Assad and Nasrallah ... the Compulsory Passageway

Sami Kleib

If all Arab leaders spoke, "Israel" would not remember any word. Even while they spoke about normalization with it at the Beirut Arab summit in 2002, the war criminal Ariel Sharon disregarded them and was quick to say that their initiative was not worth the ink it was written with.

In contrast, if the Secretary-General of the Resistance movement Hizbullah His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, revealed one piece of information, "Israel" would tremble. This is what happened after his latest interview with «Al-Mayadeen». It is indisputable; Hizbullah has succeeded in imposing a balance of terror equation.

What about the West Atlantic?

In the Syrian war, which is considered to be the worst of wars of the century, President Bashar al-Assad has become the center of the global and regional policies. This bloody war that destroyed humans, stones, and souls, is linked to «Assad's departure» or «his survival». There is no doubt that Syria has paid the price for its positions in supporting the resistance and Iran.

Whatever was said about the internal causes of the war, the errors of the authorities, lack of security, the failure of agricultural projects or the "suppression" of the Damascus Spring... They all may be true, and would have also contributed to the uprising of people who wanted to improve their living conditions. But the first and last goal was to destroy the Syrian army after the destruction of the Iraqi army and the weakening of the Algerian army.

Assad's personality played an important role in the Syrian orientation towards resistance. It is true that he negotiated with "Israel" via Turkey in 2008, and he does not oppose re-negotiating if the Golan Heights were fully returned, but his heart and mind were closer to the resistance and the need to protect it, more than they were during the days of his late father, Hafez al-Assad.

In his book on Syria, Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire, author Flynt Leverett writes that «Bashar al-Assad agreed to allow Iran to increase the amount of weapons it provided to Hizbullah via flights to the Damascus International Airport as well as send advanced weapon systems.» Bashar al-Assad's position contradicted Hizbullah's situation in facing the Syrian-Lebanese team in the era of President Hafez al-Assad. Hizbullah was attacked many times during the rule of Ghazi Kanaan in Lebanon who was collaborating with the politicians who later became opponents of Syria after the Syrian army left Lebanon!

In his book «Hizbullah and the State», MP Hassan Fadlallah says the Syrian Lebanese team which was in control of the internal decision "clashed with Hizbullah and subjected the Taif state to the supervision of a full Syrian administration. Most state institutions were managed by a Syrian administration but with Lebanese faces, and this team has sought to entrap the resistance." Later, Hafez al-Assad changed his opinion, and provided substantial support for the resistance, but did not reach the level of Bashar al-Assad's sentiments and thoughts about the need for an organic alliance with the resistance.

Accreditation papers for Whom?

Since the early days of the Syrian events, Sayyed Nasrallah sought to return the favor. In a speech in the Rayah Square in 2011, he intended to criticize and accuse Dr. Burhan Ghalioun, the first President of the National Council of the Syrian opposition. He quoted him as saying: "if we have to change the system and receive power in Syria, we want to cut off our relationship with Iran." Nasrallah commented "this is understood, but for Ghalioun to say we want to cut off our relationship with the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine namely Hizbullah and Hamas, well, these accreditation papers are for whom? They are for the Americans and "Israelis."

Nasrallah was sure that the war on Syria is also a war, especially on Hizbullah and Iran. Hizbullah's strategic evaluation revolved on the need to address the project that targets this axis, even if the movement went to fight in Syria.

This assessment echoed in the Gulf itself. Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi said: "Historically there have been three major Arab countries: Egypt, Syria and Iraq fighting "Israel". I think it was dismantled by the Zionist movement." Oman and other Gulf states did not want to put Hizbullah on the terrorist list, but they did not have a say against Riyadh's decision.

The magician became the enchanted one!

The Syrian orientation towards resistance was faced with many temptations coupled with threats carried out by Colin Powell in his first meeting with Assad in 2003 after the occupation of Iraq. The Syrian president said in a speech before the People's Assembly at the beginning of the war in his country on March 2001: "When the pressure intensified on Syria, and they were giving us proposals that contradicted our interests and conspired against the resistance and others Arabs, and when the pressure intensified I used to tell them: Even if I accepted this proposal, the People will not."

Many will say that such a talk does not make sense anymore, and that the era of resistance has ended, and there is a Persian, Sufi, Shiite project. It's fine. This is some kind of tool for the current conflict in the region. Both sides have traded blame and distrust.

Let us leave this talk aside. Tomorrow, Iran and Saudi Arabia might reconcile and all this talk would disappear. But has all the peace initiatives coupled with full Arab compliance - from Madrid to Oslo to the Arab peace initiative in Beirut - put an end to the crimes of the last racist regime in the world, or modify something in its wars and in the construction of settlements and the elimination of what is left of the land? On the contrary, it is trying to break the Palestinian people.

Here is the essence of the case. Because of the success of the sedition-causing projects great goals were achieved: the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Syria, neutralizing Algeria, the division of Sudan, plunging Libya and Yemen in destructive wars, considering the idea of Arabism a charge, depicting the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon as terrorism, opening the Arab markets to all arms factories - selling in the past years more than what it sold in the previous decades- trying to convince the Arab public opinion that peace or surrender is the foundation, and forcing Gulf states and Iran to regard the animosities among them more important than the enmity with "Israel".

But terrorism, which was the actual tool of this sedition, changed the equation and will change it further. The magician became the enchanted one.

Nasrallah's Decisive Messages...

Perhaps the words of US President Barack Obama for the «Atlantic» magazine is the critical expression and most obvious truth of what the West has started to think. It was not by chance that the attack on yesterday's allies coincided with the European resolutions against the export of arms to Saudi Arabia. It is not by chance that all this attack on the Kingdom is associated with all this openness to Iran, and with the shift that grows day by day towards Syria, Hizbullah, and the Lebanese army.

Perhaps Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's signs to the possibility of Turkish decline regarding President Assad hold more than one message. He says this after the important Iran-Turkey meetings that have likely played a role in easing tensions, and may also play important roles in the future of Syria, especially in the Nordic region.

Sayyed Nasrallah's interview with my colleague, Ghassan Ben Jeddo, came at a critical Syria moment. Hizbullah's Secretary-General, like Assad, Iran, and Russia, realizes that the wind tended to their advantage. They also realize that "Israel" is incapable to accept this reality, which followed the western Iranian agreement. "Israel" must be warned from venturing. Hizbullah's accurate information confirms "Israel's" constant readiness for war. However, it probably does not want to cause panic in these historic moments as it reaps the fruits of the Syrian war. The US itself asked the Lebanese deputies who visited it to avoid provoking Hizbullah, which may push "Israel" into war.

What Sayyed Nasrallah said regarding the resistance's rockets that can reach any point in occupied Palestine and the list of nuclear targets and others, is unquestionable. "Israel" believes this speech and operates on its basis. It knows that strategic missiles have reached the resistance in the past years. There are no red lines with the resistance. When the Secretary-General says this, he does not want war but wants to avoid it, and wants to persuade "Israel" not to venture.

This is Europe's compulsory passageway

What Sayyed Nasrallah and Assad know is that, terrorism reaching the stage of bombings in the heart of Europe, in the likes of what happened yesterday in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, and before that in Paris, does not leave anymore space for doubt that the West is heading to cooperate more and more with Iran, the Syrian army, and Hizbullah exactly the same way it is cooperating with Russia.

Syria, Iran, and Hizbullah have become the necessary passageway for the West if it actually wanted to strike terrorism.

In such historical moments, the danger grows. Sayyed Nasrallah wanted to recall the red lines. Perhaps the other side will respond as it did more than once with bombings or break through attempts. But it seems that the Western world has become closer to the Russian view that says Assad, Iran, and Hizbullah are not the threat. Here is the core of the case.

Source: As-Safir Newspaper, Translated and Edited by website team