inside Hezbollah terror tunnel
inside Hezbollah terror tunnelscreenshot

The dialectical relationship between Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs' regime and the Lebanese State does not need much explanation or interpretation. The leader of the party, Hassan Nasrallah, is threatening to ignite a regional war without consultation with the Lebanese State.

Nasrallah, who previously expressed his ambition for Lebanon to be part of the “Greater Islamic Republic” that is ruled and controlled by the leaders of the mullahs' regime, does not leave an occasion or a speech without stressing loyalty to the orders and instructions of the Iranian Supreme Leader, seeing the latter a “leader of the resistance”, without the slightest consideration for the Lebanese State, its strategic interests, and its regional and international relations!

In short, there is no need to repeat the effort to prove the depth, strength, and complexity of the ideological, organizational and financial ties between the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs’ regime. One click on the computer is sufficient to verify the complexity of that relationship and the abundance of evidence that proves it without the slightest doubt.

Therefore, I am not going to prove this stable and solid relationship, but I refer to the increasing manifestations of the Lebanese party's dependence on the mullahs' regime and its desire to exploit Lebanon's complicated circumstances at the current stage to consolidate the Iranian role in Lebanon.

For starters, Nasrallah recently demanded accepting an Iranian offer to supply fuel. He said “Iran’s offer to send fuel to Lebanon in the Lebanese currency still stands, but we need a bold political decision,” declaring that “if the State remains inactive, we will go to Iran and negotiate with the Iranian government and buy petrol and diesel ships and bring them to the port of Beirut and let the State prevent the entry of those ships into Lebanon!”

It is true that Hezbollah and its leader do not owe allegiance to the Lebanese State, and insist on declaring their subordination to the Iranian Supreme Leader, but the continuation of this dual identity is not only a copy of what is happening in other Arab countries such as Yemen and Iraq but reflects the essence of the crisis in these countries. That can best be described as transnational loyalties and ideological affiliations that act as proxies in the mullahs' interest.

The question now is: Is it possible to dismantle the armed ideological axis led by the mullahs in the Arab countries? Is it possible for the sectarian militias in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen to join national armies, or is it possible to disarm these militias and make their parties get satisfied with national political action?

The answer is that the mullahs’ regime has a regional sectarian project and has invested tens of billions of dollars in achieving this goal through loyal sectarian agents and arms that are now moving with signals from the leaders of the Revolutionary Guards. And because involvement in these militias has become a source of income for hundreds of thousands of elements in these countries, it is difficult to end the role of these militias in the foreseeable future, unless the Iranian expansion in neighboring countries is curbed directly or indirectly.

The truth is that the Lebanese “Hezbollah” and the “Houthi” militia and the armed Shiite organizations in Iraq are a “symptom” of the Iranian disease and not the cause of this disease, which is represented by the mullahs’ belief in the project of exporting the Revolution and establishing what they call the “Great Islamic republic” that owes allegiance to the Supreme Leader.

Therefore; curbing the influence of this expansionist regime and forcing it to the limits of its international responsibilities contained in the Charter of the United Nations is a necessary step, but the effectiveness of this step remains dependent, to a large extent, on the unity of the national forces in the Arab countries that suffer from this scourge in order to confront the direct and indirect Iranian interference in these countries. This is in addition to the role of major powers that suffer from divisions in their attitudes towards the behavior of the mullahs’ regime, whether with regard to the nuclear program or the geographical expansion that violates the sovereignty of neighboring countries and flouts the principles of the United Nations and its Charter.

Certainly, security and stability in the Middle East region will remain a distant dream as long as the militias and their leaders remain as parallel States, governments and armies. The issue here is not only related to challenging the authority and influence of the State, but is mainly related to the existence of an arm that possesses armament capabilities that exceed the national armies in their countries and operate and follow the orders of foreign countries!

No one will argue with me by saying that Israel and its conflict with the Palestinian Arabs is the reason for the mullahs to spread these sectarian militias. The Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and the Houthi group in Yemen have nothing to do with "Palestine" and the Palestinians, even if they entered the cause recently by threatening to join a regional war led by what is known as the Axis of Resistance in defense of Palestinian Arab rights,.

Everyone knows that the Iranian project has nothing to do with this cause, even if it raises slogans in favor of the cause just for the sake of making it an object of transaction, and the leaders of these organizations and groups are at the forefront of those who realize this fact.

The hijacking of decisions in some Arab countries by pro-Iranian militias, groups and parties remains one of the most serious dilemmas that need urgent solutions, and the solution will not be through dialogue with the mullahs’ regime, as it is believed, but primarily begins with restricting its movement and ability to finance and arm these arms. It will only be reached through the unity of the positions of the major powers and the conviction of all that the continuation of this situation represents a danger whose negative repercussions will not be far from the interests of any of these powers.