Listen to the article
The speech that had the Middle East holding its breath would only confirm Iran’s intention not to fully commit its Lebanese proxy troops to the battle.
Anticipation and high expectations stirred a tense atmosphere that reached its peak this past November 3. However, the tension worn off the moment Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah concluded his broadcast. His eagerly anticipated speech appeared to have been “the focus of all widespread apprehensions for a week,” reflecting the Lebanese people’s “dread of sliding into the horror of a war they adamantly opposed.” And they weren’t the only ones. The Israelis were also closely scrutinizing his words and were convinced that the worst was yet to come (1).
In truth, crowds and individuals are keen on sensationalism. As such, some paramount observers expected that the Sayyed would review and build up the rules of engagement. Yet these unspoken rules that govern the operations along our southern border had, until then, prevented a widespread outbreak. Consequently, in the contagious fervor, we all found ourselves on that specific Friday at 3 PM watching the media performance of the “Resistance” leader.
Let’s be candid and acknowledge that, as long as disasters are limited to being on-screen and do not impact us directly, they are a source of captivation and entertainment.
The Leader, His Image and His Statements
A leader has to meticulously craft his image, and even outdo himself at times. However, a shrewd leader – even one with a populist approach –, has many priorities to take into account. He must proceed with caution to avoid the risk of “losing in one single stroke what was gained in a hundred games.” So, at this point, everything revolves around rhetoric. In the realm of politics, where emotions and illusions dominate, style, sophisticated wording and suspense will prevail over substance and over the main issues.
As no one can dispute Nasrallah’s eloquence, let’s concentrate on analyzing his statements regarding the incursion that resulted in 1,400 casualties and 240 hostages on the Israeli side. Hezbollah’s Secretary General explicitly stated that Hamas acted autonomously, highlighting that this operation was a full-fledged Palestinian decision in terms of planning, preparation and execution. He added, to better exonerate himself and Iran, that “the secrecy surrounding this operation ensured its success through the element of surprise.” And as if that wasn’t enough to deny his involvement or Tehran’s, he went on saying, “Some claim that the operation served Iran’s objectives in the region or in regards to the nuclear negotiations, but these are mere fabrications. The operation is entirely Palestinian, dedicated to Palestine, its cause and its people, and has no links whatsoever to regional or international agendas.”
Absolving and Shifting Blame
Indeed, by highlighting Gaza’s Islamists, labeling their assault as an “act of heroism” that caused an “earthquake,” by giving them the leading position in the fight against the occupier, and suggesting that Hamas’ fighters had outperformed Hezbollah’s troops in 2006, the Shiite leader exalted the Palestinian organization and acknowledged its success, one that could potentially overshadow his own. In fact, he used a rhetorical mechanism similar to an omission, namely drawing attention to something without explicitly naming it. This is what is known as “passing the buck,” or shifting the blame onto Hamas and relinquishing the responsibility of the task that should have been his own to take on. Once again, by using this tactic, he absolved himself in the eyes of the Zionist enemy. By praising the Palestinian resistance which, in his view, achieved a victory on October 7 (for which it can solely take credit), he conveyed to the listening audience the following: in this specific matter, I am neither a co-conspirator, nor an accomplice, nor even a participant. However, in regards to the front line in southern Lebanon, my commitment stems from a sense of solidarity with fellow fighters, within the scope of the rules of engagement established since the summer of 2006.
The speech that had the Middle East on edge hasn’t unveiled anything groundbreaking. It only reaffirmed Iran’s intentions to not fully involve its Lebanese proxy troops into the battle for the liberation of Palestine. The bloody skirmishes that disrupt the daily lives of our compatriots in southern Lebanon reflect a skillful war of position rather than encircling maneuvers or attrition campaigns, as witnessed in Ukraine. For now, neither Iran nor Hezbollah wish to engage in war, unless cornered by Israel.
And we thought that the mullahs’ party and their henchmen would step right into the furnace as soon as the Israeli Merkavas invaded Gaza!
Youssef Mouawad
yousmoua47@gmail.com
1- Amos Harel, “Nasrallah’s Long-Awaited Speech Could Dictate the Course of War and Lebanon’s Future,” Haaretz, November 3, 2023.
