Iranian Arrogance to Justify a Lebanese Defeat

Six years after the catastrophic explosion at the Port of Beirut, at a time when it is more than likely that Hezbollah, with the complicity of others, shielded the stockpiling of ammonium nitrate, Lebanon is still struggling against its internal enemy. That enemy is embodied by Hezbollah’s weapons, which have been used both inside Lebanon and beyond its borders, particularly in Syria, long before the so-called “war in support of Gaza”, a war that ultimately brought disaster upon Lebanon’s Shiite community and, above all, a national calamity for the country itself.

The latest remarks by Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem are further proof of this reality. He accused the Lebanese authorities of having “helped Israel instead of helping Lebanon,” adding that “President Joseph Aoun has become a party to the conflict and a source of division, which is incompatible with the role he is supposed to play.”

These statements are merely another chapter in Iran’s ongoing war against the Lebanese State and all its institutions. Fortunately, arrogance cannot conceal defeat. What Lebanon is facing today is a defeat brought about by Hezbollah. Because of that defeat, for which Hezbollah, in other words Iran, bears responsibility, Lebanon now finds itself forced to fight on two fronts under exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The first is Iran’s war against the Lebanese State. The second is the struggle to end the Israeli occupation so that displaced residents can finally return to their towns and villages.

Difficult negotiations with Israel recently took place in Rome with the aim of bringing that occupation to an end. Everything Hezbollah, backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, is doing today serves only to reinforce Israel’s position. How can the Lebanese negotiator respond when the Israeli side points out that Hezbollah’s weapons were used to threaten Israeli communities in the Galilee?

It was from this perspective that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam replied with remarkable clarity to Hezbollah’s Secretary General, without mentioning him by name:

“Today, some accuse the political authorities of helping Israel instead of defending Lebanon’s sovereignty, then call for dialogue and unity as though the Lebanese had no memory.

The greatest service ever rendered to Israel came from those who single handedly dragged Lebanon into the reckless adventures of the so called ‘support wars,’ providing Israel with every pretext to attack our country, trample its sovereignty, destroy its towns and villages, kill its people, and displace hundreds of thousands of them.

Those who monopolized the decision of war, who still seek to confiscate the State’s authority and bind Lebanon to foreign agendas and regional axes while disregarding the interests of both their own community and the Lebanese people as a whole, have no standing to lecture anyone about patriotism, let alone sovereignty.

Lebanon’s sovereignty can exist only through a single, independent national decision exercised by a State with one army that alone extends its authority across the entire national territory.

As for dialogue and unity, they can be built only through the courage to acknowledge the facts, however painful they may be, and to assume responsibility for reckless choices whose heavy cost the Lebanese people continue to bear.”

Naim Qassem’s accusations are thus fully answered. He urged the Lebanese authorities to “protect national sovereignty, strengthen the Lebanese Army, secure the withdrawal of the Israeli enemy, rebuild the country, and uncover the truth about the port.” He further claimed that “direct negotiations have brought Lebanon nothing but shame, humiliation, disappointment, and one concession after another.”

He even went so far as to assert that “every attack against Lebanon was carried out under American supervision, American management, and with American approval,” while calling on the Lebanese authorities to “stop making free concessions, engage in dialogue with the Resistance, restore Lebanon’s domestic stability, and safeguard sovereignty.”

Nor did he forget to praise Iran, claiming that it “ensured that Lebanon was placed at the top of the memorandum of understanding with the United States and insisted on ending the aggression and securing an Israeli withdrawal.”

The Hezbollah Secretary General concluded by declaring that “it is the course set by the memorandum of understanding that will bring about Israel’s withdrawal, and without the Resistance’s resilience, nothing would have been achieved.” He added: “We are committed to national unity. The great unity between Hezbollah and Amal has formed an impregnable barrier against Israeli American aggression and against the minor players. Together, as people, Resistance, future, and life, we will continue on our path.”

The least one can say about this address, which defies all logic, is that Naim Qassem appears convinced that the Lebanese people have no memory. That includes the memory of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, his companions, many of Lebanon’s finest figures, and ultimately Lokman Slim. He also seems to believe that the Lebanese do not know who opened the southern front without the slightest regard for Lebanon’s sovereignty, even in its most basic sense.

It has become abundantly clear that Hezbollah’s Secretary General regards the Lebanese people as a flock incapable of subjecting his positions to the slightest critical scrutiny. He expects the Lebanese State to bear the consequences of the crimes committed by his party against the country, including the return of the Israeli occupation. Naim Qassem’s statements can be explained only by his contempt for the intelligence of the Lebanese people and by Iran’s total domination over Hezbollah.

The question therefore remains: how can Lebanon emerge from this crisis? Must it wait for a profound change in Iran?

The answer is simple. Lebanon is capable of doing so, provided it understands that true humiliation lies in invoking occupation to justify the continued existence of illegal weapons on its soil. It also lies in refusing to acknowledge that no occupation can be ended without direct negotiations with the occupying power.

There is a price that must inevitably be paid. Those who refuse to pay it seek only to continue exploiting southern Lebanon and its people indefinitely, while waiting for the Day of Judgment in the Islamic Republic. In other words, they are waiting for the day when Iran once again becomes a normal State, nothing more, a State that no longer needs to resort to arrogance in order to justify its defeat.