Ghassan Salibi from Annahar Newspaper - November 29, 2022
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , considered that "Iran's policy succeeded in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria ," which led to what he described as "the defeat of the United States" in these countries, stressing that " The Iranian role in the three countries contributed to the failure of the American project to strike Iran through them.
In his speech last Saturday before the "Popular Mobilization Forces," the Iranian leader stressed the importance of "geographical and geopolitical characteristics" for his country's policy, noting that "the Islamic Revolution changed the hearts of Iran's neighboring countries. And Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia," boasting from this standpoint that "the Islamic revolution spread to the peoples of the region and neighboring countries and brought about change in them."
Khamenei stressed that negotiating with the United States will not end the unrest that the country has been witnessing for two months, "because Washington will always demand more."
It is not new for an Iranian official to acknowledge his country's control over a group of Arab countries. What is new is that Khamenei personally states this clearly. Perhaps because his regime is being shaken by the popular uprising today, he wanted to send a message of "pride" in his achievements, to his people first, and to the outside world second, who accuse him of inciting the uprising. Khamenei's statement clarifies the Iranian role, which is to "thwart the American project," but not in defense of the Arab countries, as Nasrallah claims, for example, but rather because the American project was intended to "strike Iran through them." In other words, Khamenei does not pay any attention to the entities of these countries, in which interference, without their will, of course, is a way to defend Iran in the face of the United States of America. Knowing that the American-Israeli project did not fail, it is the sectarian fragmentation of the region, and this is exactly what the Iranian role that Khamenei praises has led to.
However, Khamenei again contradicts himself when he boasts that the Islamic Revolution has moved to neighboring countries, meaning that his presence in these countries was aimed at expanding the Islamic Revolution, and not with the motive of thwarting the American project. He aspires to change "the hearts of neighboring countries", that is, to Islamize them according to the doctrine of the rule of the jurist, and he considers that he has succeeded in that.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview he made a few days before Khamenei's statement, with a group of journalists "away from the limelight", "unveiling" him: "We supported Hezbollah, and we still support it, and we will continue to support it because it is a strategic ally of ours," expressing " Fearing for Lebanon and its future in light of the current reality, because it is the main side of Syria, and stability in it is very important for Syria.
The Assad regime has never hidden its interference in Lebanon or its support for Hezbollah, not out of concern for the Lebanese people or Lebanon, but because the latter is the "flank" of Syria. The Assad regime has always acted as if Lebanon was not an independent entity governed by a state.
Of course, it is remarkable that the two statements, which have their own impact in Lebanon, coincided with the election of a president of the republic, who seems to be pending a regional and international agreement, which evidence does not indicate is imminent, with Khamenei questioning the feasibility of negotiating with the United States, which always demands “more.” Perhaps Khamenei was hinting at Iran's recent concessions, by demarcating the borders with Israel in Lebanon, and facilitating the election of a president and the formation of a government in Iraq. Instead of rewarding it for that, the United States is now demanding more in the wake of the popular uprising in Iran, which it is accused of fueling.
Only two days after the statements of Khamenei and Al-Assad, Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi asked in his Sunday sermon from the Church of Maron in Rome: “What is meant? I erase the active Christian role in general and the Maronite in particular? The government immediately after the end of binding consultations? Is it more important than the head of state?”, warning that “Lebanon cannot wait for others to come to elect its president, especially since what is happening in the region does not necessarily promise solutions to existing problems, but rather the danger remains of the emergence of new wars that would lead to The complexity of the Lebanese solution.
The Patriarch is right to fear for the Christian and Maronite role, after all the developments in the region and in Lebanon. His fear was likely exacerbated by Khamenei's statement of "changing hearts" and the transmission of the Islamic Revolution to the peoples of the region. But the words of al-Assad and Khamenei are actually more dangerous than that, as they abolished the Lebanese entity in their statements. Will the patriarchate defend the entity that is subject to extinction, by adhering to the Christian-Maronite role only, even though most of the Lebanese are keen on the Christian role and the perpetuation of the entity, and they are resentful of the Iranian role? ? And if the opponent, who is linked to Khamenei and Assad, allows the Christians to maintain the position of the presidency, in the event that the demand is limited to this obsession, then will the patriarch accept a Christian president who resembles Emile Lahoud and Michel Aoun, as Nasrallah wants? Did the Maronite Patriarchate's reluctance to demand the overthrow of Lahoud and Aoun in the past protect the Christian role and save the entity from falling?
The Maronite community, headed by the Patriarchate, “made” the Lebanese entity with the aim of protecting the Christian and Maronite role, after the community expanded demographically, geographically, and economically. Is the concern today reversed, that is, protecting the role, even in the likeness of an entity, homeland, and state?
And if this new position is the result of the decline of the Christian presence and influence at all levels, and the lack of reliance currently on the guarantee provided by the entity and the existing central system in the constitution, after the dominance of "Hezbollah" over the state, then is it not better to express the position clearly, which is the preference for the system Expanded decentralization and work to endorse it, instead of just launching ambiguous positions, as if its owners were ashamed to propose what is commensurate with their current and strategic interest? Does moderation at the stage of exposing the entity to danger, in turn encourage the opponent to moderation? Previous experiences indicated the opposite. Here is the excellent Jaafari Mufti, Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan, and as usual after every statement by the patriarch, he confirms that "Lebanon's neutrality is forbidden, the time of Louis XIV is over, and broad decentralization is an existential danger."
What applies regarding the necessity of strategically correcting the positions of the Maronite Patriarchate also applies to the positions of most of the "change forces", which are still dealing with the presidential election and the fate of the entity, with a lightness that the supporters themselves can no longer bear. I have expanded on the analysis of this dilemma in my new book, published by Dar Saer Al-Mashreq, entitled “The Labyrinths of Change in the Age of Rejection.”
With repeated voting with the white paper, the white color "Bach" became yellowish, which deepened with the statements of Khamenei and Assad. And because we are in the World Cup football season, I borrow from him the meaning of the yellow card, which is the yellow card that the referee raises in the face of a player to warn him after he commits a mistake. And here are the deputies of the "defiance" raising the yellow card in the face of the parliament, to warn it against trying to repeat its fatal mistake against the "defiance", which is the commitment to the rules of democracy.
My, as always, gratitude to all my readers for their time with the blogs, stay safe and well.
No comments:
Post a Comment