Barsam Mohammadi – regional issues expert

After the 33-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1701, according to which Hezbollah was to withdraw to the northern bank of the Litani River to pave the way for the deployment of the Lebanese National Army and multinational forces.

Also, the army of the Zionist regime was obliged to withdraw its forces from the southern regions of Lebanon after the deployment of these forces. The Lebanese government immediately accepted the resolution, and on the same day, Martyr Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, despite believing that parts of the UN resolution were “unfair,” accepted the resolution because of Lebanon’s “national unity” and other considerations.

Since Hezbollah had the upper hand after the 33-day war and did not want to ignore the decisions of the Lebanese government, it accepted the resolution mentioned above without explicitly opposing or agreeing to it. In the past 18 years, except for the “key clause” of the resolution, which was related to the ceasefire and was implemented, the rest of the clauses were forgotten.

Considering the interpretation of Resolution 1701 from the real point of view of Hezbollah, it did not agree with all its clauses from the beginning. In the meantime, the representative of the American government, in his recent trip to Beirut, declared that UN Resolution 1701 was “the only solution to end the conflict between the Israeli regime and Hezbollah. Of course, he emphasized that more measures are needed to ensure the “fair, accurate and transparent” implementation of the resolution.

At this stage, is it impossible to say precisely what “more actions” means? But considering the new trend that has dominated the developments in the region and Lebanon, and according to the “miscalculations” the United States and the Zionist regime have made based on “decision making,” it seems that the United States, on the presumption that the Hezbollah and the Lebanese government are in a so-called  “weak position,” is trying to implement Resolution 1701 by forecasting “new provisions.”

A Lebanese official revealed in an interview with Al-Akhbar that “Hochstein came to create terror and intimidation, and he clearly said that this formula (Resolution 1701) belongs to the past.”

Regardless of whether Hochstein had a new plan with him in his recent trip to Beirut or he maneuvered on the same previous plan with some changes, it is quite clear that the special representative of the American government, while evaluating the impact of the Zionist regime’s attacks on the Hezbollah on the political positions of the Lebanese government has been trying to stabilize a new political and regional situation and fake achievements for Netanyahu’s government.

This political situation may be formed in two ways: first, by revising Resolution 1701, and second, by intimidating Beirut authorities and exerting political and economic pressure on the Lebanese government.

Considering that changing and revising the provisions of Resolution 1701 is unacceptable and requires a referral to the UN Security Council and the issuance of a new resolution, it is very unlikely that the said resolution will be revised due to Russia and China’s possible “veto.”

Therefore, the only solution that remains for the White House at the moment is resorting to the “stick” policy and exerting pressure in the political and economic fields, etc., to push back the Hezbollah to the north of the Litani River, clear southern Lebanon of the Resistance forces, revise the presence of multinational forces with special powers and control the Beirut airport.

American policies in Lebanon, before including real solutions to stop the attacks of the Zionist regime, are basically reflections of Tel Aviv’s wishes, which want to get rid of the threats directed at the occupied territories in any way possible from Lebanon.

The goals of the United States and the Zionist regime in Lebanon are completely “aligned,” with the difference that Tel Aviv aims to eliminate Hezbollah in the field through bombing and military aggression. The United States (because of the obstacles and considerations it has to enter the war and conflict in the region directly) is active in the political and diplomatic arena intending to remove Hezbollah politically from the internal processes and political future of this country. However, such an approach is unacceptable and will not stop the war; it will also make the future of the conflict in Lebanon more “complicated.”

It seems that the estimation of the American government, with the understanding that the Israeli regime will not be able to achieve the desired victory, intends to determine the war’s outcome through political equations.

But there is a very important point here: Attempting to weaken or eliminate Hezbollah from Lebanese politics is not a new issue, and especially in the last two decades, continuous field, military, and political plans and pressures in various forms (military aggression, terror, sanctions, psychological operations, etc.) by the US. Europe, some Arab countries, as well as the Zionist regime have been proposed and pursued for its realization.

It is a “wrong” idea for the Americans to think that Hezbollah is in trouble in the field due to the loss of Seyed Hassan Nasrallah and the members of the command headquarters. Moreover, Hezbollah’s recent operations deep in the occupied territories clearly show that Hezbollah has “regained” its power and is acting within the framework of predetermined military, security, and political principles and rules.

The Hezbollah has paid a heavy cost for Lebanon’s security, stability, and survival in the past decades. Disarming or excluding the Hezbollah from Lebanon’s political future or withdrawing from southern Lebanon is impossible, and the Hezbollah will never succumb to it. Secondly, assuming impossible, if such events happen and Hezbollah is so-called removed from the political and field processes, Lebanon’s problems will just begin. Without the presence of Hezbollah, the maneuvering power of the Zionist regime in the political and field environment of Lebanon and its “territorial greed” for this country from the past would be much greater and more dangerous.