Nasrallah announced his support for the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, clearly showing that he opposes former PM Saad Hariri returning to power.
Hezbollah stands at the intersection of the Middle East’s most delicate issues. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, figures prominently among those who have a great deal of influence over the course of events in the region. In this regard, his importance is more than a Lebanese one, and he is not merely an advocate for policies prepared by others, despite what some of his opponents might believe or like to imagine.
What most have failed to realize is that Nasrallah has is one of a handful of individuals that have a say in key matters concerning the region, particularly the cold war pitting an anti-Western, pro-resistance bloc (Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah) against the US-backed alliance (Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, and the March 14 coalition among others). Moreover, the nature of Nasrallah’s personal, professional, and political relationships with high-ranking Iranian and Syrian officials — which in turn link him to the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance movements — have earned him a role in formulating key decisions, as well as adopting and implementing them.
This has made Nasrallah’s words on pressing issues in the Middle East more than just the analysis of a partisan figure. They serve as an expression of a general position and an indicator of the region’s trajectory, at the very least from one particular vantage point. Thus, it is useful for his opponents — even more than his supporters — to take his views and opinions very seriously and analyze them carefully in order to avoid devising policies based on a misreading of the situation. Perhaps his opponents are fortunate that he possesses great flexibility to directly and clearly discuss where things are headed:
When dealing with the US decision to withdraw from Iraq before the end of the year, Nasrallah expressed in his words, gestures, and expressions a level of comfort transcending mere solidarity with the Iraqi people. He gave a strong indication that following the withdrawal of US occupation forces, Iraq will be even more closely aligned to the resistance bloc.
He pointed out that America and Israel are no longer able to enter into a war with Iran, since it is now the leading authority for the Iraqi resistance. He considers this evidence that events have passed beyond the threat of war, noting that the US is trying to avoid any actions that would worsen the situation. Nasrallah also confidently asserted that he finds the threat of an imminent attack by Israel on Lebanon or Palestine highly unlikely. He attributed this to practical considerations, as well as reasons tied to the new situation in the Arab world following the Arab Spring. He clearly warned that any military intervention in Syria might lead to a major war in the region — a suggestion perhaps that the resistance bloc is prepared for such a confrontation.
Nasrallah confirmed the position of his party on the uprisings taking place in the Arab world, rejecting the notion that the West is really behind these revolutions. He also announced that the resistance sees what is happening in Syria as a pressing issue that the regime needs to address. However, he firmly rejected the call to overthrow the regime. This means that Hezbollah and its allies are acting to prevent the fall of the Baathist regime in Syria. He acknowledged that the Lebanese resistance may be losing popular support in the Arab world for its stance on Syria. But he maintained that his party doesn’t take positions merely based on their popularity.
From another angle, Nasrallah’s defense of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s reform program signifies that the resistance has a duty to work towards its implementation, since Assad’s main source of support in Syria currently comes from those who consider this an opportunity to implement the reforms.
Nasrallah clearly tried to avoid interfering in the decisions of opposition movements in the Arab world. He did not, for example, express reservations about some opposition groups accepting Western support. However, he framed the issue as an attempt by the West to hijack the Arab revolutions, rather than portraying it as the opposition groups begging the West to grant them their freedom.
Nasrallah announced his support for the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, clearly showing that he opposes former PM Saad Hariri returning to power. And although he did not discuss the domestic situation in Lebanon at great length, he did try to set a reasonable limit for Hezbollah’s ambitions. He said that Hezbollah’s position seeks a balance between preventing the Mikati government from collapsing and making sure that it continues to be productive in addressing the backlog of issues that concern the Lebanese people. He noted a level of political development within the new ruling majority, which allows for partial but not wholesale competition. This is another indication that the resistance in Lebanon no longer fears that the other side is capable of drawing the country towards the kind of discord that could undermine stability.
Ibrahim al-Amin is al-Akhbar's Editor in Chief.
What most have failed to realize is that Nasrallah has is one of a handful of individuals that have a say in key matters concerning the region, particularly the cold war pitting an anti-Western, pro-resistance bloc (Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah) against the US-backed alliance (Gulf Arab countries, Jordan, and the March 14 coalition among others). Moreover, the nature of Nasrallah’s personal, professional, and political relationships with high-ranking Iranian and Syrian officials — which in turn link him to the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance movements — have earned him a role in formulating key decisions, as well as adopting and implementing them.
This has made Nasrallah’s words on pressing issues in the Middle East more than just the analysis of a partisan figure. They serve as an expression of a general position and an indicator of the region’s trajectory, at the very least from one particular vantage point. Thus, it is useful for his opponents — even more than his supporters — to take his views and opinions very seriously and analyze them carefully in order to avoid devising policies based on a misreading of the situation. Perhaps his opponents are fortunate that he possesses great flexibility to directly and clearly discuss where things are headed:
When dealing with the US decision to withdraw from Iraq before the end of the year, Nasrallah expressed in his words, gestures, and expressions a level of comfort transcending mere solidarity with the Iraqi people. He gave a strong indication that following the withdrawal of US occupation forces, Iraq will be even more closely aligned to the resistance bloc.
He pointed out that America and Israel are no longer able to enter into a war with Iran, since it is now the leading authority for the Iraqi resistance. He considers this evidence that events have passed beyond the threat of war, noting that the US is trying to avoid any actions that would worsen the situation. Nasrallah also confidently asserted that he finds the threat of an imminent attack by Israel on Lebanon or Palestine highly unlikely. He attributed this to practical considerations, as well as reasons tied to the new situation in the Arab world following the Arab Spring. He clearly warned that any military intervention in Syria might lead to a major war in the region — a suggestion perhaps that the resistance bloc is prepared for such a confrontation.
Nasrallah confirmed the position of his party on the uprisings taking place in the Arab world, rejecting the notion that the West is really behind these revolutions. He also announced that the resistance sees what is happening in Syria as a pressing issue that the regime needs to address. However, he firmly rejected the call to overthrow the regime. This means that Hezbollah and its allies are acting to prevent the fall of the Baathist regime in Syria. He acknowledged that the Lebanese resistance may be losing popular support in the Arab world for its stance on Syria. But he maintained that his party doesn’t take positions merely based on their popularity.
From another angle, Nasrallah’s defense of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s reform program signifies that the resistance has a duty to work towards its implementation, since Assad’s main source of support in Syria currently comes from those who consider this an opportunity to implement the reforms.
Nasrallah clearly tried to avoid interfering in the decisions of opposition movements in the Arab world. He did not, for example, express reservations about some opposition groups accepting Western support. However, he framed the issue as an attempt by the West to hijack the Arab revolutions, rather than portraying it as the opposition groups begging the West to grant them their freedom.
Nasrallah announced his support for the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, clearly showing that he opposes former PM Saad Hariri returning to power. And although he did not discuss the domestic situation in Lebanon at great length, he did try to set a reasonable limit for Hezbollah’s ambitions. He said that Hezbollah’s position seeks a balance between preventing the Mikati government from collapsing and making sure that it continues to be productive in addressing the backlog of issues that concern the Lebanese people. He noted a level of political development within the new ruling majority, which allows for partial but not wholesale competition. This is another indication that the resistance in Lebanon no longer fears that the other side is capable of drawing the country towards the kind of discord that could undermine stability.
Ibrahim al-Amin is al-Akhbar's Editor in Chief.
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment