Hezbollah Sets New Rules To U.S. Game

Mohamad Kawas     Al-Hayat     2003/08/25

Hezbollah is fully aware that the regional developments in the aftermath of the Iraq war are shifting the political balance of power. The party is taking into consideration all the ongoing geo-strategic developments that need to be rapidly integrated. The party bears the responsibility for being a pioneer in liberating Arab territory, at a time when fatalism was the grounds of Arab political philosophy to manage the conflict with Israel. In its discourse, the party still represents the opposite model of what Washington hails: crushing the rebellion, killing the logic of resistance and calming the disobedience methodology. The party currently reflects the heart and center of the conflict between two trends to manage the conflict: the trend that preaches shunning, adapting and cohabitating and another trend that upholds confrontation, opposition and resistance.  

Hezbollah's alibis are based on a group of elements that view the current regional situation as a temporary stage, that has never existed before. It could in fact represent the height of trouble for Israel and the U.S., as they are forced to resort to direct military confrontation in order to subdue a region, where all other direct methods have failed. Hezbollah considers that the liberation model it achieved in southern Lebanon is not only linked to the regional political and historic circumstances over the past decades, and is not related to a time and place context, but rather to the inevitable result of the resistance strategy, which is the only successful method throughout history against an occupation, regardless of its form, identity and time.

The debate about whether to accept or refuse Hezbollah's model in Lebanon is a daily discussion in Palestinian political circles. The resistance groups in Palestine consider Hezbollah's experience as a reference to be adopted in Palestine, and that all talk about different circumstances and considerations between South Lebanon and Palestine is just an excuse aimed at minimizing the principle of armed confrontation, which had always been the driving force behind revolutionary liberation movements in the past century. Even when the Palestinian factions accepted the principle of truce, it came as an exception that confirmed the rule of confrontation.

Hezbollah is still calling for fighting the occupiers, be they Israelis in Palestine and Lebanon (Shebaa Farms) or Americans and British in Iraq. The party's Secretary General is promising the new occupiers "resistance, blood, suicide bombers and suicide attacks." As it calls for Jihad in Iraq against the occupier (American this time), the party is voicing its refusal to "accept" the situation and defying the authority of Washington and London in Iraq. The party's firm stance toward the occupation of Iraq might be a way to express its principles regarding such situation. However, it might be also a preliminary stage for a preemptive attack it would launch against the U.S. presence, which is threatening the very presence of the party. Hezbollah, despite its relations (generally described as strategic) with Iran and Syria, is aware that state relations could not hesitate to sacrifice an ally, if interests are at play. The party is also aware that, due to the interaction of regional interests, it could represent an ideal testing ground if Washington decides to exert direct pressure on Damascus and Tehran. In any case, the party will pay the bill of a U.S. direct involvement in the regional balance game.

Hezbollah represents the basis for hindering Washington's plans in the region, whether these involve the Roadmap, the promise to spread the democratic cure-all in the region, or the promise to make out of Iraq a role model. Hence, the party's dismantlement is imperative if Washington views it as the main cornerstone crucial to the survival of any resistance system in the region. Hezbollah is aware that its dismantlement is a postponed, albeit certain, move. This is why it intends to confuse the rules of the conflict as far as time and place. This explains why the Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, resorted to reactivating the prisoners file and activating the Southern front, in a way that shuffles the cards and forces the other parties to re-gather these cards and reorganize them according to a new, impending element.

The Roadmap set aside the Lebanese-Syrian track, and reflected the new centers of weight in the region. The first center, Palestine-Israel, was delegated to Israel. The second center is in Iraq, and Washington is controlling it. According to Washington, there are losers or losers' projects in the region, as the White House master likes to repeat. In political science, it is the right of prejudiced people to work on alleviating their prejudice, if not stop it completely. The constant point is that Washington is, deliberately or not, responsible for the tension between Damascus-Tehran-Hezbollah, ever since the targeted campaign was launched against Tehran and Damascus, at varying intensities and times, and ever since the Israelis and Americans have leaked statements about Hezbollah being a threat and warning about its imminent dismantlement.

The "diplomatic" choice Israel adopted in dealing with the party's military strikes (that targeted Israeli positions in Shebaa Farms and settlements in Northern Israel) reflects the courageous stance that caught by surprise the Israeli political and military leadership, and the extent of complexity of the choice of confrontation, which the party seems to have opted for. The party's military and political maneuver might be explained by the fact that it is seeking to include itself within the targeted regional group, and not become an isolated party that could be confronted alone. In other words, by opening the battle in a direct and open way, it is forcing parallel battles to open with each of Iran and Syria. It does not seem that the timing of these battles complies with the agenda of Washington and Tel Aviv.

Anyway, Hezbollah's move comes at a time of unbalance between today's reality and the hoped for future. At a time of confusion in the region, resulting from the American daily change of plans, at a time when Washington is swaying between its hopes in Iraq and the presidential elections, at a time when Washington is hesitating about its choices in Palestine, at a when time Arabs, Europeans and all the other countries are unable to face the U.S. hegemony, at a time when the Iranian internal scene is activated, at a time when Syria is talking about a political and economic reform (at least similar to the Malaysian model), and while these times meet and contradict, Hezbollah is registering its political moment and taking a place amidst a game involving several players. The party's maneuver is a risk and a skillful way of using the battle's elements at the right moment. There is no doubt that Hezbollah has a long experience in dealing with developments and changes, without neglecting the constants.

*Mr. Kawas is a Lebanese political writer based in London