Nothing illustrates the crisis that Hezbollah finds itself in better than the series of speeches that its secretary-general gave during Ashoura. His voice became so long that his vocal cords were impacted. Nasrallah, who had in the past threatened suffering, destruction, and doom if the Israeli enemy dared to attack Lebanon, as well as claiming that his party was the only force to succeed in deterring the Israeli army since the 1948 Nakba. He found no other way to justify his failure to fulfill these promises other than to yell and claim Hezbollah has been retaliating with rockets, reminding us of when, June 5, 1967, Ahmed Saeed loudly proclaimed that the Egyptian army had entered Tel Aviv on Cairo’s “Sawt El Arab” (Voice of the Arabs).
56 destroyed towns in southern Lebanon have been destroyed. Over 109,000 people have been displaced from the region, and large swaths of its agricultural land have been made barren after having been burned by Israeli white phosphorus bombs. The Disaster Studies Institute found that as of July 10, around 18 million square meters of land that had contained fruit trees, oaks, pines, and crops ( which thousands of people depend on for their livelihood) have been burned to the ground. 580 have died, including 310 Hezbollah cadres and field commanders. After all this death and destruction, Nasrallah loudly banged on about victory and the sincerity of his promises.
Last Wednesday, in the final speech of the series, Nasrallah could find nothing better to say to reassure the Lebanese in general and his sectarian base in particular, in the face of the horrors of the calamity that has befallen them, than to preach about positive aspects of death and the transition to our eternal resting place. Nasrallah took us back in history in his address to those who are skeptical about Hezbollah’s actions. He spoke of the Jews from Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus to the entry of Jerusalem, and God’s promise to defeat the Jews, linking it to a quote from the Holy Quran: “And if you return, we will return,” implying that Hezbollah would be the one to inflict the defeat.
Nasrallah also promised those who had suffered as a result of the calamitous devastation in the south that everything would be rebuilt and that they would be generously compensated for everything they had lost. In making these commitments, he overlooked the fact that the Lebanese state cannot even pay the salaries of those employed in the public sector, let alone the billions of dollars needed to compensate for the damages of a war that he decided to embark on without asking for the state’s opinion on the matter? Hezbollah drags Lebanon into war and then claims the state negotiates. No one falls for this nonsense anymore.
Hezbollah is in crisis because it is tasked with implementing Iran's plans, which benefit the latter and at the expense of this small country, and this cannot be justified any longer. When the time came to delineate the maritime border, Iran instructed its proxy in Lebanon to accept the deal. In exchange, some of the funds seized from Iran, $6 billion paid, were released from South Korea. Lebanon, which gave up some of the gas on its territorial waters, fitted the bill.
No sensible observer was fooled by Nasrallah’s claims that the negotiations to demarcate the maritime borders had been carried out by the government and signed off on by the President of the Republic, Michel Aoun. The Islamic Republic instructed its proxy to launch attacks from the southern front following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, imposing rules of engagement that were to be respected even if the Israelis escalated their killing and destruction. Iran used this front as a card it could play on the negotiating table with the US, allowing it to get more out of the talks, even if its gains came at the expense of this small country.
As we await the resumption of negotiations and the emergence of a new or renewed US administration, Lebanon is on the receiving end of painful blows. Tehran is asking the party to calm the people and its base down and justify what is happening, even if that means reminding them of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus and preaching the culture of death.
Let us imagine that it is the day after the elections, what will change for Hezbollah?
In this ever-volatile corner of the world, the Middle East, the gap between Joe Biden and Donald Trump seems narrower.
Trump's approach to the region is to grant robust support to Israel and aggressively confront Iran.
Trump and his Vice President DJ Vance have also strongly supported Israel rhetorically since the October 7 Hamas attacks. Trump claims that the Hamas attacks “would not have happened” under his watch. “I kept Israel safe... No one else would do it, no one else could.”
Of course, Iran remains the center of gravity. Hostility toward Iran- much like support for Israel- is a matter of bipartisan consensus in Washington, even if his record suggests that Trump would take a tougher approach.
During Trump's first term, he launched what he called a "maximum pressure" campaign to isolate Iran. It is likely to continue if he returns, promising harsher sanctions.
Many experts believe that military retaliation against Iran- if its proxies were to strike Israeli or American interests in the region- would be more likely during a second Trump term.
Last month, Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist (at least nominally) was elected president of Iran. Reports suggest he may ask for renewed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and seek better relations with the West. However, experts claim that tangible progress is unlikely- if Trump wins the race, we may see the opposite. In both cases, the question is: who will tend to Hezbollah’s base, and will Nasrallah have to get off his high horse?
