A tale of two speeches from Hezbollah

It appeared as though he felt compelled to deliver a speech in which he didn't fully believe. Interestingly, he made no mention of Jerusalem, advancing towards it, or offering prayers for it. He refrained from reiterating any vows to eradicate Israel and avoided expressing anger, making threats or warnings, or even raising his voice – or his index finger – as he so often does.

At any case, he didn't appear wise as some may argue, even though he potentially spared Lebanon from a devastating conflict. Ultimately, that decision is not solely up to him, and the situation could change at any moment.

The "warming up" he mentioned in the remarks seems like a temporary postponement of hostilities until the Iranian side deems it strategically necessary to act.

Questions raised

This raises the question: why didn't this supposed wisdom materialize when he deployed forces to combat the Syrian people, ostensibly in the fight against groups like Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and other organisations with questionable origins?

His questions seem to be directed more at civilian populations than armies, possibly because facing a military force with significant destructive capabilities requires a level of parity not typically found in militias, especially those operating on a contractual basis.

The secretary-general appeared quite pitiable, like a seasoned employee who genuinely loves his job but finds himself compelled by his boss to submit his resignation.

The content of his speech displayed a noticeable lack of political strength. He revisited the familiar narrative of the historical conflict between Iran and the United States, reviving the dichotomy of the "Great Satan" and the oppressed, along with the recurring chant of "Death to America."

Hints – and distance

He subtly hinted at potential actions against US interests in the region, while paradoxically distancing himself from Israel, despite Israel's significant status as an American interest. Essentially, his rhetoric seemed to encourage confrontation with perceived challenges, while avoiding direct engagement.

From a strategic perspective, the discourse revealed that the Islamic Resistance isn't a liberation movement born in response to occupation; instead, it functions as a military instrument owned by Iran. Its mobilisation occurs strategically, in sync with Iran's calculations and aligned with its vested interests.

This is evident in its careful adherence to rules of engagement, turning borders into a battleground, and using Palestinian factions as cover to launch attacks on places like Nahariya, Haifa, and areas beyond Haifa.

Grassroots audience

At the grassroots level, the secretary-general's audience experienced a situation reminiscent of the aftermath of President Gamal Abdel Nasser's resignation speech. Having eagerly awaited his address for four weeks, expecting to join him in the liberation war, they were met with a moral and psychological setback, not only perceived internally but also by their adversaries and external observers.

In an effort to restore their collective pride, the audience outwardly demonstrated an increased allegiance to their wise leader, openly expressing their admiration for his strategic foresight and unwavering patriotic commitment.

At his conclusion, the secretary-general declared: "I will be simultaneously transparent and enigmatic," a statement that characterised his speech and triggered much speculation and various forms of analysis.

The second speech and a partial recovery

During his second appearance, the secretary-general showed a partial recovery. He had more presence and improved his communication skills and the ability of his rhetoric to be persuasive. He seemed more comfortable in front of the camera, maintaining his composure without displaying any signs of boredom or confusion.

However, at the same time, he appeared rigid, lacking the playful spirit, wit, and subtle sarcasm that he typically employs to connect emotionally with his audience.

This speech came across as both superficial and populist. Initially, he recounted developments in Gaza – which were well-known to all, portraying Israel as a pawn manipulated by Americans and holding them accountable for the ongoing conflict – words that seemed almost redundant. Subsequently, he revisited his usual narrative of Arab deficiencies and reverted to a fundamental hostility towards the US.

A section of the speech aimed to cater to the preferences of his audience, featuring discussions on "American setbacks in the region" and issuing threats of deploying more long-range missiles. But don't forget that the Israeli base in Eritrea and the American base in Djibouti are geographically closer to him than the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba), and his missiles could potentially reach them before losing their explosive power.

Following that, he praised the Iraqi resistance for targeting US interests in Syria and Iraq, but he overlooked the diverse nature of these interests, extending beyond fortified bases.

US interests encompassed the Assad regime, governance challenges in Iraq, the control of Yemen being wrested from its people, Iran's dominance over four Arab capitals, and the intricacies of the nuclear agreement, all the  essential components of broader US strategic interests.

Blood and swords

He discussed the rise in casualties and attributed it to the adversary's advanced surveillance devices and systems. However, while justifying his losses, he invoked the phrase "the triumph of blood over the sword."

And yet, he acknowledged that blood alone achieves nothing beyond a moral victory, and a nation unable to manufacture or advance its weaponry is inherently defeated—a sentiment reminiscent of Gibran Khalil Gibran's famous quote "Pity the nation."

He viewed displacement as a strategic tool capable of defeating Israel, although this strategic framework did not include the displacement of inhabitants south of the river.

Additionally, he delved into the concept of using anxiety as a weapon, emphasising the enemy's apprehension about the potential escalation of the northern front into a broader conflict. But he overlooked the prevailing anxiety among the southern population.

He asserted that the enemy tactically calculates its moves due to a genuine fear of being drawn into a conflict, and he underscored the vigilance of the resistance, albeit constrained within mutually agreed-upon deterrence boundaries.

Concluding his address, he resorted to slogans aimed at stirring the emotions of the audience. In his second speech, he used the phrase, "Keep your eyes on the field, not on the words," emphasising the importance of action over mere rhetoric.

Teaser videos and unique chemistry

Before the two speeches, the secretary-general was featured in three teaser videos that portrayed him as a charismatic hero. He appeared in an external image that left an emotional impact on his audience, with well-kept hands, a neatly trimmed beard, and meticulously maintained skin.

He does come over as charismatic, especially among the women in his audience. And after the two speeches, the crowd seemed to leave with the belief they heard a politically astute discourse in the first speech, while the second one conveyed a sense of strategic complexity.

Perhaps the reason the people in the hall were the only ones to get a clear grasp of all this complexity was because of the unique chemistry in the room between them and their secretary-general.