Hassan Nasrallah, the powerful leader of the Lebanese organization, spoke on Friday, for the first time since Hamas’ attack on the Jewish state almost a month ago. Decryption of his highly anticipated speech with the director of the Arab Observatory.
No big announcement, but threats. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nassrallah, said on Friday, November 3, that “all options” were open about the involvement of his movement in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Clashes between the pro-Iranian organization and the Israeli army have increased since the start of the war in the Gaza Strip, raising fears of a conflagration in the region and the opening of a second front on the border with the Lebanon.
However, in his first speech since the terrorist attacks of October 7, the leader of Hezbollah did not advocate “total war” against Tel Aviv. To understand this speech, franceinfo interviewed Antoine Basbous, political scientist and director of the Arab Countries Observatory.
Franceinfo: The leader of Hezbollah spoke for the first time since the start of the war in the Gaza Strip. What do you remember from it?
Antoine Basbous: Hezbollah has been promoting this speech for days, but when you analyze what was said, there is a “pschitt” effect. It is a speech that contains the same virulence to which Hassan Nasrallah has accustomed us, except that it does not lead to operational violence.
There were no new positions taken or an announcement out of the ordinary. The secretary general and religious guide of Hezbollah was content to make a simple analysis of the situation, three weeks after the Hamas attacks against Israel. However, this speech makes it possible to give arguments to its activists, to mobilize them and occupy the media space.
Hassan Nasrallah has not announced any major military action against Israel. How do you explain it?
Hassan Nasrallah behaves like the “supreme guide” of Lebanon. Today, this country no longer has a President of the Republic, only an interim government which manages current affairs, as well as a President of Parliament who is under the orders of Hezbollah. The real strong man of Lebanon is him.
Hezbollah’s goal is not to lose this advantage. If there was a war [ouverte avec Israël], Lebanon would be destroyed. Everyone would then blame the organization for having taken the country hostage and having destroyed its institutions with the sole aim of remaining the sole master on board.
Has he given any indication of his organization’s objectives in the war between Israel and Hamas?
He did not call for a major offensive, but he still said that “all options were on the table”. If there was an Israeli military initiative [contre le Liban], he would review his objectives. But without initiative from the Jewish state, it will remain there, occupying the south of the country. Hezbollah’s strategy in this conflict is to place a third of the Israeli army, part of its air force and its navy facing Lebanon.
He also formulated two major objectives: stopping Israel’s aggression against Gaza and achieving victory for Hamas. He sought to demonstrate the fragility of Tel Aviv but also the involvement of the United States, by demonizing them and accusing them of being behind all the world’s crises. This additional charge against Washington is a challenge to the Americans, telling them: “We are still here, ready to face you.”
The Hezbollah leader also claimed to have been unaware of Hamas’s attacks on Israel before they occurred. Is this statement credible?
For me, this is not very credible because Hassan Nasrallah met with the leaders of Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Beirut in September, and he is hosting some of the leaders [en exil] of Hamas. They are very close, so I find it hard to think that Hezbollah didn’t know.
However, it is true that there have been tensions between these organizations. Hezbollah was recently criticized by two Hamas figures, Khaled Mechaal and Moussa Abou Marzouk. They accuse the Lebanese organization of failing in its obligations. Hezbollah often speaks of resistance and “the unity of the fronts” against Israel. But when the time comes, they consider themselves to be slipping away.