Listen to the article
Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, failed to meet the expectations of his ardent supporters and war enthusiasts in his speech on Friday. In fact, many had anticipated an announcement regarding the launch of a campaign for the liberation of Palestine and a potential invasion of the Galilee. The promotional build-up around his speech heightened anticipation among Hezbollah’s followers, fostering an expectation that the address would rise above the established boundaries. However, Hezbollah’s leader did not address their hopes or endorse the call for war. Thereafter, Nasrallah’s followers tried to find justifications and sought other angles within the speech that would align it with the current stage and events unfolding in the region. They turned their focus on his threat against American forces, despite being aware that such threats aren’t the first ones formulated by Nasrallah against US forces in the Middle Eastern region.
Hezbollah’s Secretary General has issued, on several occasions, explicit threats towards American soldiers and US bases in the region. The most significant one was made following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, on January 3, 2020. Back then, Nasrallah explicitly said that the American soldiers who entered the region vertically would leave horizontally, meaning they would be carried out in coffins.
Nasrallah’s supporters attempted to assert that in his speech, he was also conveying messages from Iran to the United States. However, analysts who have been monitoring the Iranian positions since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Flood assert that the Iranians consistently communicate their messages to the Americans through various statements and actions, often framing these messages in the form of criticisms or attacks on the United States. In this regard, the Iranians and Nasrallah are well aware that there is no possibility of a ceasefire without the involvement of the United States, just as they are also aware that Iran has a pressing need to reach an agreement regarding the nuclear issue with the United States. As such, the fate of Iran’s sanctions is intricately linked to this agreement.
Nasrallah’s supporters could uphold that his speech was rational, as he aimed to prevent dragging Lebanon into a widespread conflict. He clearly linked any potential military escalation with Israel to the situation in southern Lebanon, not the events in Gaza. The Israelis have already provided all the grounds for broadening the conflict based on what happened – and is still happening – in Gaza, resulting in thousands of casualties, injuries, and the devastation of entire neighborhoods and streets.
Qualifying the speech as being rational is by no means a way to devalue Hassan Nasrallah’s figure. Instead, it serves as evidence of his awareness of Lebanese interest and the well-being of the Lebanese people, especially the Shiite community. He tailored his speech to what his audience wanted to hear regarding its stance against Israel and the United States, acknowledging Hezbollah’s capabilities and military readiness. However, the notion of “giving the audience what they want” may not align with the current reality in Lebanon and among the Lebanese people, and this is a realization that Hassan Nasrallah may have come to understand.
