Is it a pigment of the imagination of Islamic Republic's critics and opponents, or a claim ‎based on the truth, to insist that Iran plays a fundamental role in shaping recent crises in ‎Lebanon? An analyst at Al-Nahar daily (published from Beirut) recently wrote that the ‎conflict in Lebanon started with Iran’s “Velayat” (supreme leadership) and ended with ‎Qatar’s “Vesatat” (mediation). In this short piece, I will attempt to provide some insight ‎into understanding the basis for this claim. ‎

‎1 - Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah announced that the main reason for attacking Beirut and ‎resorting to arms against the Lebanese people was because the “government crossed the ‎resistance’s red line.” Nasrallah thus announced his red line as the passage of two ‎resolutions by the Lebanese government to dismiss the head of security operations at ‎Beirut’s international airport and shut down Hezbollah’s communications network. ‎Nasrallah, however, did not mention the passage of another resolution that same day, ‎which required the government to investigate the presence of Iranian groups in Lebanon. ‎The majority of Lebanese media outlets, however, chose to ignore these developments ‎and instead discussed Iran’s aims from flaming crises in Lebanon. For instance, in every ‎round table discussion, the question was raised as to whether the Lebanese government, ‎elected by the people, is not even allowed to remove the head of airport security, and has ‎to ask for Hassan Nasrallah’s permission, and expect war to be waged on it should it fail ‎to secure Nasrallah's permission. They concluded that the problem must lie somewhere ‎else. ‎

Lebanese analysts believed that Hezbollah’s dissatisfaction with the recent resolutions ‎passed by Lebanon’s government was not more than its dissatisfaction with resolutions ‎‎1559 and 1701 passed by the U.N. Security Council, because those resolutions called for ‎Hezbollah’s disarmament. Nevertheless, Hezbollah’s patience was ended and war was ‎declared on government when Iran was “targeted” as Hezbollah's only sustained supplier ‎of ideology, money, and arms. ‎

‎2 - In the early stages of the conflict, the offices of newspaper and television network ‎‎“Al-Mostaghbal” (majority party’s outlet) and “Al-Sharaa” weekly were set on fire. ‎Only a few days prior to this event, on April 26 and again on May 14, Al-Mostaghbal ‎published two lengthy reports detailing the presence of 5,000 Iranian soldiers in Lebanon ‎and analyzing the role of the Islamic Republic's Qods corps. The newspaper even ‎revealed sums of money sent by Iran to Hezbollah forces. Ammar Houri (Lebanese ‎member of parliament) and Mohammad Al-Dayni (Iraqi member of parliament) had ‎supplied the paper with evidence for the above reports. ‎

In its latest issue, Al-Sharaa weekly published evidence showcasing Iran’s special role in ‎shaping recent crises in Lebanon. It should be noted that in 1986, it was Hassan Sabra, ‎the editor-in-chief of the same weekly, who was behind publicizing McFarlane’s secret ‎trip to Tehran and Iran’s purchase of arms from Israel. There was an assassination ‎attempt on Sabra's life soon after but he managed to survive. ‎

‎3 – In the first phase of reopening Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport, which was ‎shut down by Hezbollah’s roadblocks and reopened with the mediation of Qatar and the ‎Arab League, Al-Jadid television (New TV) broadcasted clips of vehicles equipped with ‎the Islamic Republic’s emblem removing the roadblocks set by Hezbollah. On the very ‎same day, a group of Lebanese residing in France held a demonstration in front of Iran’s ‎embassy in Paris, which was widely covered in May 15 by Beirut-based media networks. ‎

‎4 – Now, although Hezbollah and its allies regard themselves as winners in imposing ‎some of their demands (by forcing majority parties to choose between “war or ‎surrender”), but the Qatar meeting did not allow Hezbollah to seize the government. ‎Lebanon’s future prime minister (according to predictions of political experts) would be ‎none other Fouad Siniora or Saeed Hariri, and the parties have agreed over General ‎Michel Suleiman (army leader) to serve as president. What is interesting is that all three ‎have previously condemned Iran’s role in Lebanon. ‎

‎5 – The supreme leader of the Islamic Republic said in clear words that Hezbollah would ‎never be disarmed. With this assertion, he stood against the demand of Lebanese parties ‎and also set the tone for the future of Lebanon. Such discourse is much different from the ‎one advanced by the Amir of Qatar, who said at the onset of mediation rounds in Doha ‎that Qatar knows its limits and will not step beyond its boundaries, only hosting ‎representatives from Lebanese parties in an attempt to achieve peace. ‎

The difference between the discourse of "Velayat' and "Vesatat," and the consequences of ‎that difference need no further elaboration. ‎