Demarcation: Nasrallah disrupts American pressure


Ali Haider
Last Friday, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, drew a red line that will prevent the enemy, and his successor, the United States, from imposing facts on the ground to steal Lebanon’s wealth, thus allowing the strengthening of Lebanon’s negotiating position.

It is not difficult to assess that the enemy, and certainly the United States with it, after the recent deterrent message of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah regarding maritime demarcation, has nothing to do but to stop the infiltration scheme by entrusting the American company “Halliburton” to rob Lebanon’s wealth under the slogan of not Reach an agreement on the maritime boundary. By choosing accurate content that simulates the stage and the nature of the threat, Hezbollah succeeded in disrupting the effects of threatening the option of robbery to push Lebanon to give up its rights. The timing chosen by the party to direct its deterrent message is no less important, as it coincided with the visit of the Israeli-American mediator Amos Hochstein, with the aim of strengthening Lebanon’s negotiating position, if the official authorities make good use of the power equations imposed by the resistance and are able to impose a rhythm of negotiations in a way that enables Lebanon to extract its rights In its maritime borders and its oil and gas resources (as for the rest of the wealth, it does not belong to the enemy entity, but rather it belongs to the rights of the Palestinian people).

The talk does not stem from the fact that the American is a direct party to the equation, just because he is a spokesperson for Israeli interests, nor because the “mediator” is an Israeli with American citizenship, and not also because the United States is an incubator and supporter of Israel in all its aggressive issues and policies, but rather as a result of a recent occurrence in American policy toward Lebanon, after turning into a promising country in terms of oil and gas resources. Therefore, Washington seeks to prevent any international or regional party from participating in the exploration and extraction of it, with the aim of looting it exclusively in partnership with the Israeli occupier. This is a separate and additional US interest that must be taken into account.

In order to implement this plan, the firm US position is to prevent Lebanon from using these parties to solve its economic problem, and to try to squeeze it before two options: continued suffering or concession and submission. In the context of this same equation, the enemy, along with the United States, is betting on pushing Lebanon to concede and submit, by placing it in front of two ceilings: accepting the American-Israeli ceiling for a settlement…or losing its wealth by gradual steps, the practical indicators of which began to announce the victory of “Halliburton” in a tender. To start excavation work on the border with Lebanon. And also by pressing through the gateway to depriving Lebanon of benefiting from its wealth in the exclusive Lebanese region, which was expressed by the American-Israeli “mediator” by informing Lebanese officials that “no company in the world will agree to work with you before the agreement with Israel is completed.”

The Israeli-American bet in the success of this scheme is based on the fact that the political and internal situation in Lebanon, and specifically the aggravation of the economic and financial crisis, will push the political class to accept any settlement, no matter how many concessions it may include, and to market this in the midst of public opinion as an achievement of cutting the road to the robbery of the occupation over all Wealth, as an entry point out of the crisis. The additional factor that reinforces this Israeli-American bet is the official division regarding the position and the option to be adopted in facing this critical challenge related to the future of Lebanon…

But it seems, based on the complexities and dangers of the Lebanese internal scene, that neither the Americans nor the Israelis saw that Hezbollah had more than one motive to refrain from the initiative in the face of direct American entry – through Halliburton – and the adoption of Israeli demands.

In the face of this scheme, Hezbollah’s position, in its content, context and timing, came to brake the Israeli-American rush to rob Lebanon’s wealth, and to thwart the origin of these Israeli bets. And strengthening Lebanon’s official position. It is not difficult to estimate that the party drew a red line with the position of its Secretary-General that will prevent the enemy from carrying out its plan by imposing facts through which it can steal Lebanon’s wealth. Given these elements, related to the parties related to this challenge, Hezbollah’s position at this station was more than necessary in the face of the preliminary steps to control the wealth of Lebanon (the American company).
The enemy realizes that the issuance of this position by the Secretary-General of Hezbollah means that there is a decisive decision to confront this path. The enemy now has two options: either retreat and retreat, thus achieving what is required for the resistance and Lebanon, or to try to defy and initiate practical steps based on explicit and direct US support. In this case, there is not even a low chance that Hezbollah will not initiate proportional counter-steps to thwart the Israeli attempt, whatever the results and repercussions. Which will bring the ball back to the Israeli-American court, and whether these two will engage with Hezbollah in a round of mutual responses that push most of the Lebanese people to rally around the resistance as it defends Lebanon’s wealth and future. Which is the last thing Tel Aviv and Washington want. It is no secret that this scene completely contradicts the American plan that targets the resistance from its back front (inside Lebanon).

Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that Hezbollah’s deterrent message has disrupted and will disrupt one of the most important American-Israeli pressure cards on the Lebanese side, by overthrowing the attempt to plunder its wealth. But it remains that investing the resistance’s strength and position depends on the performance of the official Lebanese party, which has to realize that its adherence to Lebanon’s gas and oil rights will not lead to its loss, but rather they are preserved more than ever, after the levels of its deterrence rose to levels that its allies and enemies did not realize. Both.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here