absurd policies and wars

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Lebanon was and still is governed by absurd policies in a tragic reality. Nothing comforts those who are incapable of practicing serious politics more than repeating absurd policies. If what completes the danger of absurd policies are absurd wars, then what is more dangerous than inability is the claim of power. The height of absurdity is the bets on a free solution on the scale of the small nation that would return it to what it was before the Cairo Agreement, the Israeli invasions, the Syrian military intervention, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the Gaza-Lebanon war, the Hezbollah war to support Gaza and Iran, and the American and Israeli war against the Islamic Republic and its arms in the region. It is not possible to completely disentangle the solution in Lebanon from being affected by the big game in the region. Were it not for these wars, what they did to us, and the Israeli occupation they led to, the state would not have ventured into direct negotiations that produced the tripartite framework, and we would not have needed anything beyond the 1949 armistice agreement and a team of international observers on both sides of the international border.

Whenever an opportunity for a solution appears before us, voices calling for Lebanon to be removed from the conflict of axes grow louder. This is a rightful call, but it remains absurd because Hezbollah is part of the “Axis of Resistance,” which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi says “represents the most important component of the strength of the Islamic Republic, and we want to support and strengthen it and work to build international legitimacy for it.” Tehran, as was shown in the war and negotiations with America, does not accept abandoning its arms in this axis, nor does Hezbollah, like the rest of the Iranian arms, intend to retreat from the mission for which it was established, which is to work for the Iranian regional project within the belief in the guardianship of the jurist, and thus refuse to let Lebanon, Iraq, Sanaa and others become outside the axes.

Then what about the state negotiating Israeli withdrawal and an agreement to “end hostility,” or even reaching peace? Isn't all of this linked to withdrawing weapons from Hezbollah throughout Lebanon and destroying its military and security structure? As long as the state is unable to withdraw its weapons despite the bold decision taken in the Council of Ministers, what does it do in the negotiations and wait for their dates, Godot-style? Is it something other than absurd policies?

No one expects Iran and Israel to have any mercy for Lebanon, as Tel Aviv committed the crime of bulldozing the south, and Tehran recorded the disasters that befell the people of the south and all of Lebanon as “collateral damage” on the road to achieving the regional project. Everyone knows that the American opportunity open to Lebanon is due to the need for its position with the positions of Syria, Iraq and Yemen in Trump’s peace project for the Middle East, and the keenness of Arab, regional and international powers to expel Iranian influence while ending the regional project of the Islamic Republic, more than it is due to Trump’s love for him and his friendships with wealthy Americans of Lebanese origin. This is what makes Washington extend the open opportunity despite its criticism of the official Lebanese reluctance to implement the withdrawal of weapons, which is the key to moving from the crisis to the solution.

But the switch will not work depending on other forces or circumstances. No one gives the country any strength to negotiate on loan. Betting on something like this can only be described as an absurd policy. Even if America keeps the opportunity open until the end of Trump's term, or at least until he runs out of patience or changes his circumstances, Iran will continue to work to preserve Hezbollah's weapons and expand its opportunity, which is opposite to Lebanon's opportunity. “Democracy could become a historical accident,” according to Jean-François Revel.

Quoted from “Call of the Nation”