While heavily influenced by Iran, Hizbullah has deep ties across the spectrum of the Iranian elite, writes Franklin Lamb* in Dahiyeh, Beirut Some legmen for the US Israeli lobby, and even some here in Lebanon, appear barely able to contain themselves, such is their glee felt over the Lebanese and Iranian election results. Some supporters of Israel see these results as victories while others calculate that Israel is scratching around for good news given that polling data from Israeli surveys show that more than 50 per cent of its population favours bombing Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Another survey, from late last month, found that nearly one third of Israelis said they would leave Israel if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, which it likely will have -- if it decides to -- within the next 18 months according to estimates by the Israeli Defence Ministry. Meanwhile, US visa applications have broken records, according to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, for three out of the past five months. One election Israel hoped would help it maintain its occupation of Palestine was the 7 June Lebanese election (which the Hizbullah-led opposition won by nearly 10 per cent of the popular vote). But it may have to look elsewhere for solace because rather than being defeated and weakened, Hizbullah is currently stronger in Lebanon than it has ever been. The party is dominating the construction of the next Lebanese government, as it negotiates the terms of its support for Saad Al-Hariri as prime minister. Hizbullah's popular support has increased due to its post- election sportsmanlike acceptance of the results and its efforts at accommodation with its political adversaries. Last week witnessed Hizbullah's ally, the Shia Amal leader, Nabih Berri being elected to his fifth term in the politically powerful position of speaker of parliament. Meanwhile, Hizbullah's Christian ally Michel Aoun, who also increased his popular vote in the election, picked up more seats for a total of 27. He is now demanding seven cabinet posts (three more than in the previous government) for his Free Patriotic Movement while renewing the opposition's call for proportional representation in the new 128-seat parliament. There are now 13 political blocs and 11 independent MPs, many of whom seek good relations with Hizbullah while curtailing their pre-election complaints about "resistance weapons". One reason is that the Lebanese public, once more eyeing Israeli provocations and a military build-up along the Blue Line, have come increasingly to agree that until the Lebanese army is up to the task it makes sense to have a strong deterrence to the Netanyahu government's projects. The post-7 June election Hizbullah-led opposition appears united and ready to reach out to the newly named Lebanon First group (previously known as March 14). Some have suggested that March 8 change its designation to Lebanon Always, but Hizbullah prefers to maintain, at least for now, its "Loyalty to the Resistance" title. Hizbullah's second in command, Sheikh Naim Qassem, said recently that the nomination of the new prime minister (likely Al-Hariri) must be "an inseparable part" of an agreement on a new government, adding that, "so far, the identity of the premier-designate is unclear in anticipation of the outcome of [parliamentary] deliberations." Qassim underlined that the opposition would decide on "how to approach the new government based on the designated premier's proposition". This observer interpreted his comments to mean that Hizbullah will support Al-Hariri for the premiership but that there must be some clearly agreed benefits for the resistance, perhaps legitimising Hizbullah's weapons explicitly or at least adopting the current conciliatory position of Walid Jumblatt who spent hours with Hassan Nasrallah last week and is said to no longer believe Hizbullah's weapons are a serious domestic problem. "Right now, we do not have a specific candidate as we wait for the outcome of the deliberations and the allocations agreement on the government's structure and the distribution of ministries," Qassem said. Meanwhile, the 12 June Iranian elections also initially sparked joy in Israel. However, whatever changes may come to Iran from the election results, they appear more evolutionary than revolutionary and are unlikely to affect either that country's support for Palestine, expressly mandated by the Iranian constitution, or its commitment to the Lebanese national resistance led by Hizbullah. One imagines that no one outside Iran, with Hizbullah perhaps being one of the few exceptions, really knows what is going on across that large diversified country with many power centres. Assuming that there will be a serious ongoing power struggle between an Ahmadinejad/Khamenei group and a Mousavi/ Rafsanjani faction, and one prevails over the other, with some reshuffling of portfolios and surface accommodation, many Hizbullah officials doubt it will be affected because support for it, along with Hamas, is deeply ingrained in Iranian ideology that sees the Islamic Republic as a counter-weight to Egypt, Jordan and others that have recognised Israel. On the subject of finances, this observer has frequently been advised that Iran gives Hizbullah much less aid than is usually reported in the Western media and that Hizbullah's existence is no longer dependent on Iran. Nevertheless, Hizbullah's relationship with Iran started at birth and has deepened since. Hizbullah claims close ties with virtually every strain of leadership in Iran. According to Hizbullah, the extent of Western and US involvement in Iran's internal affairs is now clear, and it blames the US and Britain for some of the recent violence. Hizbullah's Qassim argues that what is going on in Iran is not a simple protest against the results of the presidential election. "There are riots and attacks in the streets that are orchestrated from the outside in a bid to destabilise the country's Islamic regime." Hizbullah asserts that it has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs and that it does not take sides in internal matters. "We have our own Lebanese identity and popularity, and these events don't concern us," Qassim told the Beirut media 25 June, adding that Hizbullah believes that the situation in Iran will soon return to normal and that the "Islamic Republic has succeeded in overcoming this plot from overseas aimed at destabilising the internal situation." Not all agree. According to Eyal Zisser, head of the department of Middle Eastern and African History at Tel Aviv University, "the Iranian election is a disturbing signal for Syria and Hizbullah. The weaker the regime is, the less it can provide support for Hizbullah." Eldad Pardo, a Hebrew University professor and Iran specialist, concurs, stating: "It is an extremely heavy blow for Iran's power and image and I would even dare say to Islamic radicalism in general." David Menashri, head of the Centre of Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University believes that the system in Iran could be so deeply rattled that it will register among Syrian officials and Iran's other allies, including Hizbullah. "The legitimacy of the Iran regime and those it supports has been harmed," Menashri said. "This is an opportunity to crack some heads and start solving some problems." Indeed, events in Iran sparked hope among some that Israel could more easily make a case for military action to bomb Iran and increase sanctions. Netanyahu has pressed the point on his trip to Europe this week, trying to persuade countries such as Italy, which are among Iran's more important trading partners, to reduce their economic ties. Others view this position as Israeli bombast aimed at shoring up its increasingly fatigued population amid an increase in international support for -- and solidarity with -- Palestine, and for ending Israel's occupation. Near term, neither the recent elections nor events in Iran appear likely to fundamentally affect Hizbullah. The question is how deep the Iranian crisis will go. * The writer is conducting research in Lebanon. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
