Lebanese officials swayed ...
Page 1
Had this movement not existed, large parts of Beirut's southern suburbs and surrounding areas would likely have fallen under Israeli occupation by now.
This situation highlights divisions within Lebanon's ruling structure. Ultimately, the objective of the United States and Israel is to create internal discord in Lebanon that could escalate into civil conflict, allowing Israel to push further toward Beirut under the pretext that Lebanon has become unstable and insecure.
Lebanese officials have accused Iran of using Lebanon as leverage in its negotiations and regional disputes. To what extent does this claim reflect the reality of Iran's regional policy, and what arguments does Tehran offer in rejecting such a perception?
The Lebanese case has no particular characteristics that would allow it to have significant influence over the course of negotiations between Iran and the United States.
On the contrary, Iran has been supporting Lebanon while it could could have separated the Lebanese issue from broader regional developments and negotiations. However, Tehran takes an emotional and humanitarian view toward the people of southern Lebanon, who are under pressure on multiple fronts—by the Israeli military, by certain political currents within Lebanon, and by some Arab governments. As a result, they often find themselves isolated and look to Iran for support.
Iran has sought to assist the Lebanese people, regardless of sectarian affiliation, to the greatest extent possible.
Tehran has repeatedly stated that it will not accept any ceasefire arrangement that does not include a durable ceasefire in southern Lebanon. This reflects what Iran sees as a humanitarian and emotional bond between the Iranian and Lebanese peoples.
Unfortunately, some political currents and several Arab governments are actively seeking to drive a wedge between Lebanon and Iran.
In light of Beirut's recent positions, is Iran likely to reconsider its strategy toward Lebanon and its support for Hezbollah, or will it continue to adhere to its existing approach?
Preserving security in southern Lebanon and strengthening regional resistance movements remain integral components of Iran's broader regional strategy.
Under no circumstances will Iran abandon the people of southern Lebanon. There is a deep bond between the Iranian and Lebanese peoples, and external pressure will not lead Hezbollah to hand over its weapons.
If Hezbollah were disarmed, the killing of Shiites would begin at the hands of both certain internal factions and the Israeli military.
Iran understands very well that if it leaves the Lebanese people on their own, they will become victims of sectarian attitudes and both regional and domestic violence.
Some argue that Iran's support for Hezbollah is not merely a function of bilateral relations with Lebanon, but also forms part of Tehran's broader regional deterrence strategy against Israel. To what extent does this consideration influence Iran's decision to continue supporting this group?
Lebanon—and more specifically the Lebanese Islamic Resistance—constitutes a central pillar of the Axis of Resistance.
Had Hezbollah not existed, the Israeli regime would likely have occupied substantial parts of Syria, Jordan, and even Egypt by now.
Because of Hezbollah's deterrent capabilities, and because the Israeli military has been engaged with the movement for more than four decades, neighboring countries have been able to benefit from a degree of relative stability.
As a result, much of the burden of confronting Israeli actions against regional populations has fallen on Hezbollah's shoulders.