Listen to the article
On Saturday afternoon, the Lebanese audience had the good fortune to watch a remake of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s speech. The speech was his second one in the span of a week. While the lengthy address by the leader of the Shiite party didn’t lend any new element, in essence, a more nuanced analysis of the speech’s form and structure is not entirely devoid of relevant content.
The leader of the pro-Iranian party aimed to present a comprehensive regional overview of ongoing military developments, transcending the narrow confines of Gaza or southern Lebanon. This approach seeks to achieve three specific objectives, which illustrate and affirm the transnational strategy of the Iranian mullahs. A strategy rooted in the expansionist aspirations of the Revolutionary Guards – the Pasdaran – and the ambitions of the Iranian state to establish itself as an indispensable regional power in the Middle East.
The primary overt objective of the November 11 speech is Hassan Nasrallah’s ambition – already noticeable in his November 4 address – to position himself as a regional orchestrator overseeing all organizations created by Tehran in various Middle Eastern countries. First and foremost, Iran needs someone to take on this position (following the elimination of Qasem Soleimani) to consolidate its instruments of influence scattered across various regions within a coherent framework. In this context, Hezbollah’s leader is currently compelled to restore his regional standing, given the significant tarnish that befell the party. This ill-reputation resulted from its direct involvement in the Syrian war and active contribution to the excesses of a regime that brutally oppressed its own people, resorting to forced exodus, demographic manipulation, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
The second clearly sought-after objective in Saturday’s speech is to “soften the blow” for the population of South Lebanon, exhorting them to embrace the challenges imposed on them once again by depicting them as part of a much broader context. This is framed within a significant geostrategic challenge that extends well beyond Lebanon, rationalizing the necessary commitments. As such, this justifies the comprehensive and extensively argued panorama presented by the leader of the pro-Iranian party. Hence, the vision of “support fronts” outlined in the speech.
In providing a comprehensive account, Hassan Nasrallah meticulously detailed the “contributions” of these various “support fronts” within the framework of the global struggle. Starting with the Houthi forces from Yemen (via missile launches towards Israel), he subsequently delved into the role of the “popular mobilization” in Iraq. As emphasized by Hezbollah’s leader, the latter is a pro-Iranian militia reputed for its attacks against American positions in Iraq and Syria. Nasrallah went on to mention the Syrian regime (praising its “clear political stance”), followed by the Palestinians in the West Bank, and even… Iran, to underscore its unwavering “financial, military, logistical and political” support.
Towards the end of the roster of “support fronts,” attention was finally directed to the developments in South Lebanon. This strategic sequencing aimed to alleviate any sense of isolation among the Lebanese population in their struggle. It was then that Hassan Nasrallah explained how his organization has achieved notable advancements in its confrontation with Israel. This progress is evident not only in the use of sophisticated weaponry, but also in the expanded geographical scope of military operations, now reaching deep into Israeli territory.
The third noteworthy aspect of the speech is Hassan Nasrallah’s palpable concern for preserving the sentiments of his supporters and popular base by avoiding excessive mention of the Hamas movement. Instead, he emphasized the role of “resistance.” Hezbollah fighters have not forgotten that this same Hamas engaged in deadly battles against them in Syria for several years. Only recently has this Sunni fundamentalist movement come under the influence of Iran.
However, perhaps the most serious aspect of Saturday’s address – akin to that of November 4 – is that Hassan Nasrallah embraced a strategy of attrition, once again demonstrating that he asserts control over the country and its people based on a unilateral approach, perceiving Lebanon as his privately acquired property through a public takeover!
In this perspective, the adoption of the notion of “support fronts” instead of the calls for “unifying fronts,” often voiced by the pro-Iranian camp, dangerously illustrates a desire to entangle the Lebanese population in a war of attrition, the sole outcome of which is to serve Iran’s “raison d’Etat” (national interest). But this time around, with an added detrimental bonus: the emergence of armed Palestinian factions, freely parading around and engaging in warfare in the southern regions of the country.
