Following his fiery speech two weeks ago responding to the Israeli threats, Samir Geagea addressed to Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah a question on whether the Lebanese have delegated to him the responsibility of developing a defense strategy for a comprehensive confrontation with Israel. The answer to this question came in the tripartite summit that was held in Damascus between Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad, during which Sayyed Nasrallah looked like “the third president,” who speaks in Lebanon's name, represents it in an international meeting, and decides on its behalf to join a regional confrontation front. The delegation did not come from the Lebanese, and never will. However, since the rise of the party, this delegation has been coming from abroad, in accordance with the decision to establish the party and the goals its sponsors have identified. Therefore, the party considers that its mandate goes beyond Lebanon and extends to the entire region, including Gaza, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, and anywhere where the Iranian desires can adapt to the Lebanese partner. In this context, Hezbollah classifies itself at a higher rank than most of the other Lebanese parties; in charge of Lebanon and its people; and a supervisor of its politicians. As such, Nasrallah distributes certificates of good behavior in his speeches: The president's conduct was excellent in this issue and the prime minister's conduct is good in that matter. Then, he moves to identify taboos which the politicians and officials should not violate, warning against “dealing” with the American Embassy in issues identified as security ones, although Nasrallah is represented in the cabinet and his ministers could inquire about any issue and object to it before moving it to the street, let alone the fact that the capital where the summit convened is still “celebrating” the return of the American ambassador to it. So how could the improvement of the relationship with the Americans be considered a “national victory” there, while an open memorandum sent by the [American] embassy in Awkar to one of the ministries is considered a violation of national security and becomes an occasion to launch a campaign against the Americans and whoever “deals” with them? The answer lies perhaps in the pattern the party chooses, which is in this case an Iranian one that rejects any relationship with the “great Satan” as long as the latter still objects to Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapon. In the framework of the campaign launched against the Americans, it was noticeable that a Hezbollah deputy, who is a lawmaker, made statements that accuse all foreign, i.e. Western passport holders in Lebanon of “treason,” in a duplication of the Iranian model by which the party was inspired when it first started its action. We still see this model today in Iran, where restrictions are imposed on foreigners, particularly journalists, to the extent of arresting them. Moreover, fears of telecommunication means have led to banning the internet and blocking some websites. Who knows, the party's deputies might submit draft projects one day to ban westerners from entering Lebanon, or maybe to ban the teaching of foreign languages in schools. Some believe that accusing foreign passport holders of treason in advance is a prelude to prevent the endorsement of [a draft law] to allow the Lebanese expatriates, who are millions, to participate in the elections, because they are “suspects” who serve foreign interests! In a nutshell, as long as Hezbollah deals as though it is the power controlling the Lebanese decision-making, and as long as foreign sides play its known role in orienting this decision, then the national dialogue, which kicks off next week, is a mere attempt to pass the time, awaiting the changes that will occur to the regional equation, which Lebanon's interests are not part of.
