Hezbollah in Lebanon, an Iranian victory?
Tehran (AsiaNews) Iran's Islamic regime celebrated the Lebanese-Israeli cease-fire as a victory. Two days ago people were told: "Tonight at 9, everybody go on the roof and shout Allah-o-akbar (God is great)". In some Tehran's neighbourhood there was a lot of noise; in others, a lot of silence. The "victory" to celebrate was that of Hezbollah's extremists who for the first time since 1948 created difficulties for the Israeli Defence Forces. Their "victory" is moral, media and even military. Israeli territory was hit by weapons of war, not terrorist attacks. Israeli tanks failed against high-tech rockets despite their sophisticated defence technology. But who gave them to Hezbollah? Most likely Iran did, bought from Russia . . . apparently.
Although Tehran claimed from the start that its support to Hezbollah and Hamas was "only spiritual, and not military, its oil money paid for Hezbollah's arsenal". But statements of denial are useful in avoiding additional tensions with the international community, especially the West, at a crucial moment of the controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear programme.
Hezbollah's "victory would therefore appear to be all its own, that of a "national" movement fighting on Lebanese and Israeli territory without other foreign military involvement.
In Iran Ahmadinejad said he wants "to raise the flag of victory on Israel" and is beaming that US plans for a new Middle East have collapsed.
In the streets of the Iranian capital Nasrallah's picture is ubiquitous, the black turban of a true sayyed (alleged descendant of Muhammad), always dressed like a mullah even though he is not one. However, such a "victory" has something bittersweet about it: Nasrallah the Arab, a hero of Persia?
Long before the Iran-Iraq war Arabs were viewed with greater contempt if not hatred than Jews. But today among radicals who judge according to confession and revolutionary zeal, there is a lot of happiness. Conservatives (politicians, business people or just nationalist Iranians) are for their part more prudent.
What about the so-called reformers? Since the start of the recent conflict, former Iranian president Khatami wrote that Nasrallah's "Hezbollah is like a radiant sun that warms the hearts of oppressed Muslims, especially those living in Palestine and Lebanon . . . . What is now taking place in Lebanon is proof of the final victory of justice over falsehood, salvation over occupation and human dignity over humiliation." For Khatami the mullah, Hezbollah's being Shia comes first.
Iran ahs now taken the lead of the Islamic world in the struggle against Israel. For ayatollah Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, Israel is an "infectious cancer" within the body of Islam that must be fought anywhere and everywhere. In the recent Israeli-Lebanese war, Iran even threatened Israel should its attacks affect Syria.
What can this Iran represent for a free, sovereign and pluralist Lebanon. The answer came exactly a month ago, July 16, in a televised speech by Khamenei himself. "They wanted to turn Lebanon into a centre of Western culture. Instead it got a centre for Jihad (holy war) and resistance; exactly, the opposite of what Western imperialists wanted."
For Iran, Lebanon is a land of conquest; for its ruling mullahs, Lebanon's message of coexistence and pluralism is another "infectious cancer".
After this war, the world is less safe. Thanks to Israel, Jihad has come to the land of the cedar tree. Khamenei's dreams are being fulfilled. Armed Islamism has become more coherent and an alliance between radical Sunnis and Hezbollah has been forged.
Or perhaps, al-Qaeda will take up the challenge and try to take away from Nasrallah the leadership of Muslim extremism as it tried to a few days ago with its (failed) attempt to attack ten planes flying from London to the United States.
In any case, Lebanon's fate seems to be sealed. The message of hope has become a warning: the world's future may resemble that of martyred Lebanon.
.png)
28/07/2020 16:47
18/02/2021 12:31
