The assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah on September 27 constituted a major threat/ September A shock and a strong blow to the deterrence force, which constitutes a fundamental pillar of the strength and legitimacy of the resistance inside Lebanon. As is known, the assassination occurred after a series of strikes carried out by the Israeli occupation against the party, starting with the bombing of communications devices and ending with the assassination of a number of leaders, which constituted a turning point that opened the door to questions about the violations and security gaps that Hezbollah suffers from, leading to raising the question about its ability To confront Israel and achieve the goals he set at the beginning of his involvement in the war on the front that he called “the Front of Support for the People of Gaza and their Resistance.”
So, Israel took its decision to escalate completely and to play on the edge of the abyss on the Lebanon front, which may develop into a regional war at any moment, taking advantage of the absolute Western support for it, especially from the United States of America, which not only supports the occupation in its war on Gaza and Lebanon, but She is also his actual partner in financing, arming, participating, and supervising the development of plans in the war in periodic meetings that she holds with officers of the occupation army, whether in Tel Aviv, or on the northern front on the border with Lebanon.
Hence, as of the writing of these lines, the United States is still adopting a policy of evasion and escape through its repeated disavowal of the Israeli attacks on the Lebanese capital, Beirut, specifically with regard to the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and through its continuous calls for the so-called “reduction Violence in Lebanon and a ceasefire,” which is the same scenario that it has adopted in the war on Gaza for a year until this moment.
Here, Iran is present in all this scene. Since the death of former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian in a mysterious helicopter crash, and the election of the new president of the Islamic Republic, a clear change can be observed in the official media statements with which President-elect Masoud Pezeshkian opened his term regarding Iran’s policy in dealing with the course of the war on… Gaza in general and Lebanon in particular, up to the assassination of Nasrallah.
The change in leadership in Iran was accompanied by a change in the Iranian tone, so that the Iranian approach, so to speak, moved from threatening to wipe out Israel to messages of verbal support for both the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine without any direct interference from it, and declaring repeatedly that it does not want to expand the war in Area. This coincided with sending direct messages to the United States of America, as the current Iranian president expressed more than once “the desire to establish friendly relations and coordination with the American administration.”
All of this indicated possible changes in Iranian politics and diplomacy, which its opponents used to target it and try to separate it from the resistance movements, which had long been considered its main sponsor, which prompted a large segment of the Resistance Axis audience to raise cautious question marks about its new media policy.
Iran found itself obliged to re-correct its media discourse to reduce the state of anger that appeared in the Arab street after the assassination
Just as the assassination of Nasrallah constituted a painful blow to the resistance in Lebanon and raised question marks about the role of this resistance and its shape in the future if it fails to restore deterrence power, it also placed Iran in a major dilemma, starting with its role and position in the current balance of power in the region, all the way to… Questioning its credibility. The statements that accompanied and followed the assassination of Nasrallah reinforced this skepticism, as it was directly accused of failing to protect its most important and strongest ally in the region, which is considered the second blow against it after the assassination of the head of the Hamas political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, in its backyard.
Hence, Iran found itself obliged to re-correct its media discourse to reduce the state of anger that appeared in the Arab street in general, and among its allies in particular, after the assassination.
Here, we must remember the role that Nasrallah played over the decades in trying to improve Iran’s image in the region and establish its presence as an ally of the Arab peoples, based on the focus in all his speeches on its role in supporting the resistance, whether in Lebanon or in Palestine against Israel, at a time when most of The countries of the region are moving with rapid steps towards normalization with the entity.
So, the hostility with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict formed the fulcrum or broad title through which Iran worked for decades to play an active role in the Arab region, benefiting from Arab weakness on this issue and from political differences between Arab countries.
In 1 October/ In October, Iran surprised the world with a sudden military response against Israel, despite American leaks about the Islamic Republic’s intention to launch a military strike a few hours before zero hour. The truth is that the military response and initial entry into the war line is a necessity required primarily by Iranian interests, on several levels in form, role, and image in the region, whether among allies or adversaries, all the way to Iranian national security.
During the war, Israel was able to exploit the policy of what is known as “strategic patience” followed by both the resistance in Lebanon and the Iranian leadership, and to follow a policy of attrition based on scoring points for several factors, the most important of which is the attempt to avoid the outbreak of a regional war, which is the war that Netanyahu aspires to. The latter directed his first painful blow to the resistance axis by blowing up communications devices, then followed it with a series of assassinations of leaders in Hezbollah, leading up to directing the largest and most dangerous blow by assassinating the Secretary-General.
All of these steps cannot be separated from the great Israeli project, which is to encircle Iran and strike it directly militarily, on the one hand, and change the geographical and political reality in the Arab region, from Palestine to Lebanon and a number of Arab countries, on the other hand.
Netanyahu’s raising the level of his direct challenge to Iran coincided with statements about Israel’s success in breaching not only Hezbollah’s security system, but also Iran itself, and was accompanied by news about the Iranian leader’s personal transfer to a safe place. For fear of being assassinated, an indication of the weakness in the Iranian security system and absolute Israeli superiority.
Therefore, Iran, whose President admitted that it had fallen into the trap of the American deception regarding the truce, had to respond with stronger and more effective military action than the first showy response, to maintain its deterrence power, and thus to protect its national security. This was followed by its announcement of its readiness to strike Israel with greater force, and to attack the interests of everyone who participates in the occupation by striking it if it were responded to.
As for the popular level, Iran succeeded greatly in not only quickly absorbing the anger of the Arab street, especially the public supporting what is known as the axis of resistance, but it was also remarkably able to reduce the regional popular alignment against it. Most of the Arab street, after the Iranian response, expressed its support for these strikes, especially those who are against Iran sectarianly and politically, and we are now reading more about calls for Sunni-Shiite unity to confront the Israeli occupation in support of Gaza and Lebanon.
This scene cannot be ignored because of its symbolism and its repercussions on the Arab region. Rather, it raises the debate once again about the effectiveness and role of Arab countries in the struggle against Israel. Until this moment, it is not possible to talk about an effective position of the Arab countries, which constitutes an additional failure of the Arab presence in Arab issues, especially the Palestinian issue, which moved most of the peoples of the world to demand an end to the war and an end to the occupation in Palestine.
For several years, a huge media machine was formed in the world, especially in the Arab region, which worked to demonize the resistance movements and accuse them of being dependent on Iran, and thus to increase the Sunni-Shiite division in the region, by accusing Iran of exploiting Arab issues to serve its interest. Of course, it cannot be denied that Iran, as a regional power, is working to achieve its own interest, taking advantage of Arab disintegration and weakness, especially regarding the Palestinian issue, and benefiting from the strength of the rising resistance movements that it directly supports with funding and arming, to stabilize and consolidate its role as a major player in the region.
After the October 7 operation, the peoples of the region, with all their divisions, were thirsty to deal a painful blow to the Israeli occupation that would restore some of their morale and dignity and take revenge on Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, in light of unprecedented Arab weakness in the face of unprecedented Israeli crime against the Palestinian people, and arrogance that had reached the point of He went as far as threatening to attack anyone in the world who does not like Israel without deterrence, and threatening to reshape the Middle East.
As expected, Israeli criminality played a major and pivotal role in thwarting the attempts of the countries that normalized with the entity to market its legitimacy and integrate it into the region, despite all the massive media pumping and policies that were put in place to drop the Palestinian issue from Arab consciousness, or at the very least reshape it according to the normalization trend.
Western countries, especially the United States of America, are redrawing the road map for their strategy in the region by using their tool Israel, whose prime minister’s megalomania has not posed any direct threat to its interests until this moment.
So does Iran, which succeeded in creating a breach, albeit partial and temporary, in the Arab street. Of course, it will attract more sympathy if it is exposed to an Israeli attack, which will push it to respond stronger inside occupied Palestine, and at the same time it will negotiate to ensure its stability through a show of force and opening diplomatic channels with the West, especially the American administration.
Between the assassination of Nasrallah and the Iranian response, the West redraws the region to suit its strategic interests, and Iran wins a round, albeit temporarily, while awaiting the Israeli response. It attempts to reformulate its policy in a way that suits its interests and role in the region, so the only and constant question remains: Where are the Arab countries? What role does she have in everything that happens?
The opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera Network.
