Last September, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted of his loyalty to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, as “our leader and master.” He announced that he was ready to implement what he required of him in Lebanon and abroad. He acknowledged that it was the Iranian mullahs who provided him with money and weapons.
Against the backdrop of ongoing demonstrations in Lebanon, he returned yesterday to warn against a civil war in the event of a “political void,” threatening demonstrators if they insist on their demands.
Calling on demonstrators to return home, Nasrallah accused them of receiving external funding and being infiltrated by some foreign embassies.
One month separates Nasrallah’s recognition of a foreign country’s employment from his accusation that millions of Lebanese demonstrators are receiving foreign funds.
There is a big difference between formal and express statements and an accusation that only arouses disgust.
Standing as a preacher, Nasrallah accused millions of his fellow citizens of being instrumentalized and receiving foreign money. He is not ashamed of having already blatantly acknowledged that he is the agent of a country that treats Lebanon and other Arab countries the way does an occupier and boasts of occupying their capitals.
Once again, the Hezbollah militia is proving dangerous for Lebanon. It revives the theatre of the occupation of Beirut in 2008, and in 2018, during the celebration of the victory in the Lebanese elections, the demonstration of force and the invasion of Beirut.
In his speech, Nasrallah then reminded the Lebanese of his party’s responsibility for Lebanon’s external and internal security, denying the existence of an army and security forces responsible for maintaining security, stability and order.
This speech represents a recurrent situation in our Arab region.
The militia jumps on the national state, takes away its capabilities and declares state control, just as al-Houthi, Iran’s ally in Yemen, did. Today, another Iranian ally is threatening to replicate the Houthi scenario in Lebanon.
The difference between the two cases is that Nasrallah claims to be the loyal and subordinate agent of the mullahs of Iran, while al-Houthi denies it, even though the facts suggest that one is worse than the other in treason, violation of national borders and destruction of homelands.
Beyond sectarianism, the Lebanese participated in these demonstrations in all regions of Lebanon. Only the Lebanese flag was raised. This is perhaps their greatest crime in the eyes of Nasrallah, who only recognizes his faction’s flag and leadership in Tehran.
In the streets, the Lebanese mobilized against corruption and political and administrative failure. It is not formal promises of reform that they want, but real reforms. They want a system of government that puts Lebanon at the top of its priorities and does not work for Iran and its revolutionary guards.
Lebanese decision-making cannot remain trapped by Iran’s will and an instrument in its hand. The pro-Mullah militias that receive orders and instructions from General Qassem Suleiman, threatening either side in the pursuit of his sectarian expansionist strategic plan, should no longer have fertile ground in Lebanon.
In his speech, Nasrallah did not defend Lebanon’s stability, as he claims. He weighed in on behalf of his party, as it faces an existential threat.
The practices of the party elements are likely to lead Lebanon into street wars. They are intended to frighten the Lebanese and drive them to disperse demonstrations, reproducing the practices of Revolutionary Guard militias in the streets and cities of Iran in demonstrations against mullahcracy that have been silenced.
Nasrallah, who alluded to this scenario, has forgotten that a large percentage of those who have opposed corruption are members of his party. But they Lebanese citizens who have been exploited by the party in its petty political game.
Nasrallah says Lebanon has become a regional and international target. He himself did not ask himself: Who put Lebanon in this circle infernal? Is Hezbollah, being loyal not to the nation but to the Supreme Leader, not responsible for dragging Lebanon into the spiral of polarization? Did Nasrallah not only commit treason, but even went so far as to brag about it publicly?
Lebanon is suffering from a structural crisis of governance and management. It can only be resolved by dismantling its causes and factors rooted in the Lebanese political and constitutional structure.
Today, the Lebanese people have taken to the streets in the persuit of their future, while Nasrallah tries to place himself above the will of the Lebanese, to tame and manage it his own way, like his masters, like he said, do in Iran.
In this context of reckless escalation, Lebanon is on the verge of a major crisis. If Nasrallah and the mullahs’ supporters do not respect the will of the Lebanese people, things could go wrong and beautiful Lebanon, God forbid, could become a battlefield that will end only God knows where and when.
