Fawaz Gerges should not be stunned – the Resistance Axis link is existential
Professor Gerges should not have been stunned by Nasrallah’s speech as he said here:
“It was a stunning testament, said Fawaz A. Gerges, director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics. “For Hezbollah, it is a point of no return now,” he said. With the speech, “Hezbollah made it very clear that there is an umbilical cord between the Syrian regime and Hezbollah, and this umbilical cord is existential. They are, as he said, comrades in arms.”
I wrote here in the NY Times and here in National Interest why this was ALWAYS the case and why this strategy the US and others pursued (or even the more violent approach favored by the Neo-LiberalCons) was going to result in disaster and a major war. Here is an excerpt:
“…Unfortunately for Nasrallah, all of the resistance clocks appear to be ticking down far faster than Israel’s, where the economy is humming along and the United States is funding a massive effort to “Iron-Dome” the country against the threat of the Resistance Axis’s rockets and WMDs.
All of this, understandably, begs the question: What will Hezbollah do in this next stage?
Should Assad’s multiplying list of enemies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, choose to go in for the kill, either bluntly or obliquely, Hezbollah, it now seems evident after meeting with party officials, is prepared to use all necessary means to fight back, and fight back widely.
A collapse of the Levant leg of the Resistance Axis is simply unacceptable for Hezbollah. And seeing no reasonable options for escaping such an outcome in a “just” manner (a course that was available in March 2000 when the party was ready to lay down its arms), Hezbollah will have little choice but to become a part and parcel of one last climactic conflict.
Since the Assad regime’s threshold for doing the same is probably lower (and far more incendiary with its WMD capability), the actors now consolidating themselves to boil Assad (and secondarily Hezbollah) to the breaking point, including many influential voices in Washington and European capitals, need to very carefully consider the wisdom of the road that they are going down—a road that will, in all probability, bring great destruction to the region, including to Israel whose home front will undoubtedly be a main frontline.
Saying this, however, does not have to mean simply withering away in the face of a threat. Instead, it could mean—it should mean—that outside actors who hold such comparatively great power (Israel alone could probably bomb both Syria and Lebanon back into the Stone Age whereas its opponents cannot), might finally have to find a means and a discourse to grant concessions to far weaker, though to many still detestable, parties—a course that would actually fatally undermine their ability and desire to exercise violence over time, either against their own people or against other nations.”