Observers spend a lot of time on the second-to-last speech of Hizbullah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, which was dominated by the subject of confrontation with the “Israeli” enemy, and where he directed critical messages toward the enemy and those who bet on their involvement in a new war against the Resistance.
But why did Nasrallah speak about the prospect of an “Israeli” war?
Recently, the general atmosphere has ominously come to resemble the situation that prevailed in the lead-up to the 2006 war – especially in terms of the escalating Arab media campaign and unprecedented political cover that “Israel” has been getting, as well as suggestions that preparations are underway for a direct partnership between “Israel” and Arab regimes in any war on Hizbullah.
This sentiment is based on the Arab mood following Saudi Arabia’s decision to classify Hizbullah as a terrorist organization, which was followed by enormous pressure on the Gulf Cooperation Council to adopt this classification. And this is exactly what happened in the end, culminating in the showdown at the meetings of the Arab Foreign Ministers Council, which has led to the issuance of a similar decision to that of the GCC, but was met with the objection and reservation of a number of countries. This in addition to the vigorous and continuous pursuit of a resolution by the UN Security Council to classify Hizbullah as a terrorist organization, which has always crashed into Russian and Chinese vetoes, serving as a safeguard against Western countries that prioritize their own strategic interests over any other consideration.
What reinforced this data is the information Hizbullah has obtained. In addition to laying the groundwork for what the “Israeli” enemy believed would be a blow to Hizbullah, the Zionist regime demanded a war against Hizbullah through secret meetings and other public ones that took place in international conferences. However, it soon became clear to Arab regimes that the “Israelis”, who are only focused on revenge against Hizbullah, have no intention of respecting their schedules and interests, but primarily “Israel’s” own.
The “Israelis” are also far from unaware of the capabilities Hizbullah possesses, but they are also restricted by the recommendations of the Winograd Commission, which was formed in the wake of the 2006 war, requiring that before engaging in any future war, victory must be certain and the war swift and decisive.
What is clear, however, is that American cover today for an “Israeli” war on Lebanon does not exist, because the US administration wants to maintain stability and prevent the collapse of the economic situation in Lebanon. Meanwhile, on a military and political level, “Israel” suffers from a clear absence of decisiveness and lack of certainty that the next war will achieve its goals.
What is the scene now?
Those who have knowledge of the hidden aspects of the existing conflict reveal that the Saudi side is betting on several factors when it comes to confronting Hizbullah. These include the absence of General Michel Aoun and the arrival of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to the presidency in the US. The Saudi believe that this will result in a radical change of the political and military doctrine laid down by President Barack Obama in the Middle East, in addition to the breakout of war between “Israel” and Hizbullah.
On the other hand, there are many who are betting on the victory of the resistance axis in the region, and the political and military result of that victory is very clear. The same parties are also fairly certain of an absence of the Saudi King Salman Bin Abdul Aziz and the occurrence of an internal struggle in Saudi Arabia, where no one knows for sure how things may turn out.