By videoconference, in a well-lit hall of the Imam Hussein mosque and with an expectant crowd outside, in Nabatiya, in southern Lebanon, territory of Hizbullah or the Party of God, Hasan Nasrallah gave his long-awaited speech yesterday with one of quicklime for some and desert sand for others. War, but without war, you could say. Or, in other terms, which were very expected, the war between Hizbullah and Israel has already existed since October 8 and we cannot wait any longer.
This has to be enough for the Lebanese population, who are not up for adventures, unless there is a major provocation. Nothing to do with the 33-day war of July 2006, in which the aviation of Israeli General Dan Halutz crushed Lebanon and, however, Hizbullah emerged victorious: the powerful Merkaba tanks got stuck when they entered the south of the country, the soldiers Israeli reservists were trapped in the towns of southern Lebanon at the mercy of guerrillas who appeared from tunnels and evacuating them became a humiliating mission. Hizbullah emerged triumphant from the ashes of the Beirut neighborhood of Daniyah in a way that no one expected and that (apart from the usual propaganda of this political-military organization, or that of Hamas, according to which they are never defeated, they always win) outraged the leadership and Israeli public opinion. Sheikh Nasrallah then emerged as a war leader, at a much higher level than his contemporary and Iraqi Shiite leader, Moqtada al Sadr, then younger, but very hardworking in the fight against the American invader.
Al Sadr and Nasrallah are the two great values of Iran in the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the US, the first perhaps more conflictive at times, the second much more decisive due to its proximity to the Zionist enemy and its power. of fire, perhaps some 50,000 militiamen. Hence the magnified image of Nasrallah. But not only for that: his men have fought in a decade of combat in Syria against the rebellion and its opportunistic byproducts of jihadism represented by Al Nusra (Syrian version of Al Qaeda) and the Islamic State. We must remember how, fearing the further strengthening of Hizbullah, in 2015 Israel welcomed wounded people from Al Nusra in its hospitals across the Golan. Likewise, Israel has been bombing targets in Syria that respond to Hizbullah interests, meaning the transit of Iranian weapons. If in 2006 the Shiite militia could fire Grad rockets – then even better known as katiusha – and some very erratic Syrian Fajr missiles, the danger to Israel could now be much more serious.
That is why the words of the Hizbullah leader were expected after so many days of bombings in Gaza.
Nasralah is the son of refugees from the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) who ended up emigrating to the south of the country. The young Hasan did not align himself with the then predominant left, but was more attracted to the turbans of the clerics. First associated with the Shiite Amal ("hope") movement, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 would definitively mark its destiny. In 1997 he lost a son in combat, and, when Israel withdrew from the country in 2000, Hizbullah and Nasrallah claimed victory.
Yesterday, the leader had two options: launch the war or dissemble. In the first case, it can be assumed that he would agree with Iran. But Nasrallah was careful to say that his great ally had nothing to do with the Hamas attack on October 7 (nor did he). Iran, he said, “does not exercise guardianship” over the leadership of the “Axis of Resistance.” He then chose to assume that Hizbullah is already at war with Israel (even if it is of low intensity). Will it seem enough for his followers? Nasrallah said the “sacrifices” lay “the foundation of a new era for the people of the region,” which is in line with Iran's version that “the resistance's response to the bombing of Gaza will change the map of the occupied territories. And let everyone understand it as they want.
