Hezbollah now faces the worst crisis of its existence. It has thrown in its lot with a Lebanese regime widely perceived as both corrupt and incompetent; it has violently suppressed Lebanese protesting against that regime; it has shown it is not so much a leader of “national resistance” against Israel as it is Iran’s puppet, by following Tehran’s order to help Assad by sending thousands of its fighters to Syria. And it has lost a great deal of the funding from Iran it depends on, for Iran itself, with American sanctions reimposed, is deeply in debt.
Iran leaves countries so debilitated that its proxies end up controlling volatile and vulnerable sandcastles.
Lebanon’s bankruptcy means that if there were a war against Israel, the country would be unable to recover from the destruction the Israelis would necessarily cause in trying to destroy 140,000 missiles dispersed throughout Lebanon. Worse, because of Hezbollah, Lebanon has isolated itself from the Arab countries — the rich Gulf Arab states — that might once have been willing to finance its reconstruction, but that have no desire to help Lebanon if it continues to be run by Hezbollah and its allies. This time, the damage would be enduring; the rebuilding will take many years.
An impoverished Lebanese state, as already noted, would not be able to reconstruct the infrastructure that, in any future conflict, Israel will certainly destroy. As Hezbollah’s armory is now much larger and much more spread out –and still deliberately hidden in civilian areas — than the armory it had in 2006, the destruction will be much larger. If the Lebanese government were to ask the rich Arab oil states to help, they will refuse. They don’t want to help Hezbollah, hated by the Gulf Arabs as the proxy of Shi’a Iran, but will insist, as a condition of any financial aid to Lebanon, that Hezbollah agree to disarm. And that won’t happen.
Nor could Beirut call upon Iran, Hezbollah’s economically strangled sponsor, to help, as it simply lacks the means to do so.
In 2006, Iran was prospering mightily from its sales of oil. Today, those oil sales have declined by 90% in just a year, thanks to the reimposition of American sanctions. In 2018, just before those sanctions were reimposed, Iran’s oil output was 3.8 mbd. Now oil sales are about .25 mbd. Furthermore, the price of oil itself has declined by 60% in less than a year. The American government has also successfully pressured other countries to cease doing business with Iran altogether. Foreign investors have been scared off; so have potential trading partners. Just since 2018, the value of Iran’s currency has fallen by more than 60%. And that came on top of many previous years of steep decline.
There are no signs of improvement in Iran’s economy. That is why Iran has had to cut its $800 million-a-year subsidy to Hezbollah, though by what amount has not been made public. But it is known that the terror group has cut some salaries in half. Fighters are being furloughed or assigned to the reserves, where they receive lower salaries or no pay at all. Deliveries of food and medicines to the Shi’a poor – a useful recruiting tool – have ended. That’s how bad things have gotten for Hezbollah – and for its financier, Iran.
The rifts in the political class as a result of the popular protest movement mean that there is no discernible consensus to back Hezbollah in going to war.
Today, the party’s harshest critics come from its erstwhile allies in the Aounist movement, a predominantly Christian faction led by former foreign minister Gebran Bassil. Their criticisms may be linked to domestic disagreements, but when Ziad Aswad, a prominent Aounist, declares that Lebanon “cannot continue to hold a rifle when its people are hungry,” he expresses a widespread view.
Ziad Aswad is simply making an obvious point: for Lebanon, the choice is stark: “Guns or Butter?” Hezbollah has chosen guns, while the rest of the country has chosen – or wants to choose – butter. Hezbollah has captured the state, and is holding Lebanon hostage to its own fanatical desire to help Iran destroy Israel.
Without domestic backing, Hezbollah’s ability to wage war would be greatly hampered. The party would be blamed for sacrificing Lebanon for Iran. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Shiites would have to find refuge in areas hostile to the party, further stoking divisions and potentially leading to strife. This is a nightmare scenario for Hezbollah, as it could plunge the party into a civil conflict that it could not hope to win, nullifying its usefulness to Iran.
Hezbollah has already lost what domestic backing it may have had in Lebanon outside its own members. Its doing Iran’s bidding in Syria was the last straw for the Lebanese, who now see clearly that the terror group is a puppet of a foreign power, Iran. In a war, Israel would hit hardest the Hezbollah heartland in southern Lebanon, leading to hundreds of thousands of Shi’a, supporters of Hezbollah, to move elsewhere, into parts of the country populated by Sunnis and Christians. Those displaced Shi’a will not be welcomed by the Sunnis and Christians, who see them as supporters of Hezbollah, the instigator of a war with Israel that will inevitably lead to much destruction by Israel’s air force, seeking to find and destroy those 140,000 missiles Iran supplied to Hezbollah. If Sunnis and Christians attack the Shi’a moving into their villages, Hezbollah will necessarily enter this internal conflict to defend those Shi’a. That is indeed a “nightmare scenario” for Hezbollah, which would then be involved in a civil conflict with 60% of the Lebanese population, while at the same time trying to fight the Israelis. Just as Hezbollah can no longer count on its previous level of financial support from Iran, Iran can no longer count on military support from Hezbollah, weakened both by Israel’s relentless campaign to destroy its armory of missiles, and by the opposition of nearly two-thirds of the Lebanese, and the enmity of the Lebanese army.
Yet that usefulness is questionable even today. Hezbollah has hubristically assumed that Lebanon is solidly in the Iranian camp. Its command of the state may be assured to an extent, but its command over society is not. And even then, key outposts of the state, such as the army, merely play along with Hezbollah but remain autonomous and would manoeuvre away from the party if the power balance shifted.
Hezbollah has sided with the government against those many Lebanese protesters who have taken to the streets to demand that not just the leaders of the present government, but the entire corrupt class of the Lebanese elite, resign en masse. Hassan Nasrallah has directed his bezonians to beat up and suppress those taking part in these non-violent protests. This is why the protesters, who continue to show up (save for two months when the coronavirus kept them off the streets), now denounce not only the government, but Hezbollah itself. Nasrallah could have chosen to back the protesters but he did not; he picked the side of the government, underestimating the determination of the protesters to keep going, and the fury his actions have provoked among the great majority of Lebanese.
Another factor fundamental in determining Hezbollah’s latitude to engage in war with Israel is the situation in Syria. Until the start of Syria’s civil war in 2011, Damascus provided Hezbollah with potential strategic depth in any war. Weapons and men could be moved through Syrian territory to reinforce the party in Lebanon. But today, much of Syria’s airspace is controlled by Russia and Israel, both of whom would oppose, by action or omission, Syria’s transformation into an Iranian forward base.
The Israeli Air Force has conducted hundreds of sorties against the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and Iranian bases in Syria, with losses in the low single digits. It controls much of the Syrian airspace. Iran has thus found it impossible to deliver precision-guided missiles or other advanced weaponry to Hezbollah; the Israeli air campaign has managed to prevent nearly all such deliveries. Further, the IAF has been systematically reducing to rubble Iranian bases being built in Syria. By early June, Iran appeared to have decided that it no longer made sense to remain, and now appears to be pulling out of Syria altogether.
Iran’s regional strategy involves feeding off the weaknesses of institutions in many Arab countries to advance its own interests. Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria have all paid a price. In each, Tehran built up autonomous armed groups that counterbalanced state structures, eroding the state. Indeed, Iran gains influence by destroying its host.
Today, Hezbollah’s ability to carry the Lebanese state and society in the direction of its own regional preferences, strong-arm Lebanon’s sects into approving its actions and secure legitimacy from the country’s leaders has been crippled. The party remains powerful, but the foundations on which it built its order in Lebanon have collapsed. Perhaps that’s the problem in Iran’s approach: it leaves countries so debilitated that its proxies end up controlling volatile and vulnerable sandcastles.
As Iran looks at Lebanon, what does it see? It sees its local ally presiding over a state in ruin whose population is angry and refuses to suffer for Tehran. Nor can Hezbollah go to war against Israel without potentially destroying its own domestic standing. All of that won’t make the Iranians alter their strategy, but it does raise real questions about the value of that strategy today
When Nasrallah answered Iran’s command and sent thousands of Hezbollah fighters to help Assad kill fellow Muslims in Syria, he demonstrated that the terror group was a puppet of the Islamic Republic and not, as it claimed, a purely Lebanese “resistance movement” defending the state against the Zionists. When he took the side of the Lebanese government against huge popular protests that spread all over Lebanon, and even had his fighters violently suppress those protests, he embraced the corrupt elite that the vast majority of Lebanese wanted to see replaced with a government of technocrats. When he threatens war with Israel, he fills most Lebanese with dread, for they know what happened to their country’s infrastructure during the last Israel-Hezbollah War in 2006. They would like not to dragged into Hezbollah’s bellicose plans. They desire only a Lebanese government of technocrats intent on saving the nation’s economy, and just as important, they would like their national army to be strengthened sufficiently, with Western or Gulf Arab military aid, to be able to face down Hezbollah, which has brought Lebanon nothing but misery and woe.
Walter Sieruk says
Hezbollah ,regardless of how strong or not , is that Islamic terror entity not , the point is that Hezbollah is based on Islam and Islam is based on the belief that the founder of prophet is an actual prophet of God.
The imams as well as the mullahs and the other apologists for Islam do often quote the Old Testament book of the Bible of the of Deuteronomy 18:18 as “proof” that the coming the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was predicted in the Bible.
For this verse reads “I will raise up a Prophet from among the brethren , like unto thee, and I will put my words in his month; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” [K.J.V.]
To examine this verse in the entire light of the Bible does reveal the real identity of this coming Prophet.
For example the part of that verse which reads “I will put my words in his month; he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” This was fulfilled centuries later by Jesus Who declared “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which send me, he gave me a command, what I should say, and what I should speak.” John 12:49.
Concerning the first part of that verse which is “I will raise up a Prophet from among the brethren, like unto thee. …” The three specific words “like unto thee.” God speaking to Moses and” like unto thee” meaning, as similar to Moses. There are in, fact, many similarities between Moses and Jesus.
So a Christian pastor and author had written and book [1] listing some, but not all of the similarities between Moses and Jesus. Listed are some clear points he gave in this comparing Moses with Jesus.
The author gave after the different points of comparison on the number the points gave much detail to back those points up. So listed here are some of them but not the added details the writer gave back up the claims in the points given.
The words in brackets are my own to make things more clear for some people
In his book the points are listed under the heading “Parallels between Moses and Jesus”
[I] Both Moses and Jesus were born in a period when Israel was under foreign rule.
[II] Cruel kings decided that both Moses and Jesus should be killed as infants.
[III] The faith of both Moses’ and Jesus’ parents saved their lives.
[IV] Both Moses and Jesus found protection for a time with the people of Egypt.
[V] Both Moses and Jesus displayed unusual wisdom and understanding.
[VI] Both Moses’ and Jesus’ characters were marked by meekness and humility.
[VII] Both Moses and Jesus were completely faithful to God [The Father]
[VIII] Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by Israel for a time.
[IX]Both Moses and Jesus were criticized by their brothers and sisters.
[X] Both Moses and Jesus were received by Gentiles after being rejected by Israel.
[XI] Both Moses and Jesus prayed asking forgiveness for God’s people.
[XII] Both Moses and Jesus were willing to bear the punishment of God’s people.
[XIII] Both Moses and Jesus went up into a high mountain to have communism with God, [the Father] taking some of their closest friends with them.
[XIV] After their mountaintop experiences, both Moses’ and Jesus’ faces shone with supernatural glory.
[XV] God [the Father] spoke audibly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus.
[XVI] Moth Moses’ and Jesus’ places of burial were attended by angles.
[XVIII] Both Moses and Jesus appeared alive after their deaths.
The Christian author and pastor after providing that above list further wrote
“These are a few of the scriptural comparisons of Moses and Jesus….”
So now everyone may see, but only those who are willing to see, that Deuteronomy 18:18 was a Old Testament prophecy referring exclusively only to Jesus, and to Him alone.
[1] JERUSALEM COUNTDOWN by John Hagee, pages 179,176.
I love Iblis says
islam the new nazism
Tony Naim says
For Hizballa, the American sanctions are considered another form of struggle against the US and Israel, that calls for continued resistance.
They will continue to suck Lebanon dry with impunity because no other party inside the country enjoys a similar external support like they have to stand in their face.
Iran and Hizballah are waiting for the next presidential elections in November. They still hope a Biden win will reinvigorate the deal made with Obama to supply Iran with $150 billion .
However, if President Trump is re-elected, Iran’s fate and that of Hizballa, will be sealed.
Walter Sieruk says
It doesn’t matter in the long run if Hezbollah is now losing power or achieving yet more power. This because that Islamic terror entity is fated to lose in the end in its goal to destroy Israel and replace her with an Islamic “state.”
This is because the God of the Bible has overruled Hezbollah, for the Lord God Almighty is for the State of Israel.
For the Bible reveals to its reader in Psalm 125:4 “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His special treasure.”
gravenimage says
How Weak Is Hezbollah? (Part 2)
………………
I hope it implodes.
Brian B. says
Like any parasite, Iran’s regional strategy involves feeding off the weaknesses of many Arab Shi’ite countries to advance its own interests. Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria are all examples and who have all paid a huge price. In each, Tehran built up autonomous armed groups that counterbalanced state structures, eroding the state. Indeed, Iran gains influence by destroying its host.