How Hezbollah’s threat to Lebanon can be averted

For some, Hezbollah, as a movement allied to Iran and to Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, is seen as watching over Middle Eastern interests that are threatened by an axis composed of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, which has been at war with Lebanon for decades. For others, it more closely resembles the armed foreign wing of the Iranian regime, endangering the stability of Lebanon and the entire region. So what should we think of Hezbollah, and should we be afraid of it?

Whereas Hezbollah fiercely denies any connection with the explosion of Aug. 4, many Lebanese and international commentators fear that the movement will use this disaster to further strengthen its grip on a devastated country.

This Shiite political and military movement was officially founded in 1982. It first joined the Lebanese coalition government after the 2005 legislative elections. As the only Lebanese party that has never disarmed, its paramilitary wing and international network make it a force more powerful than the Lebanese army. It is not without reason that many countries, including the US, classify this movement as a terrorist organization. The EU and France, however, make a subtle distinction — totally artificial for many specialists — between the paramilitary branch, which is associated with terrorism, and the political branch, which is not.

When we think of terrorist acts in Lebanon, we immediately think of the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. But who really benefited from that crime? The world saw the hand of Hezbollah and its Syrian allies. Making matters worse, in 2011, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah — aware of the power he held and of his near-complete immunity — swore that the suspects would never be arrested.

The names of the accused in the assassination of Hariri have been known for almost a decade: They are four senior Hezbollah officials, including Mustafa Badr Al-Din, who was killed by an Israeli strike in Damascus in 2016. Can we imagine such a situation in another state? A former prime minister assassinated and a party leader declaring that the accused militants will never be arrested?

It is a tale of corrupt politics, violence, sectarianism and, finally, total impotence and the disappearance of the rule of law

 Nathalie Goulet

This miscarriage of justice was followed in 2008 by a veritable coup d’etat. Following the decision of the Lebanese government, which is theoretically legitimate and sovereign, to dismantle Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and dismiss the Hezbollah-allied head of security at Beirut airport, the group launched an armed operation. It considered the dismissal an intolerable interference into the operation of its “reserved areas,” including control of the crucial sector of the airport, which it received during a crafty gerrymandering of authority over Beirut.

In the same year, in a televised speech, Nasrallah claimed that the decision regarding the airport head of security was nothing less than a declaration of war and, faced with the prime minister’s refusal to withdraw it, proceeded to deliver on his threats. Nasrallah also announced that Hezbollah would “cut off the hands” of anyone seeking to disarm the “resistance.”

The Doha Agreement formally ended the 2008 crisis, but Hezbollah and its allies were able to secure a blocking minority in parliament, allowing it to bring down the government. This is exactly what it did at the beginning of 2011, in an effort to hinder the mission of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. It is a tale of corrupt politics, violence, sectarianism and, finally, total impotence and the disappearance of the rule of law.

Hezbollah’s arsenal — ostensibly used to defend Lebanon’s territorial integrity in the south of the country — has in fact served to impose not only its political domination (by forcing the government to bend to its will) but also to guarantee its impunity and its presence in national institutions, allowing it to hinder their normal operation.

The group’s military branch effectively serves the aims of its political branch, not only in Lebanon, but also in Yemen, where it operates as a loyal proxy to Iran, and as a so-called protector of Shiites worldwide. The subtle distinction between the military and political branches, which the EU and France continue to maintain, does not stand up to analysis, particularly because of the series of attempted terror attacks in Europe in 2012.

In the light of such attacks, it is important to deconstruct one of the myths propagated by Hezbollah supporters: No, Hezbollah does not merely lead “a popular resistance against Israel,” supported by the majority of Lebanese of all faiths. For historic reasons, among them the presence of many Palestinian refugees in the country, it is true that the Lebanese government, and many Lebanese, view Israel as an enemy. Initially, this enemy on the southern border justified Hezbollah’s possession of a military arsenal separate from that of the regular army. But these weapons were turned against the Lebanese state and people in order to maintain political and physical domination.

Numerous Hezbollah actions — such as the 2006 war against Israel, the conflict of May 2008, multiple assassinations and kidnappings, and the blocking of the airport road — have contributed to the fragility of the economy. Tourism is, of course, also severely restricted because of the country’s insecure state. But the damage brought by these restrictions is nothing compared to the harm Hezbollah has done to the banking sector.

US sanctions have dealt many Lebanese banks that are rightly accused of having connections with Hezbollah a heavy blow. As a result, as long as Hezbollah remains integrated into the Lebanese institutions, these banks will remain unable to access the American banking system, with terrible consequences for the country’s economy.

In reality, even if France maintains its totally artificial distinction so as to preserve its “dialogue” with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it nevertheless condemns it on the international scene. Hezbollah itself considers the distinction ridiculous and does not hesitate to point this out to its French interlocutors. Moreover, the facts prove there is no distinction between Hezbollah’s political leaders and the organization’s fighters. Never has a Hezbollah politician distanced himself from military action undertaken by the organization. This is what the Americans understood when they punished MP Mohammed Raad, who was accused of “exploiting Lebanon’s political and financial system for the benefit of Hezbollah and Iran.”

In the economically complicated Middle East, Hezbollah has been an occasional partner in the fight against Daesh terrorism, just like Iran, which is in the interests of the West. However, Hezbollah did not enter the Syrian civil war so as to defend the region’s Christians, but rather to preserve the Syrian regime, which it sees as its trump card against Israel and as a proxy for the mullahs’ regime. 

Taking into account the economic, social and humanitarian stagnation in Lebanon, an institutional solution combining national sovereignty, the integrity of the country and the security of the Lebanese must be found. Elections must be based on a new, non-sectarian scheme: The dawn of a third republic. Equally important is the disarming of Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, which poses a significant threat to regional stability.

Finally, with the opening of a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development office, strict control of the funds allocated for reconstruction must be upheld, so as to help prevent the return of endemic corruption or the inadvertent financing of Hezbollah, which has been somewhat drained by international sanctions against Iran. The international community would thus provide aid to the Lebanese, while avoiding fueling Hezbollah’s multifaceted terrorist activities.

• Nathalie Goulet is a member of the Senate of France. Twitter: @senateur61