Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
TT
20

Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)

The repeated attacks against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are political messages from Hezbollah and Iran to the UN and international community.

Three attacks against the peacekeeping force were reported in one month alone. Never have there been this many attacks against the international troops in the space of one month. The attacks took place amid international calls that the Iran-backed Hezbollah party lay down its arms and for Lebanon to implement UN Security Council resolution 1701 and 1559.

UNIFIL has, meanwhile, taken a firmer stance against these assaults, more so than it has ever done before. In a sharp tone, it demanded that the perpetrator be held to account, calling on the Lebanese authorities to carry out a probe. This marked a shift in its tone as UNIFIL usually used to announce an investigation in such attacks and that it was coordinating with the Lebanese military.

Resolution 1701 was issued in August 2006 to end the Israeli war on Lebanon. It gave UNIFIL the jurisdiction to carry out the necessary security measures in areas where it is deployed in southern Lebanon. Among other points, the resolution demands that areas of UNIFIL's deployment are not used for hostile attacks of any kind. The resolution provides protection for UN facilities and employees, guarantees their freedom of movement in humanitarian work and protects civilians, while respecting the role of the Lebanese government.

The resolution effectively expanded the role of UNIFIL, which was first formed and deployed in Lebanon in 1978. Since then, the UN troops have been deploying at least 400 patrols a day. The troops have rarely come under attack and when they do, they usually happen before their mandate is extended in August of every year.

Political and field changes must have happened for three attacks to take place against UNIFIL in one month. In November alone, three assaults were reported against the troops. One attack was reported in the town of Shakra on December 24, another in the town of Ramia on December 25 and the third in Bint Jbeil on January 3. Often, "locals" are blamed for attacking UNIFIL.

'Locals' and Hezbollah
Lebanese academic and political researcher Dr. Mona Fayad rejects accusations that "locals" are behind these attacks. In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, she said that such excuses are "not fooling anyone." Rather, she said Hezbollah, which is "hiding behind the people", should be held responsible.

She said the party has managed over time to establish an authority that is independent of the Lebanese state. One of the ways it managed to reach this position is its assuming of the role of "speaking on behalf of the resistance community and labeling as 'locals' people, especially Shiites, whom it mobilizes whenever the party needs them to exert pressure on a certain side. That way the party avoids direct confrontation."

Political motives
The frequency of the recent attacks has raised questions over their motives and political messages to the international mission. UNIFIL was firm in demanding a probe into the attacks, rejecting attempts aimed at restricting its freedom of movement in the South.

Fayad noted the latest attack when a routine UNIFIL patrol was assaulted even though it did not veer off its main route. Past attacks have been blamed on patrols changing their routes without coordinating with the Lebanese army or on troops taking photos in specific locations.

Fayad said the latest attacks are taking place at a time when the residents of the South feel that they need UN troops given the security and peace they have established in the area since the implementation of resolution 1701. Prior to that, they had never experienced such peace and calm, she added. At a time of upheaval in the rest of the country in recent years, the South has enjoyed relative calm, with the assassination of Shiite dissident Loqman Slim last year as the only major incident. He was killed in the South, in an area that is filled with surveillance cameras and where Hezbollah must be very familiar with.

Hezbollah, continued Fayad, has exploited the "army, resistance and people" slogan to exert pressure on various sides, while still avoiding turning attention to it. Indeed, Hezbollah is not mentioned when attacks on UNIFIL are reported, but rather the "locals" are the ones being blamed. The party uses such tactics to give the impression that it is implementing resolution 1701.

Change in UNIFIL's tone
After the latest attack on January 25, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the peacekeepers were not trespassing on private property, but were passing through a routine route. They were carrying out their duties according to resolution 1701 to preserve stability in the South.

He stressed that the resolution grants the troops complete freedom of movement and the right to deploy patrols in their area of operations. The attacks against the men and women who are serving peace are deemed as crimes by Lebanese and international laws.

The Lebanese authorities must probe these crimes and put the perpetrators on trial, he demanded.

Tenenti's statements mark a shift in tone. Fayad said the peacekeepers will no longer accept the excuse that the attacks were sparked by them changing their patrol route or that they were taking photos.

The change in the spokesperson's tone is a sign that the confrontation is growing because the UN mission senses a shift in the equation and an opportunity for it to play a better role, she explained.

Furthermore, Fayad said these changes "are not restricted to Lebanon alone," but they are tied to the Vienna nuclear talks with Iran.

International messages
Political researcher and retired Gen. of Staff Khaled Hamade said the timing of the attacks are more significant than the assaults themselves.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah is behind the attacks, which are tied to regional developments, Hamade told Asharq Al-Awsat. The developments point to significant changes on the ground in the region.

Iran is seeking to use its regional cards in response to its setbacks in the region, he explained. Iran, not Hezbollah, should be blamed for the attacks on UNIFIL because the party is an extension of Tehran in Lebanon.

Iran is seeking to "shuffle all regional cards," said Hamade. He cited the developments in Iraq that is stumbling in forming a new government. He also noted the attempt on the life of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. He pointed to the repeated rocket attacks on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia by the Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen.

These are all signs of Iran's reactions in regions where it wields influence, stressed Hamade. Moreover, the attack carried out by ISIS against Gweiran prison in northeastern Syria is "one of the cards Iran is using to exert pressure in the region." Lebanon is another one of Iran's cards and it is using UNIFIL to deliver messages.

Hamade said Tehran is using all the cards at its disposal in reaction to the setbacks it has suffered. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does Iran's bidding by attacking UNIFIL.

By attacking UNIFIL, Iran is saying that it can obstruct the implementation of resolution 1701, explained Hamade. Lebanon is helpless in responding to or thwarting such a violation, so the government often takes a very vague stance that does nothing in affecting the situation on the ground.

UN cover
Meanwhile, fears have been growing in the South that the attacks would force UNIFIL to pull out of Lebanon, which would cost the country one of its last remaining international covers as it grapples with an unprecedented economic crisis.

Hamade eased these concerns, saying the peacekeeping force will remain. The attacks will not force UNIFIL to withdraw, but the repeated incidents will prompt international reactions, perhaps even a Security Council meeting.

"The Council will not be extorted and will not allow the obstruction of an international resolution," he stated. "Furthermore, Hezbollah itself does not want the UN troops to withdraw because it will lose a precious card in its extortion."

Another factor is Israel, said Hamade. It wants an international force deployed in the South because it ensures its security. Iran itself also wants UNIFIL to stay so that it can continue on delivering its messages.

Hezbollah wants the troops to remain so that it can keep its attention focused on internal Lebanese affairs, added Hamade. It will continue to abide by resolution 1701, implementing it "with an Iranian twist and a way that serves its interests."



The US and Iran Have Had Bitter Relations for Decades. After the Bombs, a New Chapter Begins

Iran's and US' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Iran's and US' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT
20

The US and Iran Have Had Bitter Relations for Decades. After the Bombs, a New Chapter Begins

Iran's and US' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Iran's and US' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Now comes a new chapter in US-Iran relations, whether for the better or the even worse.

For nearly a half century, the world has witnessed an enmity for the ages — the threats, the plotting, the poisonous rhetoric between the “Great Satan” of Iranian lore and the “Axis of Evil” troublemaker of the Middle East, in America's eyes, The Associated Press reported.

Now we have a US president saying, of all things, “God bless Iran.”

This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense US bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a US military base in Qatar and the tentative ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump in the Israel-Iran war.

The US attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, a US intelligence report found, contradicting Trump's assertion that the attack “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program.

Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries:

Why did Trump offer blessings all around? In the first blush of a ceasefire agreement, even before Israel and Iran appeared to be fully on board, Trump exulted in the achievement. “God bless Israel,” he posted on social media. “God bless Iran.” He wished blessings on the Middle East, America and the world, too.

When it became clear that all hostilities had not immediately ceased after all, he took to swearing instead.

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f— they’re doing,” he said on camera.

In that moment, Trump was especially critical of Israel, the steadfast US ally, for seeming less attached to the pause in fighting than the country that has been shouting “Death to America” for generations and is accused of trying to assassinate him.

Why did US-Iran relations sour in the first place? In two words, Operation Ajax.

That was the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA, with British support, that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and handed power to the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Western powers had feared the rise of Soviet influence and the nationalization of Iran's oil industry.

The shah was a strategic US ally who repaired official relations with Washington. But grievances simmered among Iranians over his autocratic rule and his bowing to America's interests.

All of that boiled over in 1979 when the shah fled the country and the theocratic revolutionaries took control, imposing their own hard line.

How did the Iranian revolution deepen tensions? Profoundly.

On Nov. 4, 1979, with anti-American sentiment at a fever pitch, Iranian students took 66 American diplomats and citizens hostage and held more than 50 of them in captivity for 444 days.

It was a humiliating spectacle for the United States and President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a secret rescue mission months into the Iran hostage crisis. In Operation Eagle Claw, eight Navy helicopters and six Air Force transport planes were sent to rendezvous in the Iranian desert. A sand storm aborted the mission and eight service members died when a helicopter crashed into a C-120 refueling plane.

Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 and remain broken.

Iran released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. That was just long enough to ensure that Carter, bogged in the crisis for over a year, would not see them freed in his term.

Was this week's US attack the first against Iran? No. But the last big one was at sea.

On April 18, 1988, the US Navy sank two Iranian ships, damaged another and destroyed two surveillance platforms in its largest surface engagement since World War II. Operation Praying Mantis was in retaliation against the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf four days earlier. Ten sailors were injured and the explosion left a gaping hole in the hull.

Did the US take sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Not officially, but essentially.

The US provided economic aid, intelligence sharing and military-adjacent technology to Iraq, concerned that an Iranian victory would spread instability through the region and strain oil supplies. Iran and Iraq emerged from the 1980-1988 war with no clear victor and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, while US-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after.

What was the Iran-Contra affair? An example of US-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't.

Not long after the US designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 — a status that remains — it emerged that America was illicitly selling arms to Iran. One purpose was to win the release of hostages in Lebanon under the control of Iran-backed Hezbollah. The other was to raise secret money for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in defiance of a US ban on supporting them.

President Ronald Reagan fumbled his way through the scandal but emerged unscathed — legally if not reputationally.

How many nations does the US designate as state sponsors of terrorism? Only four: Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria.

The designation makes those countries the target of broad sanctions. Syria's designation is being reviewed in light of the fall of Bashar Assad’s government.

Where did the term ‘Axis of Evil’ come from? From President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. He spoke five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the year before he launched the invasion of Iraq on the wrong premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

He singled out Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq and said: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

In response, Iran and some of its anti-American proxies and allies in the region took to calling their informal coalition an Axis of Resistance at times.

What about those proxies and allies? Some, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are degraded due to Israel's fierce and sustained assault on them. In Syria, Assad fled to safety in Moscow after losing power to opposition factions once tied to al-Qaida but now cautiously welcomed by Trump.

In Yemen, Houthi militants who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledged common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the US and Britain. In Iraq, armed Shia factions controlled or supported by Iran still operate and attract periodic attacks from the United States.

What about Iran's nuclear program? In 2015, President Barack Obama and other powers struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear development in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran agreed to get rid of an enriched uranium stockpile, dismantle most centrifuges and give international inspectors more access to see what it was doing.

Trump assailed the deal in his 2016 campaign and scrapped it two years later as president, imposing a "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions. He argued the deal only delayed the development of nuclear weapons and did nothing to restrain Iran's aggression in the region. Iran's nuclear program resumed over time and, according to inspectors, accelerated in recent months.

Trump's exit from the nuclear deal brought a warning from Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's president, in 2018: “America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace. And war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

How did Trump respond to Iran's provocations? In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran's top commander, when he was in Iraq.

Then Iran came after him, according to President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. Days after Trump won last year's election, the Justice Department filed charges against an Iranian man believed to still be in his country and two alleged associates in New York.

“The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran’s assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump," Garland said.

Now, Trump is seeking peace at the table after ordering bombs dropped on Iran, and offering blessings.

It is potentially the mother of all turnarounds.