Naim Qassem’s renewed attacks on the United States come less than 36 hours after a senior Hezbollah official left the door open to direct communication with the Americans, highlighting Hezbollah's apparent struggle to adapt to a changing political reality.
In his latest appearance, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem once again adopted a hardline rhetoric toward the United States, saying: “Today, we see that America and all those who follow the path of polytheism, deviation and disbelief are one and the same community.”
There is no doubt that some saw in this rhetoric a return by Qassem to the founding discourse adopted by the party in its early days, which focused on using rhetoric of “takfir, polytheism and treason,” culminating in its description of America as the “Great Satan.”
There is another paradox surrounding this rhetoric: it came less than 36 hours after another statement by one of Hezbollah;s officials, Mahmoud Qmati, who appeared on the party’s television channel, Al-Manar, and said that the party “does not definitively close the door on the possibility of direct communication with the Americans.”
And so that his remarks would not remain purely theoretical, he added: “The decision to engage in communication will be made according to the interests and the appropriate circumstances.”
Hezbollah's spokespeople have not been accustomed to making statements casually or arbitrarily, particularly on issues of such importance and sensitivity. Therefore, the apparent contradiction and divergence between the two statements, made so close together in time, can only be deliberate and calculated—especially since they were made at a pivotal moment when every word uttered and every position taken is carefully weighed.
Accordingly, this apparent fluctuation in Hezbollah's rhetoric, between hardline positions at times and openness and flexibility at others, is, according to two people familiar with Hezbollah's inner workings, evidence of two realities:
The first is that Hezbollah has acknowledged the transformations and changes that have taken place in its environment and circumstances.
The second is that, given this reality, it has become imperative for it to begin searching for ways to adapt to them. This requires it to open its tightly sealed doors in order to put forward proposals, paving the way for receiving the reactions to them.
This means that it has entered a phase of abandoning what it had regarded as constants and givens—matters on which it had refused to compromise and prohibited any discussion.
It is known in this context that the party previously took pride in publicly disclosing successive offers that came to it in abundance through mediators and channels of communication from Washington and other capitals, and in revealing that it had rejected them both in form and substance.
Accordingly, some believe that Qassem’s return to the rhetoric of takfir in his remarks about America was merely an initial and swift reaction to the recent remarks by U.S. Ambassador to Beirut Michel Issa, who said that “Hezbollah” must be prepared to offer something if it genuinely wants to open up to us.
Faced with this American position, Hezbollah now appears to be confronted with two options:
– Either it reassesses its calculations and refrains from pursuing its policy of openness after receiving an American response conditioned on difficult terms.
– Or it builds on this development and begins seriously considering complying with Issa’s remarks by offering Washington something that would entice and encourage it to venture into negotiations with Hezbollah.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
