‘Messages’ Behind Israel’s Bombing of Latakia Port

A fire blazes in the container yard of the Syrian port of Latakia after an Israeli air strike targeting an Iranian arms shipment. (AFP)
A fire blazes in the container yard of the Syrian port of Latakia after an Israeli air strike targeting an Iranian arms shipment. (AFP)
TT
20

‘Messages’ Behind Israel’s Bombing of Latakia Port

A fire blazes in the container yard of the Syrian port of Latakia after an Israeli air strike targeting an Iranian arms shipment. (AFP)
A fire blazes in the container yard of the Syrian port of Latakia after an Israeli air strike targeting an Iranian arms shipment. (AFP)

The bombing of the port of Latakia at dawn on Tuesday carried most messages since the start of the Israeli raids in Syria at the end of 2013, months after the “chemical deal” between Washington and Moscow. Why?

1 - Latakia port: The attack targeted the most important Syrian port, kilometers away from the Russian Hmeimim military base, which hosts the advanced S-300 and S-400 missile systems. This is an indication of the Russian consent with the Israeli raids, or at least, its non-objection to them.

2 - Russian anger: Moscow had previously expressed to Damascus its “anger” at the Syrian government’s decision in February 2019 to give the Latakia port management to Iran after terminating a contract with an international company. Damascus tried to please Moscow by granting it concessions in the nearby port of Tartus as part of a “balance game between the two allies”, but the Russian implicit anger persisted.

3 - The “September knot”: In September 2018, the Syrian air defenses mistakenly shot down a Russian military plane while it was responding to Israeli raids. The incident led to the killing of 15 Russian soldiers, causing tension between Moscow and Israel, and requiring visits from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the crisis and return to operating the military “coordination mechanism” between the two sides in Syria. However, Israel remained cautious when targeting the vicinity of the two Russian bases in Latakia and Tartus to avoid any Russian casualties.

4- Putin - Bennett: Since Naftali Bennett assumed the premiership in June, Russia has sought to “remind” Israel of its presence in Syria, by providing detailed data on the Syrian response to the raids and Damascus’ use of Russian anti-missile shields, with warnings to Tel Aviv not to target Russian or Syrian government interests. However, according to Israeli leaks, Bennett obtained from Putin, during their meeting in Sochi on October 22, “more than what Netanyahu had.” Military coordination and the “red line” between Tel Aviv and the Hmeimim base were restored. In fact, the first raid after the meeting saw the use of surface-to-surface missiles targeting the outskirts of Damascus.

5- “Broadness and focus”: Since the meeting between Putin and Bennett, the circle of raids has expanded. “Mysterious bombing” was repeated on “Iranian sites” in eastern Syria, while Israel targeted several times the outskirts of Damascus and central Syria, on October 30 and November 3, 8 and 24, hitting “Iranian weapons and ammunition depots,” according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

6- “Inhuman”: The special envoy of the Russian President to Syria, Alexander Lavrentyev, said during his participation in a forum in Damascus in mid-November: “As for the issue raised regarding the illegal bombings of Syrian territory by Israel: we strongly oppose these inhuman actions and call for contacts at all levels with the Israeli side on the need to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity of Syria and stop these bombings.”

He continued: “In this context, a military response would be counterproductive, because no one needs a war on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

7- “Resistance to Israel”: Lavrentyev’s position is completely different from that of Tehran. The Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, said during his meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Meqdad in Tehran on Tuesday: “The resistance is the only way to eradicate this cancerous tumor from the region,” as reported by IRNA.

8 - Two approaches and a theater: Faced with the different approaches of Moscow and Tehran on government control and the relationship with Tel Aviv, Russia sought to persuade Iran to remove its organizations from the T-4 base in the center of the country, which was exposed to several Israeli raids.

On the other hand, US officials accused Iran of bombing the US base of al-Tanf in southeastern Syria, in “retaliation” for the Israeli attacks. This angered Moscow, which establishes major understandings with Washington, including in Syria.

9 - Putin-Biden: Before the Putin-Bennett meeting at the end of October, organizations affiliated with Tehran targeted Al-Tanf base, as part of their “messages” to Sochi, the meeting place. It is not a coincidence for the recent Israeli bombing of an “Iranian shipment” in Latakia, near Hmeimim, to come hours before the summit of the Russian and American presidents, who have good relations with Israel and “guarantee its security.”

10 - The nuclear file and normalization: The raids cannot be taken out of the context of regional and international developments, especially with regard to the deadlock facing the nuclear talks in Vienna and Israeli and American warnings of “other options.” In addition, some are betting that “normalization” with Damascus will “curb the Iranian military presence” in Syria... even if it was the result of an understanding between Moscow, Damascus and Tehran, which Meqdad visited on Tuesday.



Can Hezbollah Transition to a Fully Political Party?

Supporters of Lebanon's Hezbollah group block the streets with burning tires as they rally in cars and motorbikes to protest the government's endorsement of a plan to disarm it, in Beirut's southern suburbs early on August 8, 2025. (AFP)
Supporters of Lebanon's Hezbollah group block the streets with burning tires as they rally in cars and motorbikes to protest the government's endorsement of a plan to disarm it, in Beirut's southern suburbs early on August 8, 2025. (AFP)
TT
20

Can Hezbollah Transition to a Fully Political Party?

Supporters of Lebanon's Hezbollah group block the streets with burning tires as they rally in cars and motorbikes to protest the government's endorsement of a plan to disarm it, in Beirut's southern suburbs early on August 8, 2025. (AFP)
Supporters of Lebanon's Hezbollah group block the streets with burning tires as they rally in cars and motorbikes to protest the government's endorsement of a plan to disarm it, in Beirut's southern suburbs early on August 8, 2025. (AFP)

Mounting calls in Lebanon for Hezbollah to hand over its weapons and dissolve its armed wing have reignited debate over whether the party’s structure, principles and founding ideology could allow a smooth shift to purely political activity – or whether such a change would require a complete overhaul of the party and a new charter to match the country’s shifting landscape.

Founded in 1982, Hezbollah has gone through two major ideological milestones: its 1985 “open letter,” which served as its founding political and religious manifesto, and its 2009 “political document,” an updated vision shaped by regional and domestic changes.

In its early platform, Hezbollah openly called for an Islamic republic in Lebanon, rejected the sectarian political system, pledged allegiance to Iran’s supreme leader, and endorsed armed resistance as the only path to confront Israel.

By 2009, the group acknowledged that Lebanon’s multi-sectarian fabric made an Islamic state impossible, advocating instead “consensual democracy” as a transitional step toward abolishing sectarianism, while reaffirming armed resistance in coordination with the army and the people.

Hezbollah entered parliamentary politics in 1992 after the civil war and joined the cabinet in 2005, following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Former MP Fares Souaid, head of the Lady of the Mountain Gathering, said Hezbollah “does politics in military fatigues,” making it hard to imagine a transformation from what he called “an Iranian military arm in Lebanon” into a regular political party.

“Hezbollah’s presence in parliament and cabinet was to monitor decisions that could hinder its military and security work, not to be fully involved in constitutional politics,” Souaid told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He added that many in the group’s Shiite base still view its arsenal as a guarantee, even though dissenting voices have emerged.

Jad al-Akhaoui, head of the Lebanese Democratic Coalition, said Hezbollah’s founding principles – rooted in religious ideology and armed struggle under Iran’s “Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist) – are incompatible with the concept of a civilian political party in a democracy.

“If Hezbollah truly wants to become a political party, it must separate religion from the state, abandon its weapons and redefine itself as Lebanese first and foremost, not as a regional proxy,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Al-Akhaoui argued that Hezbollah’s political participation has been a means to entrench its position within the state without integrating fully into it, using parliament and cabinet to shield its weapons.

“The party used politics to legitimize its arms, not to reconsider them,” he said, adding that frustration is growing within its Shiite constituency over the economic collapse, international isolation and involvement in wars unrelated to Lebanon.

Political analyst Kassem Kassir, however, said there is no inherent reason why Hezbollah could not become a purely political party.

“Armed resistance was due to Israeli occupation and external circumstances,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“If the occupation ends and the state can defend the people and rebuild, there is no problem with giving up the weapons.”

Kassir said Hezbollah’s political track record shows it can mobilize popular support and use politics to serve the community and defend the resistance.

“Today, the continued Israeli occupation and the state’s failure to protect its citizens are what keep the arms in place,” he said.