The state and the weapon trap: neither by force nor by politics

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

Lebanon seems to complain a lot and is little resourceful, whether in facing dangers or dealing with opportunities. It is important for officials to go to Nabatieh, where the Israeli occupation is blowing up the land around it, but what is more important is that the state does not remain with the army and administrations like a guest of Hezbollah. The state is moving in all directions to expedite negotiations within the “tripartite framework” agreement at a critical time for the Americans, Israel, and Iran, with electoral calculations and standing on the brink of negotiation and war. No one is in a hurry to give him anything. Netanyahu is not willing to reach an agreement that President Donald Trump pushed to negotiate, nor is Trump willing to pressure him at the present time. Tehran and the “party” do not want anything less than the death of the “tripartite framework” agreement, nor is Beirut able to provide what is required of it.

This is because the state is clashing with what it knew before the decisions of the Council of Ministers and the start of direct negotiations, and even before the new crew came to the top of power. Working on the national state project is, by the nature of things, in the opposite direction of the Iranian regional project, of which Hezbollah and weapons remain an integral part.

What has become clear to everyone at home and abroad, regardless of the desires, intentions, and calculations of linking and disengaging between Lebanon and the conflicts, wars, and settlements of the Middle East, is that the state that has the official majority in the Council of Ministers and enjoys the support of the local popular majority and the Arab and international majority cannot do anything regarding withdrawing weapons from the “party.” The military option is not possible, nor is the political option likely to lead to anything. The inability to implement what the Council of Ministers decided, and what Lebanon’s demands from America and Israel were based on in the framework agreement, is nothing but a recipe for closing the window of opportunity to restore land and sovereignty, receive aid for reconstruction, and the flow of investments, even if negotiations continue. In other words, the state project is in danger.

On the contrary, Iran is fighting for its regional project. It is increasingly adhering to the armed ideological factions linked to the Revolutionary Guards, and in the ongoing mediations over a deal between it and America, it refuses any consideration of abandoning these factions. There is no role for it and the factions without the project. It is not expected that Hezbollah will read into the facts anything that would lead it to a real review. What the Lebanese saw and paid for with live flesh, a strategic mistake - the war to support Gaza - is the correct path for the party. Even repeating the mistake by attributing it to Iran is confirmation of standing on the right side, not the wrong side, of history.

It is not surprising that MP Muhammad Raad announced his confirmation of the rightness of the support war, and that he considered that what Israeli brutality did to Lebanon, the “party” and its environment was the result of a “partial tactical defect.” The ideological concept of victories, defeats and losses is completely different from the realistic concept, where the search for truth in facts, according to Chinese wisdom. For an ideological party linked to the Guardianship of the Jurist to admit to a strategic mistake is an impossible task, because it means declaring the failure of the project and ideology.

The matter does not change what the “party” lost in terms of the leaders of the first and second ranks, and at the forefront, the historic Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and the displaced people of the South and the Bekaa, and what was destroyed and then bulldozed, so that the South is no longer the South in the image it had and its people. The priority is for the regional project at the expense of the state project. Despite the destruction of the stone and the misery and sacrifices of people. The danger of the Iranian project on Lebanon, its identity and its history, is for the “party” a step on the way to the great victory in “correcting history” after centuries of “oppression.” Jack Burke viewed the Middle East through the prism of "political optimism," but when he was shocked by events, he resorted to "historical optimism." But he did not live to see the wonders of "divine victory."

Quoted from “Call of the Nation”