party on issues like diaspora voting rights, praising reform-minded members for their patriotism and sharpness.
Fayad’s friendship with Diana Menhem is personal; he vouches for her integrity in the chat: « She is very smart and completely clean… She is not a stealer. » His values align with Bachir: Fayad’s father, Najib Fayad (alias Bull), fought in the Lebanese Resistance from 1975 to 1981, first in Tanzim then in the Lebanese Forces, on the worst urban front along the demarcation line at the National Museum passage and Badaro and Tayoune-Our Lady of Lourdes neighborhoods in Beirut, and quickly took responsibility for it. He participated in several decisive battles, such as against Palestinian organizations in the camps of Tell el-Zaatar, Jisr el-Bacha, and La Quarantaine, and the Hundred Days War against the Syrian Army in Achrafieh and the East of the capital. He then became the director of the Gamma Group, which he transformed, following the battle of Zahle and his appointment to this position (1981), into a true think-tank (the first in Lebanon) and shadow government of specialists (like Selim Jahel and Dr. Antoine Fattal) that drafted Bachir Gemayel’s presidential project (« State of the Year 2000 ») in all fields: political, economic, financial, etc. After his election as commander-in-chief of the Lebanese Forces (in 1984), Dr. Fouad Abou Nader designated him as his advisor. Fayad father and son are « Bachirists, » right-wing, and close to Fouad Abou Nader.
Raoul Nehme is a member of the Guardians of the Cedars, the group most opposed to Hezbollah. Etienne Sakr, the founder and head of the Guardians of the Cedars, is the target of Hezbollah for his alliance with Israel. Fayad is not a friend of Bifani but had to deal with him, as others did for over two decades. While accusations target Fayad for supposed Hezbollah links, Samir Geagea supported the appointment of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister following the last war of Israel against Hezbollah (late 2024), and he has ministers in his government, which includes Hezbollah participation. Nadine Barakat’s links to the Lebanese Forces Party leader Geagea, as mentioned by Metatron @Narreddine, further contextualize her motives. In France, Maya Khadra, journalist, professor and member of the Lebanese Forces Party, is sharing Nadine Barakat’s tweets on Michel Fayad with various journalists and people to undermine his reputation. Maya Khadra co-authored a book with Samir Geagea titled « The Future of Lebanon, » where Geagea attempts to undermine reputations by associating political parties and figures with espionage for Israel while claiming Lebanese Forces Party purity. Khadra and Geagea mention their support for the Palestinian cause. Their book states: « Under the command of Bachir Gemayel, the Lebanese Forces had established military cooperation with the Israelis. However, under Geagea’s command, the Lebanese Forces interrupted all forms of coordination with the Israeli forces and gradually aligned with the official position of the Lebanese State supporting the Palestinian cause. » (Page 56). And: « Accusing us therefore of ‘intelligence with the enemy’ is an insult to reality. We are totally transparent in our defense of Lebanese sovereignty. And I believe we are the only ones to be so. Proof is that, over the last ten years, Lebanese intelligence services have intercepted nearly 150 Israeli espionage networks, or at least 1,000 to 1,500 people, from different Lebanese political movements. These are networks that have links with Israelis, who communicate with them: Hezbollah, Amal Movement, Future Movement, even Fayez Karam, the figurehead of the FPM. No member of the Lebanese Forces [Party] has ever been embroiled in such affairs. The Lebanese Forces [Party’s members] are patriotic by essence. That’s their reason for being. » (Pages 59-60).
Personal Attacks: Liar or Principled Reformer?
Nadine Barakat calls Fayad a « liar » in her account and distant from Bachir’s legacy.
Evidence shows Fayad’s consistency. His public articles and chat emphasize reforms, audits, and anti-corruption. He shares the video of his Conference at the French Senate and articles, inviting scrutiny. His family’s Bachir ties refute leftist labels. Fayad’s diverse education—including the TRIUM Global Executive MBA, the world’s best Executive MBA according to the Financial Times—and professional roles demonstrate transparency and expertise, not deceit.
In conclusion, Nadine Barakat’s accusations appear driven by misinformation, ignoring Fayad’s reform advocacy and documented opposition to the entities she critiques. A full forensic audit—championed by Fayad—would expose true culprits, not fabricated networks. Fayad’s work, from Lazard to subsidies reform, aims at Lebanon’s revival, not destruction. Until evidence emerges, these claims remain smears, underscoring the need for fact-based discourse in Lebanon’s polarized landscape.
