Listen to the article
For three days, the Lebanese people have been impatiently awaiting the speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, after having watched the trailers published by his supporters and the plethora of tweets posted by users, including his own son Jawad Nasrallah. Spanning 80 minutes, the speech in question rehashed what we see on TV screens daily, a repetition of Iranian statements meant to convince everyone that neither Hezbollah nor Iran had anticipated the Al-Aqsa Flood operation – and that the southern front was opened to force the Israeli army to spread and send battalions north.
Hezbollah’s secretary general confirmed what the Prime Minister in the caretaker government, Najib Mikati, stated in a televised interview: the decision to restore peace or go to war is entirely in the hands of Nasrallah and his axis, and neither the State nor the Lebanese people have a say in this matter. Needless to say, the Shiite leader could not care less about the fact that the Lebanese fuel, diesel and wheat reserves can only last one month, as the government stated expressly a few days ago.
Additionally, Nasrallah has proclaimed himself secretary general of the Arab states’ affairs, sending warnings to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. He even went as far as to say that these countries should take responsibility and do more than just condemn and criticize certain behaviors. To him, they ought to cut ties, recall their ambassadors, and stop sending oil and food supplies. He further explained that the battle will depend on two parameters: first, the fighting in Gaza and the exertion of more pressure if the noose is tightened around Hamas, and second, the direction that the bombings take in South Lebanon.
However, what is most shocking is that, in his speech, Nasrallah did not mention Syria with regard to the “unification of fronts.” As soon as the discourse came to an end, all five pro-Hezbollah channels broadcast scenes of popular support for the axis of resistance in Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, but no similar scenes were shown in Syria. Is Syria now out of the new stratagem? Was it given a new role in the region, one that does not align with Iran’s agenda?
This time, Nasrallah showed no inclination to impose red lines on Israel, like the ones he drew upon Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian conflict when he stated, “If we have 1000 fighters in Syria now, we’ll make them 2000, and if we have 5000, we’ll make them 10000, and if I, and all of Hezbollah, are required to go to Syria, then we will go to Syria.” Today, we did not hear him say, “If I and all of Hezbollah are required to go to the southern front, we will go to help our brothers in Gaza.”
In conclusion, Lebanon has been put on the gallows, and its execution – or the lack thereof – is in the hands of the Supreme Leader. The country’s economy hangs in the balance, and he who wants to invest in it must wait, as our destiny is to fight other people’s wars on our own soil, even if the battlefield does not expand. Now, all options are open when it comes to the fighting because Nasrallah himself left all the options open before the Lebanese people, and that is why, upon hearing his speech, they decided to seek refuge elsewhere!
