In his speech the day before yesterday, Hassan Nasrallah promised us a calm summer. However, his pledge was not without conditional terms; “except if the Americans want it to be a hot one,” he said.
What Nasrallah means here is if Washington launches a military attack on Iran. Hezbollah’s leader who declared his pride in being “a member of Wilayat-e-Faqih’s (Guardianship of the Jurist) party… the wise, knowledgeable and just Faqih (Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei)” in his words, does not resemble Lebanon with its Shia and its diverse make-up.
Nasrallah’s problem keeps growing every day, because he is not concerned with Lebanon as a state inasmuch as he is with Iran’s policies.
Last Monday (26 May), instead of keeping talk strictly focused on Lebanon and apologizing to the Lebanese people – especially the Sunnis for what the have endured at the hands of the party’s militias – Nasrallah challengingly warned the Iraqi government and people against what he called “American domination over Iraq’s sovereignty”. And this is precisely Iran’s position with regards to the signed agreements between Baghdad and Tehran.
But it doesn’t stop there; Nasrallah declared his support for Muqtada al Sadr when he announced that he stands by the resistance – but the question is: Where was Hassan Nasrallah the day that the Iraqi Dawa party was in agreement with al Sadr?
And what was Nasrallah’s position regarding the resistance the day Abdul Aziz al Hakim [head of the SIIC] called upon Iran to negotiate with Washington whilst he was examining the notion of “strategic partnership” with US President George W. Bush, which would mean a long-term US presence in Iraq?
The leader of the divine party is more obsessed with the Iranian position than he is with Lebanese peace and security. He was the one who previously stated that Lebanon is an open battlefield and was responsible for the invalidation of the state after he dragged Lebanon into the 2006 war, with unprecedented repercussions – and he admits to that.
Hassan Nasrallah’s problem will not be resolved soon and the same is true of Lebanon’s problem; all that is available today is temporary relief and this is a fact that all Arabs must be aware of.
It is not because of Hassan Nasrallah’s sect; there are some within that community who are keen about Arabism and their homeland just like the sons of other sects in the Arab world. But Nasrallah’s issue is different; it has a foreign basis and doctrine and it will not be resolved except through a regional dimension.
Nasrallah’s primary concern is Iran and its agenda, and although it’s true that Nasrallah repeatedly states that he has no aspiration for power, he wants to entrench his presence – which would entail a transgression against Lebanon’s structural composition.
Hassan Nasrallah’s arms mean that a leader will emerge out of every sect to demand a larger stake in Lebanon. Apart from the presence of Amal, Hassan Nasrallah’s party wants to have the final word. And this will be Lebanon’s new condition; a two-headed Shia and who knows, perhaps the response will emerge in the form of two heads among the Sunnis and the Christians in Lebanon.
All this would mean the disintegration of Lebanon, which is why Nasrallah’s problem is snowballing. If the wise among Lebanon’s Shia do not play an active role, the sole answer will be a regional storm. Perhaps it may not be near but it is not too far, and all the mechanisms required to stir up a tempest are available and charged.