Speaker Nabih Birri probably wishes he was as reassured as British Foreign Minister William Hague, who appeared confident that Lebanon's stability will not be affected by the European Union's decision to place the so-called military wing of Hezbollah on the terrorism list. And while it was noticeable that some Syrian official media outlets went beyond the party's reaction to what Birri described as being a conspiracy, which is closer to an attempt to suffocate Lebanon and not just Hezbollah through the European decision, the other paradox is that this EU step coincided with threats by the so-called An-Nusra Front to launch an open confrontation with the party, one which is not limited to an arena or a front. On the eve of the European decision and after its issuance, circles thought to be close to Hezbollah confirmed the infiltration of Takfiris on the Lebanese scene to expand the scope of the fierce war in Syria. In addition, fears emerged over the targeting of the UNIFIL troops spread south of the Litani River as a reaction to the decision, which is why Speaker Birri stressed on their stay. In reality, there is no doubt that Hezbollah can exercise self-restraint especially in light of its preoccupation with its war on Syrian soil, one that is considered to aim to "protect the resistance." However, fifth columns might provoke clashes with UNIFIL to implicate the party and facilitate its accusation of retaliating for the Europeans' decision. On the other hand, it was natural for Israel to celebrate the decision, at a time when Benjamin Netanyahu recognized that he accompanied its difficult birth and interfered in it until the last moment. But what is not natural is for Lebanese politicians to assume that the European Union has no choice but to treat Lebanon like a spoiled child, no matter how disruptive or unruly it is. After the decision's birth, the Europeans practically recognized that the placement of Hezbollah's military wing on the terrorism list was a mere symbolic step, but is definitely a pressuring message in the hope that the party's command would reassess its decision to participate in the war in defense of the Syrian regime until the end. Still, this step was justified to the EU governments based on the European timing, especially after the balance of power along the Syrian fronts tilted in favor of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, owing to Iranian-Russian support and the help offered by elements from Hezbollah to regain control over areas seized by the Free Army and the opposition fighters. This was followed by further embarrassment for the Americans and Europeans in particular, seeing how they rushed to arm the opposition at first, then retreated out of fear from An-Nusra Front and the extremists. And while the paradoxical question is related to the reason why the Europeans are punishing Hezbollah although the two have a common enemy in the Syrian war (i.e. An-Nusra Front and dozens of Takfiri brigades), what is certain is that the Lebanese scene, which is oscillating along loose security strings, has become an extension of this war's fires. In addition, the threats of the leader of An-Nusra, i.e. Al-Golani, to Hezbollah - which coincided with the issuance of the European decision and under the pretext of the Sunnis' cornering in Lebanon - will only enhance the new map of the conflict inside and over Syria, both on Syrian soil and across the crumbling border with Lebanon. To those fond of the flourishing talk about "conspiracies" in parallel to the regional winds of the Arab spring, the European decision aimed to increase Hezbollah's implication in the battle that will determine the fate of the Syrian regime, which would eventually extend the war so that it undermines what is left of Syria and its unity. This is due to the fact that no sane person would believe that military commanders in the party have accounts in Swiss, French or German banks, or that the party's supporters in its nurturing environment have projects in Europe to fund it. As for the chances of seeing the "message" change the direction of Hezbollah's weapons, everyone knows they are almost non-existent, ever since it decided to engage in the war with direct Iranian sponsorship. At the level of the Lebanese timing, Parliament Speaker Nabih Birri believes that the Europeans' decision was very wrong, considering that it did not take into account all the efforts being deployed to distance the country from vacuum. Birri did not disregard the possibility of seeing the decision create "illusions among internal powers," in reference to the March 14 forces, which might use it to increase the pressures on Hezbollah. And although the parliament speaker did not confirm that the European step constituted an attempt to "tighten the noose" around the party's or Lebanon's neck, what is certain at the very least is that supporters of the March 14 forces believe that the time is right to trade the party's calls for the revival of national dialogue to the formation of the non-partisan government. Once again, there is a return to square one at the level of the Lebanese tug of war between the shocked, the astonished, the regretful and the concerned over Lebanon, its security and economy, knowing that the latter are not reassured by the reiteration of the European commitments regarding the non-severance of dialogue with Hezbollah and the insistence on the loose line between what is political and what is military in the party that does not want to fight on Lebanese soil. But is this not a sufficient security guarantee and a reason to open the file of the defensive strategy?!
