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.
