RIYADH: A veteran Lebanese economist and political adviser has criticized some US media coverage for portraying Iran as the war’s victor. In his opinion, much of the analysis reflects domestic political divides more than realities on the ground.
“I’m very disappointed with the analysis you get from the mainstream media in America,” Nadim Shehadi said on the Arab News current affairs program “Frankly Speaking.”
“All of this is Washington political analysis. It’s driven by whether you’re pro-Trump or anti-Trump.”
He drew a sharp distinction between Iranian civilization and the current leadership, and rejected claims that Iran has a “successful strategy” and “has won the war.”
“That’s not true,” Shehadi said. “Iran has lost a lot in this war. Iran has made major mistakes. The first mistake was to bring the war to its own home. The second was to misread its enemy.”
Alluding to classical military theory, he said Iran’s strategy has deviated from principles outlined in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” where success depends on understanding both one’s adversary and battlefield dynamics.
Shehadi argued that Iran’s actions have escalated global risks. By disrupting the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway that carries about 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas — Tehran “is holding the whole world economy hostage.”
“This is all the more reason to confront Iran,” he told Katie Jensen, the host of “Frankly Speaking,” adding that both the US and Iran “can play the same game.”
Shehadi also dismissed what he described as an unrealistic portrait of Iran in some Western commentary. “There is this romantic view that you read in some of the media that the Iranians are an ancient civilization that invented chess and that weaves carpets and have strategic patience and all that,” he said.
“This applies maybe to Iranian culture, but it doesn’t apply to the gang of criminals that are the Islamic Revolutionary Guards that hold Iran and the whole region hostage.”
Since Feb. 28, when the US and Israel launched joint strikes on Iranian targets, the Strait of Hormuz has become a central flashpoint. Iran has tightened control over the waterway, while the US has responded with a naval buildup and restrictions on Iranian ports.
As a result, the economic consequences of the conflict are being felt far beyond the region.
And as the crisis deepens, questions persist about the reliability of US support in the Middle East. Shehadi said regional leaders are wary of what they perceive as inconsistency in American policy.
“I think every leader in the region and every analyst is worried about American continuity of support,” he said. “The United States has, in a way, capitulated several times in front of Iran.”
He pointed to historical examples: “The first time was in 1983, … after the Marine barracks bombing and the American embassy bombing in Lebanon, which was a confrontation between Iran and the United States in Lebanon, and President (Ronald) Reagan decided to pack up and leave.
“So, that was capitulation towards Iran, and that led to Syrian control, the growth of Hezbollah and all that.
“There are consequences to this,” Shehadi said. “So, the United States capitulated again, of course, after the Iraq war with the withdrawal from Iraq, and with allowing Iran and Russia to destroy Syria and maintain (now-deposed Syrian President Bashar) Assad in power. And that was on America’s watch.
“And that’s what worries us: that the United States can change, that it’s not consistent.”
As Lebanon again finds itself a central arena in the broader conflict and as diplomatic efforts largely stall, Shehadi declined to directly criticize the country’s leadership, instead describing it as highly qualified and operating under extraordinary pressure.
“We have the most qualified government probably in the history of humanity,” he said.
“If you think that we have 24 ministers, 14 of them have Ph.D.s, including the prime minister. And I think in the history of England, there’s only been one prime minister that I know of that had a Ph.D.
“So, in terms of qualification,” he added, “in terms of honesty, in terms of transparency, qualifications, good will, we have the best possible combination of government and president, but they need support.
“I don’t think we should judge them on this as personal leadership, because the challenge is too huge,” Shehadi said. “What happened was they came in exceptional circumstances.”
Those challenges have been compounded by major regional shifts, including the collapse of the Assad regime in neighboring Syria — a development Shehadi described as a significant blow to Hezbollah and Iran’s broader “Axis of Resistance.”
In this context, Lebanon’s government has taken what he called unprecedented steps, including directly challenging Hezbollah’s influence.
“They’ve taken very bold moves and very important policies that were unprecedented before, challenging Hezbollah,” he said. “And Hezbollah, even though it makes declarations and all this sort of posturing, is still part of the government.”
The Israel-Hezbollah conflict escalated sharply on March 2, when Hezbollah launched missiles into Israel in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Israel responded with intensified attacks in Lebanon that rights groups have described as disproportionate.
Lebanese government figures estimate that about 1.5 million people have been displaced, with at least 3,558 killed and more than 10,800 wounded since the escalation began.
For Shehadi, Lebanon cannot be viewed in isolation. He stressed that the conflict is fundamentally regional in nature.
“Forget about the word ‘alone,’” he said. “This is a regional war, with a regional confrontation which involves every single state in the region.
“There is no such thing as Lebanon being alone. And Lebanon is not alone. Lebanon is in Washington with (the) full support (of) the United States administration.”
He warned that leaving Lebanon to manage the crisis on its own would worsen regional instability.
“Lebanon cannot be left alone to handle this anymore because, since Oct. 7, 2023, it’s obvious that this involves the whole region, that no state in the region can dissociate itself, however much they try, can dissociate themselves from this confrontation with Iran that’s holding the whole region hostage,” he said.
Regional powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, appear to recognize this. According to Shehadi, Gulf states are increasingly approaching the crisis as part of a broader regional equation in which stability in Lebanon is linked to wider security outcomes.
He said that Saudi Arabia is “looking at the problem on a regional scale, where the solution for Lebanon is part of the solution for the whole region, and that leaving Lebanon on its own makes the regional situation worse because of Hezbollah being the front line of Iran.”
“The Iraqi militias have been lying very low. And it’s the same with the Houthis recently. It’s only Hezbollah that’s challenging the whole system, the whole negotiations,” he said.
“And the Iranians are using Hezbollah as a pawn. They’re sort of pretending that they will not sign any agreement as long as there is no peace in Lebanon.”
Shehadi dismissed claims that Tehran’s negotiating position is tied to conditions in Lebanon as “posturing.”
The current conflict stretches back to Oct. 8, 2023, when Hezbollah joined the Israel-Hamas fighting in Palestine’s embattled Gaza Strip, which was triggered by an Oct. 7 Hamas attack on northern Israel. The prolonged cross-border exchange between Hezbollah and Israeli forces displaced communities on both sides.
Looking ahead, Shehadi believes US involvement is the key variable in whether the region moves toward a new regional order or into a more dangerous phase of instability.
“If the United States capitulates, and this is the main worry, and if the allies of the United States still rely on American protection, and the whole relationship between America and its allies in the region … involves protection,” he said.
“If that protection doesn’t exist anymore, and Iran can still hold the whole Arab world, including the GCC, hostage — ‘We can throw rockets at you anytime if you don’t behave.’”
He drew a comparison with the Soviet Union’s control over Eastern Europe, where military dominance deterred resistance. “They could drive their tanks into Prague or Budapest, and nobody could do anything about it,” he said. “That’s the bleak side.”
The alternative, however, is a path toward broader peace. “The bright side would be that we would finally have regional peace,” Shehadi said. “We’d have peace in Lebanon, peace in Palestine and Israel, peace with the Gulf.”
He emphasized that “Gulf states have an agenda of peace.”
“They have an agenda of development and prosperity, and they cannot be transformed into a fighting society; it would go against their vision of the future,” he said.
He noted that the regional war, led by Iran, began on Oct. 7, 2023.
“After Oct. 7, what became obvious is that there is a regional war led by Iran against the United States,” he said. “This became obvious after Oct. 7 because of the sequence: It started in Gaza, then Lebanon, then Iraq, then Yemen, then Iran itself. So, it looked like a regional war and it’s been treated as a regional war.
“The Iranians have, in a way, been the wise warrior that avoids having the battle in its own territory. For the last 40 years, it’s fought the United States everywhere else except in Iran itself.”
This time, however, Iran has “brought the battle home,” Shehadi said.
“That’s one of the main changes,” he said. “It’s now become a direct confrontation with Iran and proxies rather than just a problem in Lebanon or a problem in Gaza or something happening in Iraq.
“In 2015, there were experts in the GCC saying that the Houthis have nothing to do with Iran, the Houthis are their own thing,” Shehadi said. “But now, nobody can say that anymore after what happened, after the rockets were coordinated.
“That,” he added, “is the main new factor and that it’s a regional war involving everyone, including the Gulf states, of course.”
Returning to Lebanon, Shehadi said Hezbollah, which built its legitimacy on resistance and the liberation of southern Lebanon, has become trapped by the very narrative that once contributed to its popularity.
“That’s at the core of what’s happening,” he said. “Those who have been displaced are, in a way, the constituency that Hezbollah has hegemony over through that narrative of protection, of resistance, of … taking care of the community … which they say has been neglected by the state.
“This kind of narrative,” he added, “collapses when Hezbollah launches a war without consultation for no apparent Lebanese reason.”
He noted that the war has led to the destruction, displacement and destitution of the very people Hezbollah claims to serve.
“All these factors play into … the defeat of Hezbollah politically,” he said.
“The thing about Hezbollah and all the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) forces, including Iran, is that as long as they can throw one rocket, they consider that they’ve won because they can hold the whole of the GCC hostage by being able to throw one single volley of missiles and hit the infrastructure or the cities or the oil stations.”
In a similar sense, he stressed that even if 90 percent of Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets is destroyed, “as long as they can throw half a dozen of them at Israel, they can ignite a war.”
