Tehran has accused Israel on all levels of being behind the assignation of Imad Mughniyeh; with Syria, the country where the assassination took place levying the same accusation. More importantly, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah while delivering a speech at Mughniyeh’s memorial service promised to avenge his fallen Hezbollah comrade’s death, stating that the war between Hezbollah and Israel is on, and that the battlefield would be Lebanon and beyond.
I would like to highlight the following peculiar points:
Why did Nasrallah consider Lebanon the front line with Israel and not Syria? Isn’t Syria embroiled in conflict with Israel regarding the occupied Golan Heights and Israel’s violation of Syrian air space from time to time? Besides, it is not implausible that Israel would target Syria itself? Why then should Lebanon alone be deemed “the battleground?”
Moreover, after the plethora of accusations against Israel, we witness a Syrian-Iranian controversy involving Hezbollah over the Mughniyeh investigation conducted by Damascus, with Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Muallem promising to reveal the culprits through hard evidence, after hurling accusations against Israel.
Why then would this clash take place especially since all parties involved have already condemned Israel?
So why then would an investigation be conducted in the first place when there is an established belief that Israel is behind the assassination? Or is there information that has yet to be disclosed to public?
The truth is that a strong tremor has hit the Tehran, Damascus and Beirut alliance. Although this will not result in the demise of the alliance, it has revealed a number important facts to us.
It revealed that the three allies are in agreement regarding Lebanon’s designation as the front line against Israel.
Here Lebanon’s collapse is incidental, as long as serves the agenda of Tehran, Damascus and Hezbollah.
Nasrallah’s speech and reply to Walid Jumblatt demanding an “uncontested divorce” saying that, ” Whoever wants divorce should leave this house and go to his masters in Washington and Tel Aviv” revealed that Lebanon of Nasrallah is not diverse and is not governed by democratic concepts but is rather a combat zone and a house of obedience where Sayyid’s orders are to be followed and those who fail to comply will be deemed traitors and collaborators.
Therefore, the Lebanese should choose between being Iranians, Israelis or Americans and such options contradict Lebanese composition since it is based on diversity.
What Nasrallah failed to notice is that no one wants Lebanon to be an Israeli or an American state, in the same manner that no one wants Lebanon to be a Syrian or an Iranian state but rather an independent, democratic and diverse country that it is neither a battlefield nor a house of obedience.