The secretary general of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, spoke Wednesday on the 11th anniversary of the liberation of South Lebanon. One of the most eloquent parts of the speech came when Nasrallah addressed "our Arab peoples," warning that "you will find yourselves once again in the arms of the Americans, and if you want to go back to the Americans, then stay where you are." Sayyed Nasrallah certainly didn't mean to put Arab peoples before one of two options: either revolution that seeks democracy and regime change, and takes a clear stance against America and a commitment to supporting the resistance to confront Israel, or, retaining the current regimes, along with their subservience to America and their rhetoric against Israel, in parallel with their clandestine complicity with the Jewish state, opening channels of negotiation and settlement with Tel Aviv in order to protect the leaders of these regimes. Nasrallah is aware of the internal reasons for these Arab revolutions, against oppression, injustice, humiliation, corruption and blind dictatorship, which cannot be held back after the wall of fear has collapsed, wherever this may take place. However, Nasrallah's use of the phrase "stay where you are," even though it was metaphorical, reveals a bit of anxiety on Hezbollah's part, vis-à-vis the historical political changes underway in the region, and their relationship to Hezbollah's orientations and political objectives. Like Iran, he partly had hoped that these transformations, from when they began in Tunisia and particularly Egypt, and before they spread to other countries, particularly Syria, would lead to a new regional equation: changing regimes would bring about a new axis, or form of cooperation, among Egypt, Iran, Syria and Turkey, with other countries hovering in this orbit, along with forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas, while Lebanon, by virtue of its internal balance of power, would be a part of this framework. This presumed form of cooperation would be a result of the Arab revolutions, which was expressed by Iranian officials when they discussed the notion of an Islamic Middle East. The hope of such regional cooperation is legitimate, and aspects of such a scenario might appear later on, as regional transformations continue. This is because such cooperation will give the Arabs and Muslim states huge weight on the international scene, in the face of American policies toward the region, especially with regard to Palestine, especially if Gulf countries, and particularly Saudi Arabia, end up being a part of this cooperation. However, a state of harmony between the democratic transformation in a number of states that are experiencing popular revolutions, and these countries' foreign policies, will come about gradually. These countries' national and strategic interests, and capabilities, will be a part of the calculations, and the cooperation will have limits that are different from those hoped for by Hezbollah and Iran, which involve an intersection between the requirements of confronting Israel, and the confrontation that Iran is waging against the West over its nuclear program. Among the examples of the "ceiling" under which new regimes are functioning, as their process of change continues and becomes complete, are a series of actions by Egypt: opening the Rafah crossing, sponsoring the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and re-thinking the low-priced contracts for the country's natural gas to Israel. These are gradual steps on the way to creating new policies in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, which will see Egypt and other countries that are experiencing a democratic transition to reclaim their role on this front, after Iran compensated for their absence. This anxiety about the Arab transformations' impact on the regional equation lies on one side of the balance, while on the other, there is anxiety about the situation in Syria. This is particularly because Nasrallah spoke clearly and realistically about the situation, and avoided any "gambling" on this score. He did not echo Syrian state media's rhetoric, by accusing Syrian demonstrators of being part of terrorist or Salafi groups, and maintaining that they were carrying out a foreign conspiracy. Nasrallah spoke about the Syrian leadership desiring reform and called on Syrians "to give the Syrian leadership the opportunity to cooperate with all segments of the people, to carry out reforms and select the path of dialogue, and not confrontation." It was natural for Nasrallah to not appear anxious about the campaign by United States President Barack Obama and the Israeli prime minister against Hezbollah, since he was speaking on an occasion to symbolize the victory the party achieved by forcing Israel to withdraw from the South in 2000, and its victory over Israel in July 2006, in a manner that altered the formula of its confrontation with Israel. However, the worrying part is that Sayyed Nasrallah did not appear anxious about the Lebanese domestic situation, because of the vacuum in the government, the deepening divisions, and the challenges, whether or not these are publicly expressed. In his speech, Nasrallah even ignored the call by his rivals, and particularly caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, to mark a day that requires taking stock of the situation – they had called for a strengthening of the bonds of national unity and a restoration of communication among the Lebanese. This is why the Lebanese should be even more anxious.
