Nasrallah's speech and his "unsuccessful" messages!

By Fares Khashan

Yesterday, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah dropped the label of “resistance” for his party, which it had long sought to “perpetuate” its weapons. In a long speech that many had been waiting for after it was promoted as the “Speech of Passage to Jerusalem,” Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke about everything except the liberation of the Lebanese lands that he had previously classified as occupied, so the Shebaa Farms and the Lebanese part of the town of Ghajar were completely absent from the forefront!

Nasrallah presented himself, in a speech in which he devoid of any regard - even in the slightest - for the Lebanese constitutional authorities, as the ruler of the country and guarantor of the people, setting the conditions that prevent him from taking the decision to expand the war that he began on the Lebanese-Israeli border on the eighth of last October. It systematically completely dropped Resolution 1701, which controls the southern reality, since the Israeli-Lebanese war ended in August 2006.

In dropping the label of “resistance” from his party and assuming the mantle of “ruler,” Nasrallah presented himself and “Hezbollah” in accordance with the image that the Lebanese and those interested in Lebanese affairs paint of them!

For years, Hezbollah has ceased to be a resistance organization in the eyes of the majority of Lebanese, as it abandoned the act of liberation and turned to the act of defense, in a way that overthrew the sovereign role assigned to the Lebanese army, withdrew the decision on war and peace from the constitutional authorities, and prevented any personality from reaching senior positions through a democratic process. If you do not take into account the specifications that serve the party’s dominance over sovereign decisions, which leaves the position of the Presidency of the Republic, with the sovereign role it symbolizes, vacant!

In one of his most polarizing appearances, Nasrallah went, voluntarily or spontaneously, to where he denied he was!

From this position, and far from the literature that was preceded by the youngest analyst supporting the “axis of resistance,” Nasrallah delivered, in his speech, his main messages centered around Iran, “the unity of the arenas,” and the role of Lebanon!

His first goal, to which he devoted a large amount of effort, was to give the Iranian diplomatic discourse that Hossein Amir Abdollahian seeks to establish, high credibility, by confirming that Tehran stands in support of the resistance forces and does not issue decisions on their behalf, and that it is “innocent” of the attack it carried out by the "Hamas movement" was on the cover of Gaza on the seventh of last October, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of "Hezbollah" to enter a war against Israel on the eighth of the same month, nor to the involvement of the "Houthis" and the Iraqi organizations in the "Al-Aqsa Flood." ".

Naturally, Nasrallah was not successful in this part of his speech, because the reports prepared by the world's largest intelligence agencies confirm that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is coordinating the steps and decisions of these forces and organizations.

Since Hamas declared the “Al-Aqsa Flood” war, Iran has been striving to distance itself from the role of “combatant” and take on the role of “supporter,” which qualifies it to play a role it dreams of, given its high gains on the one hand and its zero cost on the other hand: negotiating on behalf of the “axis.” "Resistance" as his best friend!

If Iran succeeds in the role that Nasrallah tried to help it qualify for, it will become the only interlocutor for the United States of America in the region.

As for the second message that Nasrallah worked to formulate, it revolves around spreading reassurance from the “unity of the arenas” and the future of the region after the “Al-Aqsa Flood” war, in an attempt to summon the countries of the region and their secular forces to support.

He was not successful in this either, as everyone realizes that the “resistance axis”, composed of the alliance of “Shiite and Sunni political Islam”, wants to cross to Jerusalem through all the Arab countries, as “Hezbollah” itself abandoned liberation in favor of extending its complete hegemony over Lebanon, and similar forces. It has it in Iraq and Yemen as well, while the Syrian regime is exterminating its people, killing, arresting, and displacing, in order to continue in power.

This axis is practically looking forward to extending its hegemony over other countries, and it has had attempts in Bahrain, and it will continue to have attempts in a number of Arab and Gulf countries.

Nasrallah's speech cannot erase from reality what many, led by official spokespersons for Hezbollah, have previously admitted, as one of the most prominent goals of the "Al-Aqsa Flood" is to overturn the path of normalization with Israel, considering it a "path of treason."

It is not valid to argue against the abhorrent nature of the current government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which Nasrallah did well in satirizing, because instead of harming it, the “Al-Aqsa Flood” prolonged its life, as it was in deep disagreement with the United States of America and the European Union, and half of the Israeli people were facing it, not by opinion polls, rather, by taking to the streets weekly against it, as it was offensive to the Palestinians, it was offensive to Israel’s allies and its people!

In addition, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, according to a “rare” intersection with the American leadership, linked any progress in the path of normalization with Israel to agreeing to permanent solutions to the Palestinian dilemma.

The destruction, killing, and arrest that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” made possible for the Palestinians in general and the people of Gaza in particular were not possible, even to a small extent, before it, no matter how bad the actions of the “government of lunatics” were.

The final message that Nasrallah wanted to convey revolves around the role of Hezbollah. In fact, and contrary to the promotional campaign, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah did not appear to announce “pleasant surprises for the Palestinians,” but rather to inform them, officially, regardless of the redemption, that the limits of its participation in the “Al-Aqsa Flood” had been demarcated on October 8. In the past, he offers Gaza what no one offered him in 2006, which was the stark example in his speech, as he distracts, at great cost, almost half of the Israeli army from working against Gaza.

In an unsuccessful approach, and based on the authority of the Guide of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Ali Khamenei, Nasrallah compared the situation of Israel in 2006 with its situation in its current war against Gaza, promising on this basis the victory of the “axis of resistance” in Palestine.

Nasrallah ignored that the nature of the two wars is different, as Israel in 2006 was not fighting an existential war, while it is currently in this situation, because it links its loss of the war with its loss of existence.

It was clear that Nasrallah's reasons for limiting the confrontation with Israel to its current borders were multiple: there was the popular pressure of rejection, the Israeli willingness to destroy, and the American-British assistance that became available at sea.

These are the points that were the focus of the Lebanese part of his speech. Naturally, he threatened and mocked, but what is true is that these standards constitute his greatest concerns.

Thus, Nasrallah found himself shifting from threatening to expand the war against Israel to fearing the possibility of expanding the war against him, until he found himself asking the Israeli army to stop targeting civilians, a number of whom were killed in the bombing of recent days.

It is true that Nasrallah threatened to expand the war later if the Lebanese necessity or the need of Gaza necessitated it, but what is more true is that whoever was able to follow the speech up to this point noticed that Nasrallah was in the position of the seeker and not the target. Perhaps he would be able to keep the ambiguity prevailing!

In any case, for a speech of this kind, Nasrallah did not need to remain silent for 28 days, nor did he need to do without teasers, because “the promise was not true”!