PNN – Referring to the conspiracy of the United States of America against the weapons of the resistance, the former Lebanese minister said: Lebanon’s Hezbollah will not negotiate on its weapons under any circumstances.
Adnan Al-Sayed Hossein, the former Lebanese minister, discussed the developments in Lebanon and the position of the resistance in the current arena of this country, especially after the third visit of Tom Brock, the US envoy to Lebanon, as well as the crimes of the Zionist regime in Lebanon and the region. You can read the full text of this interview below;
Tom Brock, the American envoy to Lebanon, expressed his disappointment with the current developments after meeting with the Lebanese president! What does this expression of disappointment mean?
On Tom Brock’s third visit to Lebanon, he expressed his disappointment that he expected to receive a different response from Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun than he had previously received from the Lebanese authorities. This expression of disappointment can be interpreted as putting more pressure on Lebanon, which will face intensifying pressure if it does not respond better to the American plan. Intensification of pressure in this field means freeing the hands of the Zionist regime in Lebanon. This freeing of Israel’s hands can also mean ignoring the killing and continuous flight of Zionist drones in the sky of Lebanon and the spread of terror to Tripoli and North Bekaa.
Read more:
Change of strategy: New US policy to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon
Brock shied away from any desire to pressure the occupying regime to stop its aggression against Lebanon, claiming that it was not on his agenda, and also backed away from the American project for an alleged settlement of the Lebanese case. Do you consider this American withdrawal as a hidden threat to the Lebanese government? What is the next step after the failure of the American envoy to advance this plan?
When have successive American governments put pressure on the Zionist regime? The Biden administration gave Tel Aviv all the necessary weapons and means of destruction. What is left for the US government to deny Tel Aviv?
The West generally does not put pressure on the Zionists; the American government has not and will not put any pressure on Israel. What is happening in Gaza is the reason for this claim. Hamas has presented several initiatives that the Zionists have rejected. The American government always considers Tel Aviv to be “on the right side” and does not say that Hamas is right. America always claims: “Israel needs to defend itself.” The same scenario still prevails in the White House; one can never imagine that the American government will one day put pressure on the Zionist regime.
Regarding America’s plan and trying to act as a mediator in the shadow of Israel’s increasing and continuous aggression, what is the nature of America’s proposals to Lebanon? And why have the resistance and the elements of the Lebanese government rejected it?
The resistance in Lebanon rejected the American initiative, especially in its final version. They want to go beyond Resolution 1701 regarding the obligations of the Zionist regime, while Israel is not bound by anything, but has demanded that Hezbollah’s weapons be delivered throughout Lebanon. Can any sane person accept this scenario? What does the resistance say when the United States abandons the role of a neutral mediator and becomes a full partner in the aggressions of the Zionist regime? What do the Lebanese authorities say? It is natural for Hezbollah to stick to its weapons.
Regarding the position of Joseph Aoun, the president of Lebanon, what is your assessment of the internal situation in Lebanon at this stage? Can American envoys still incite a team of Lebanese against the resistance?
Of course, there is a serious danger to Lebanon’s internal situation in terms of creating a rift in its internal fabric, which is what the United States is doing now in all Arab countries. It is enough to observe what happened in Syria and Iraq, as well as what happened before in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and other countries from Afghanistan to North Africa. The main danger is the Lebanese disagreement over America’s promises. We demand not to believe American promises, and the best answer to all American pressures and Israeli aggressions is national unity. From this point of view, we believe that the best answer is the national unity of Lebanon and its officials and people. The media should not drown in the quagmire of American promises, and should pay attention to what American governments have done in the public opinion of Lebanon and the Arab world over the decades, especially after the end of the Soviet Union.
Lebanon’s main responsibility is to take a position in unity. This unity is stronger than the weapon that the Lebanese army or the Lebanese resistance can have. If this unity is achieved, we can take strategic and tactical steps based on it to counter Israel’s aggression.