PNN – Sheikh Naim Qassem’s recent speech on Arbaeen al-Husseini (AS) was one of Hezbollah’s most explicit and decisive positions in the face of internal and external pressures to disarm.
The recent speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem on the Arbaeen of Imam Hussein (AS) is considered a turning point in Lebanon’s political and security conflict. This speech was one of Hezbollah’s most explicit and decisive positions in the face of internal and external pressures to disarm. These statements were not only presented as a final argument against the Lebanese government and international supporters of the disarmament plan, but also revealed deep layers of political strategy, national identity, and power equations in the region.
The key phrase of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, The resistance will not surrender its weapons… We will enter the Battle of Karbala if necessary, is not merely a religious metaphor, but rather expresses a profound understanding of the balance of power and the dangers facing Lebanon.
In a situation where external pressures and hasty domestic decisions have joined hands to disrupt Lebanon’s defense equation, this position shows that Hezbollah is prepared to pay the heaviest possible price for its survival and continuation of its role.
Read more:
The Zionist Regime and the Hezbollah Disarmament Project: An Attempt to Dominate the Entire Region
Strategic warning
If we want to read the meaning of Naim Qassem’s warning about disarming Hezbollah in the current political context of Lebanon, we can say that Naim Qassem clearly outlined a principle: The issue of weapons of resistance is not a simple political option, but a matter of existence and survival. In other words, trying to disarm without a defensive alternative plan is nothing more than opening the country’s gates to an enemy that has always wanted to weaken Lebanon. This is what elevates his speech beyond an emotional slogan to the level of a strategic warning.
The government’s departure from the logic of national partnership
In his speech, Naeem Qassem pointed out that the government had acted contrary to previous commitments, including the ministerial statement and the text of the presidential oath. These documents clearly emphasized the need to formulate a national security and defense strategy, but instead of designing such a strategy, the government suddenly moved towards disarming the resistance.
This action means nothing more than a departure from the logic of national partnership and coexistence pact. In a system like Lebanon, which is based on a delicate balance of clans, removing a fundamental component is not a reform, but rather a disruption of the survival equation.
Hezbollah’s opponents tried to portray this stance as a threat to civil war, but a closer look shows that Naim Qassem spoke not of war but of sedition. He warned that the consequences of the government’s decision could drag the country into a domestic crisis, and the responsibility for this would lie with the government itself, which had succumbed to external pressure.
Key question
However, the key question is what role will the Lebanese army play in such an equation? The army is now in a position where, on the one hand, it is obliged to implement the government’s decision, and on the other hand, any practical action against the resistance could plunge this institution into a devastating crisis. In other words, the crisis ball has been thrown into the army’s court, and there is a risk that the army will be drawn into internal conflict, which would not only destroy its national credibility but could also put Lebanon on the path to full-scale war.
Beyond domestic actors, the hand of foreigners is also clearly visible. The experience of recent years has shown that Israel has never given up on its military defeats and has constantly sought indirect ways to strike at the resistance. Netanyahu’s open welcome of the Lebanese government’s decision shows that Tel Aviv has found its tool this time in the official structure of the Beirut government. In parallel, pressure from the United States and some Arab countries has also been used to engineer the political atmosphere in Lebanon to place the resistance in a difficult position.
But the danger does not end there. Plans are being formed, including the instrumental use of the Syrian refugee crisis. Some Western circles believe they can use this population as fuel for a future civil war in Lebanon.
In such circumstances, Lebanon becomes a stage for testing hybrid war strategies; a war whose lines blend between military, political, and social.
2 messages from Hezbollah
In the face of such dangers, Hezbollah is trying to send two messages simultaneously. First, the resistance is ready to defend its weapons to the last breath, and there are no deals in this regard. Second, despite this determination, there is a desire to avoid internal conflict and there is still time to reconsider the government’s decisions. This duality of determination to maintain weapons and the desire to avoid sedition is the complex balance point that Hezbollah is trying to convey to the internal community and external actors.
If we were to look at this situation more deeply, we could say that Naeem Qassem’s speech carried a kind of redefinition of the concept of “state-resistance.” He emphasized that the resistance is not an alternative to the state, but rather its complement and partner. Therefore, eliminating resistance not only reduces the country’s defense capability, but also essentially deprives the state of the true content of sovereignty. In such a reading, the weapon of resistance is part of the national defense equation, not a factor against it.
This logic, of course, is rejected by opponents of the resistance, who see the resistance as a parallel force to the state that prevents the establishment of the state’s monopoly on power. But the reality on the ground in Lebanon has shown that without the presence of the resistance, there is no deterrent balance against Israel. The experience of past wars alone is enough to show why a large part of Lebanese society continues to emphasize the necessity of the resistance’s survival.